• We are currently experiencing delays with our email service, which may affect logins and notifications. We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience and appreciate your patience while we work to resolve the issue.

Fair questions from a guy near Sandy hook Update: guy not sand-hook father

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Angry Irishman

Golden Member
Jan 25, 2010
1,883
1
81
And that argument has validity. Both sides are making this about something it's not. Mass shootings are a small fraction of gun related deaths in this nation. The banning high capacity magazines idea is a knee jerk reaction. The debate needs to focus on decreasing gun violence in general. And there are very easy ideas out there to do that. Universal background checks should be the first step focused on, accountability of gun resellers should be another (a study released in 2000 showed that approximately 60% of illegal guns traced back to 1% of gun dealers), actually letting the ATF enforce laws ... The Daily Show had a good bit a few weeks back on how neutered the ATF is thanks to the NRA lobby.

Now the assault weapons ban is an interesting one. Once the ban was lifted, assault weapons did start to show up more in crimes and when the ban was in effect assault weapons did decrease in frequency of use in crime. However it is still a small percentage of crimes they were used in and it didn't actually decrease in crime, just what was used was different.

80+% of Americans want change (I don't think that's supported)....what does that even mean? It just gives your government the ability to further strip liberties without following the law...all under the vale of emotion. Bottom line, if the second amendment isn't valid change the amendment. How? through the legal process and not the twist a plainly written amendment of the Constitution means of making that happen. Start voting....get it done through your representation. Guess what? Your representation could give a shit what you want. Bottom line, if the amendment is changed in any other manner then it's stripping rights and illegal. I don't give a shit if the President states this requires "immediate action" and it's for our own good. He can surround himslef on a stage with children and prey on Americans emotions...I don't buy it. Our children will be better served to have rights in the future and a government that logically deals with issues rather than emotionally while upholding those rights provided by the Constitution.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,587
126
Universal as in non FFL having access? That's something that many people have wanted for a while, but it has not been forthcoming. That's on the ATF, and it will only help those that partake of the service. If it could be automated, or online that would be a lot better than overloading the ATF phones.

Yes, that would be a fantastic start. I've always said that while I dislike guns immensely, I'm not for banning but for intelligent gun control (well actually I would love guns not to exist except I am well aware that is beyond impossible). No one seems to want that though. They either want knee jerk sensational laws or to oppose any systemic fixes outright.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,587
126
80+% of Americans want change (I don't think that's supported)....what does that even mean? It just gives your government the ability to further strip liberties without following the law...all under the vale of emotion. Bottom line, if the second amendment isn't valid change the amendment. How? through the legal process and not the twist a plainly written amendment of the Constitution means of making that happen. Start voting....get it done through your representation. Guess what? Your representation could give a shit what you want. Bottom line, if the amendment is changed in any other manner then it's stripping rights and illegal. I don't give a shit if the President states this requires "immediate action" and it's for our own good. He can surround himslef on a stage with children and prey on Americans emotions...I don't buy it. Our children will be better served to have rights in the future and a government that logically deals with issues rather than emotionally while upholding those rights provided by the Constitution.

But you're not doing anything against the Constitution to institute gun laws and restrictions. The Second Amendment isn't universal, and neither is the First Amendment. If you use your free speech to tell lies about someone, you can be sued for slander. If you use your free speech to incite a riot that kills people, you can be charged with a crime. Because like the Second Amendment, the First Amendment doesn't have a "no exceptions" clause on it. There are limited exceptions to any amendment possible. Hell, we already ignore a huge part of the Second Amendment by ignoring the militias clause of it.
 

Cerb

Elite Member
Aug 26, 2000
17,484
33
86
If gun control doesn't work, then why aren't any of the crazies with guns wielding automatic weapons, rocket launchers, or other completely-banned weaponry?
Because nobody has those, nor had them, nor really wanted them. There were a few issues with popular models in circulation way back when, such as 1911s, but that was all relatively minor. Even back then, most were military-first models, and surplus.

Fully automatic weapons are owned and used primarily by rich people and gun shop owners, for fun, and by some police, for no good reason. Nobody ever owned rocket launchers or the like in any numbers, here. They have consistently been rare, outside of military hands. Just as the U.K. had very little gun ownership and crime even when guns were easy to come by, we've had very little in the way of ownership and crime with commercial explosive devices, even long before they were controlled.

While there are people that would like some repeal of those acts, nobody that wants to defend themselves, or kill others, is going to have much use for those kinds of weapons. Fully automatic weapons chew up ammo, and are going to be hard to aim (the purpose is generally not to kill, but to provide a threat of being hit by random fire, as it concerns single-man-portable guns). A single aimed bullet will do all the killing that a whole 30rd magazine would do. Grenade launchers and the grenades themselves add weight, bulk, and handling time that could get in someone's way, and serve little purpose outside of a war zone, except as it may concern flares, smoke bombs, flashbangs, etc.. The demand for those just isn't high, outside of police or military, though, because any of them draw lots of attention, even if they aren't made for killing, and without a group, could provide openings for any defending people. They've occasionally been used in crimes, but only rarely (even if you count police committing murder, and using them in the process).

Lever, pump, and semi-automatic loading firearms genuinely represent the pinnacle of offensive and defensive weaponry, for any individual, acting on their own*; whether it's for steel targets, deer, rabbits, squirrels, jugs, cans, or people. Therefore, they have maintained great popularity, are everywhere, and not enough people are willing to get into a hissy fit about certain features and tools they don't use having been practically banned to matter (suppressors being the one major exception).

If a crazy wants the best tools available to kill people with, compact semi-automatic pistols and carbines in common calibers are right behind bombs and fire, for the best tools to do it with. They're also among the best weapons to use for defense, for basically the same reasons.

There are limited exceptions to any amendment possible. Hell, we already ignore a huge part of the Second Amendment by ignoring the militias clause of it.
The founders even realized that it was not feasible to guarantee that everyone would have, and know how to use, small arms; so that clause is left there to show purpose, and allow for it if the logistics could be solved. IE, that clause is the answer to why the rights shall not be infringed, and allowed the government, if means could be had, to enforce such requirements in the future (which to date, has not come, though we definitely have the means, nowadays).

* TV/movies like to make manual-loaders very slow for the sake of looking cool (big motions), and video games do it for balance purposes. They are slower than semi-auto, but not by that much.

** though I have serious reservations about the continued increase in armaments, and their use for situations where they aren't needed
 

Dr. Zaus

Lifer
Oct 16, 2008
11,764
347
126
Because nobody has those, nor had them, nor really wanted them. There were a few issues with popular models in circulation way back when, such as 1911s, but that was all relatively minor. Even back then, most were military-first models, and surplus.

Fully automatic weapons are owned and used primarily by rich people and gun shop owners, for fun, and by some police, for no good reason. Nobody ever owned rocket launchers or the like in any numbers, here. They have consistently been rare, outside of military hands. Just as the U.K. had very little gun ownership and crime even when guns were easy to come by, we've had very little in the way of ownership and crime with commercial explosive devices, even long before they were controlled.

While there are people that would like some repeal of those acts, nobody that wants to defend themselves, or kill others, is going to have much use for those kinds of weapons. Fully automatic weapons chew up ammo, and are going to be hard to aim (the purpose is generally not to kill, but to provide a threat of being hit by random fire, as it concerns single-man-portable guns). A single aimed bullet will do all the killing that a whole 30rd magazine would do. Grenade launchers and the grenades themselves add weight, bulk, and handling time that could get in someone's way, and serve little purpose outside of a war zone, except as it may concern flares, smoke bombs, flashbangs, etc.. The demand for those just isn't high, outside of police or military, though, because any of them draw lots of attention, even if they aren't made for killing, and without a group, could provide openings for any defending people. They've occasionally been used in crimes, but only rarely (even if you count police committing murder, and using them in the process).

Lever, pump, and semi-automatic loading firearms genuinely represent the pinnacle of offensive and defensive weaponry, for any individual, acting on their own*; whether it's for steel targets, deer, rabbits, squirrels, jugs, cans, or people. Therefore, they have maintained great popularity, are everywhere, and not enough people are willing to get into a hissy fit about certain features and tools they don't use having been practically banned to matter (suppressors being the one major exception).

If a crazy wants the best tools available to kill people with, compact semi-automatic pistols and carbines in common calibers are right behind bombs and fire, for the best tools to do it with. They're also among the best weapons to use for defense, for basically the same reasons.

The founders even realized that it was not feasible to guarantee that everyone would have, and know how to use, small arms; so that clause is left there to show purpose, and allow for it if the logistics could be solved. IE, that clause is the answer to why the rights shall not be infringed, and allowed the government, if means could be had, to enforce such requirements in the future (which to date, has not come, though we definitely have the means, nowadays).

* TV/movies like to make manual-loaders very slow for the sake of looking cool (big motions), and video games do it for balance purposes. They are slower than semi-auto, but not by that much.

** though I have serious reservations about the continued increase in armaments, and their use for situations where they aren't needed

That was really fucking informative.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Yes, that would be a fantastic start. I've always said that while I dislike guns immensely, I'm not for banning but for intelligent gun control (well actually I would love guns not to exist except I am well aware that is beyond impossible). No one seems to want that though. They either want knee jerk sensational laws or to oppose any systemic fixes outright.

I personally don't have any problem with that, but I don't see how it's going to stop criminals from buying and selling guns, it's not like they are going to do a NICS.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,081
136
To be fair, banning all guns WOULD prevent casual assholes and nutjobs from going on shooting sprees, but to be fair they are also a very tiny percentage of gun violence.
Most of it comes from people who have an ulterior motive (drugs, slavery, etc.) and wont be stopped by mere laws. They'll just jump into the newly created black market and buy whatever they want.
 

Angry Irishman

Golden Member
Jan 25, 2010
1,883
1
81
But you're not doing anything against the Constitution to institute gun laws and restrictions. The Second Amendment isn't universal, and neither is the First Amendment. If you use your free speech to tell lies about someone, you can be sued for slander. If you use your free speech to incite a riot that kills people, you can be charged with a crime. Because like the Second Amendment, the First Amendment doesn't have a "no exceptions" clause on it. There are limited exceptions to any amendment possible. Hell, we already ignore a huge part of the Second Amendment by ignoring the militias clause of it.

Where does it stop for any amendment? What is the limit? The intentions for the second amendment are pretty clear despite how it's been twisted and continues to be watered down. It's like the Constitution is a cyborg that was once human and is being modified to the point of questioning it's humanity.

Gun legislation aside does it not raise any cautionary flags with the trend of passing legislation that directly violates civil liberties and has been slid through by Congress and endorsed by the executive branch starting well before Obama's tenure?

History has shown and our founding fathers warned of a government that becomes too powerful. It's really a basic premise of our society yet so many are willing to let it all slip through their hands without so much as a question of skepticism....makes no sense.

Taking every gun off the street and out of peoples homes will not stop violence. It's just not logical but it sure incites emotion. This "immediate action" for gun violence is all a ploy to play on emotions and divert attention from the real issues at hand. The partisan politics of the average American and certainly Congress is another. All one needs to do is follow Congress inadequacies or read this board's forums.

The other amendments and examples you mentioned are very clear cut and could be supported by logic but these rights are also under consistent attack and being dwindled as a result of the governments so called protection...the average American hasn't asked for that kind of protection and should be alarmed when issues require "immediate attention".

It's really OK to be skeptical or question our governments motives....it's another right.
 

Dr. Zaus

Lifer
Oct 16, 2008
11,764
347
126
Update: he isn't actually a "Sandy Hook father"

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...al_gun_rights_defense_isn_t_actually_the.html

"The problem, as you've no doubt guessed by now, is that Stevens is not actually the father of a Sandy Hook student. Victoria is a fifth-grader at Reed Intermediate School, located about a mile or so from the elementary school that was the scene of the tragic mass shooting. "

OP updated.

While his original remarks were a little ambigious—he said that his daughter "was in lockdown" during the shooting and that "her classmate’s little sister was murdered in Sandy Hook that day"—he's already gone out of his way to correct the error, emailing the Examiner to set the story straight:
"Thank you for the nice article about my testimony in Hartford. Unlike the Liberal media who don't let facts get in the way, I just wanted to let you know that my daughter does not attend Sandy Hook Elementary, but was in "lock down" nonetheless on December 14, 2012 at Reed Intermediate School (5th & 6th grade) about a mile away with her classmates, one of whom lost his little sister that day."