• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

NRA in turmoil, gun manufacturers going bankrupt, Thanks Trump

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
8,538
5,728
136
And a 12-gauge slug out of either weapon does exactly the same damn thing. Most anti-gunners have illogical hang-ups over the color, grip and style of a weapon as if that's what makes it dangerous. The finger on the trigger and the mind behind the hand is what makes a weapon dangerous.

The only new gun law that will ever make folks safe is a complete ban, which would be unconstitutional and impossible to even achieve. Even then, what would stop someone bend on committing the crime of murder from using an illegal gun?
That's an overly simplistic approach to guns. Are you seriously arguing that gun laws can't possibly improve for the rest of eternity, and that the US will just have to accept mass murders as a part of daily life when they're actually quite rare in most other countries?

And it's both people and the guns that make a dangerous combo. A psychopath will try to kill with whatever weapons they have, but it's much easier for them to kill with a gun than a knife. The point of better gun control isn't to pretend that we can stop all gun violence -- it's to reduce the overall number of incidents and reduce the number of casualties when there are incidents. The Las Vegas shooter couldn't have killed 58 people and injured hundreds from a hotel room if he'd used a knife or baseball bat.
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
And yet you don't actually have a constitutional right to own a gun, merely to bear arms.

Do you believe that this entitles you to own nuclear weapons? Do you believe an entire church congregation is constitutionally entitled to park their M1 Abram tanks outside their place of worship? If not, why you do believe you are entitled to own a gun?

And we know that banning guns will work as we have documented proof of it working.
Please stop with the parsing of words and phrases or this discussion cannot continue. Arms would seem to encompass a nuke more so than gun would anyway, so your logic is flawed to begin with if you are trying to say I can have a gun because "gun" is not in the Constitution. Can I have a firearm? A weapon? An arm? Some armaments? How about a pointed stick?

No, I believe we can put reasonable restrictions on the arms a civilian can own, and we already do so with plenty of gun laws on the books both federal and state. What the anti-gun lobby are trying to do is impose further restrictions in an attempt to end gun violence. But, since the right to bear arms is constitutionally guaranteed, you can't.

So, any new laws you propose have to not infringe on those constitutional rights, nor unfairly put burdensome restriction on the lawful activities of citizens, nor prevent lawfully carrying citizens from the right to self-defense. At least that's pretty much what the judge who struck down California's magazine limit said. Take it up with him if you don't like it.

And do you actually think "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." means no guns for civilians? Where does it say only if they are active militia? That's right, it doesn't.

The 2A expresses two basic ideas: 1) A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, and 2) the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (in case the state needs to call them up to defend itself.) Please stop getting hung up on the commas and thinking it reads "no guns for civilians" or "only muskets."
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
The Las Vegas shooter killed 58 people and injured a further 400+ people in less than 10 minutes. During that time he managed to fire 1100 bullets.

What do you think the death count would have been if he didn't have access to those weapons?

- Less.
- The same.
- More.
How would you realistically stop him from getting them?

And would you toss out the Constitution, innocent until proven guilty and due process under the law to do so? You are using a dirty, emotional argument to win without understanding it will destroy the legal and constitutional foundations of this country if you get your way. Either change our Constitution if you have the votes or work within the established legal system, but stop proposing what is either impossible or unconstitutional.

You are willing to give up so much that so many fought and died for in an attempt for a quick fix. And so you can convince yourself that only you care about dead children and gun owners are monsters. It's mostly gun owners who have historically fought and died so those children could be raised in a country as (mostly) free as this one is.

There is no guaranteed safety in life, but giving up our ability to defend ourselves isn't going to get us any closer. Guaranteeing that only criminals and the sick/evil have guns sure isn't going to help. If you have a realistic way to remove all guns from society let me know and maybe then I will listen to you.

Or just keep asking asinine straw man questions.
 

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
Paladin, you need to make your mind up on this.

If you believe that it's acceptable to restrict the arms that a person can posses, it means the right to own guns isn't absolute or guaranteed. Therefore, by your own logic, it wouldn't be unconstitutional to impose further restrictions on gun ownership.
 

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
How would you realistically stop him from getting them?
Could you answer the question please?

The Las Vegas shooter killed 58 people and injured a further 400+ people in less than 10 minutes. During that time he managed to fire 1100 bullets.

What do you think the death count would have been if he didn't have access to those weapons?

- Less.
- The same.
- More.
 

Skel

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2001
6,124
443
136
Could you answer the question please?

The Las Vegas shooter killed 58 people and injured a further 400+ people in less than 10 minutes. During that time he managed to fire 1100 bullets.

What do you think the death count would have been if he didn't have access to those weapons?

- Less.
- The same.
- More.
The LV shooter was able to do that because some other idiot found a way to create a loophole in the law. It's an example of my point of creating a law while not understanding on how this stuff works. He wouldn't have been as deadly if the bump stock didn't exist. The bump stock came to be because someone decided to ban the sear in an AR that makes it full auto by it's original design, instead of the result. Personally I don't think the bump stock should have ever existed. Doing the "this is OK, but that's not" only creates these areas that cause items like bump stock to exist. If you're going to go get rid of guns, you pretty much have to do them all. Also, I do note, that if we do change the laws (which is possible) I would comply and turn in whatever I have.
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
That's an overly simplistic approach to guns. Are you seriously arguing that gun laws can't possibly improve for the rest of eternity, and that the US will just have to accept mass murders as a part of daily life when they're actually quite rare in most other countries?

And it's both people and the guns that make a dangerous combo. A psychopath will try to kill with whatever weapons they have, but it's much easier for them to kill with a gun than a knife. The point of better gun control isn't to pretend that we can stop all gun violence -- it's to reduce the overall number of incidents and reduce the number of casualties when there are incidents. The Las Vegas shooter couldn't have killed 58 people and injured hundreds from a hotel room if he'd used a knife or baseball bat.
Again, how do you plan to get all those guns away from the American population? Remember, there are more guns in this country than there are men, women and children combined. This country also has plenty of "...from my cold, dead hands!" bumper stickers, to boot. And "Molon labe" means "come and get them" in Greek. We have a cultural ideal that civilian gun ownership = freedom, and it's not so far-fetch and crazy as the anti-gunners would make you think.

So, keep operating on the idea that "better" gun control will do anything more than disarm the already law-abiding who aren't even the problem. I call that a lie and wishful thinking, at best. At worst, it will make criminals out of 35-40% of American's with a pen-stroke. Good luck dealing with the fallout from that.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,943
126
Background checks all the way. I'm a firm believer in them, and believe they should be expanded. Biometrics are a long way away from something someone should trust their life with, which is the whole point of "home defense".
statistically you will shoot yourself or a loved one before you defend your home.
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
The LV shooter was able to do that because some other idiot found a way to create a loophole in the law. It's an example of my point of creating a law while not understanding on how this stuff works. He wouldn't have been as deadly if the bump stock didn't exist. The bump stock came to be because someone decided to ban the sear in an AR that makes it full auto by it's original design, instead of the result. Personally I don't think the bump stock should have ever existed. Doing the "this is OK, but that's not" only creates these areas that cause items like bump stock to exist. If you're going to go get rid of guns, you pretty much have to do them all. Also, I do note, that if we do change the laws (which is possible) I would comply and turn in whatever I have.
The bump stock is a perfect example of complying with the letter of the law while completely skirting the intent. We do ourselves a disservice anytime we allow such.

Kinda like when we want to ban guns because the word "gun" isn't in the 2A.
 
Last edited:

Skel

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2001
6,124
443
136
statistically you will shoot yourself or a loved one before you defend your home.
OK, but that's a choice people make when they've decided to get a firearm. Anyone that gets one without the acceptance that it's a item designed for killing someone and it could end up putting you in jail if used inappropriately, prob should have one. I've no fantasies or misunderstandings on what it is, or how it's used. I can only say that if you get one, you should be held to a higher standard with it, and train train train with qualified professionals.
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
statistically you will shoot yourself or a loved one before you defend your home.
You must be desperate to pull that one out again.

Statistically, more than 99.92% of guns are never used to hurt anyone. And, how much does your statistic change in a gun-free zone? I would argue you are at least 1000% more likely to be the victim of a mass shooting in a gun-free zone than outside of one. Let's ban gun-free zones.
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
OK, but that's a choice people make when they've decided to get a firearm. Anyone that gets one without the acceptance that it's a item designed for killing someone and it could end up putting you in jail if used inappropriately, prob should have one. I've no fantasies or misunderstandings on what it is, or how it's used. I can only say that if you get one, you should be held to a higher standard with it, and train train train with qualified professionals.
Let it go. He has that statistic BS on a macro. He pulls it out when he has nothing left to argue. And he refuses to understand that all activities in life have risks, and that those risks are mitigated via safe and responsible practices.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,943
126
OK, but that's a choice people make when they've decided to get a firearm. Anyone that gets one without the acceptance that it's a item designed for killing someone and it could end up putting you in jail if used inappropriately, prob should have one. I've no fantasies or misunderstandings on what it is, or how it's used. I can only say that if you get one, you should be held to a higher standard with it, and train train train with qualified professionals.

We have no training for gun purchases. We also dont hand someone a 1 sheet with all the statistical risks on it. Why not?
 

Skel

Diamond Member
Apr 11, 2001
6,124
443
136
Found the fascist.
How is this fascism? He doesn't like guns and believes we should reverse 2A. I'll never get how this crap always devolves into name calling, but to each their own.


Let it go. He has that statistic BS on a macro. He pulls it out when he has nothing left to argue. And he refuses to understand that all activities in life have risks, and that those risks are mitigated via safe and responsible practices.
To be fair.. guns are designed for killing. That does add a bit more too it than other sports. It's not that I disagree in with you, as responsible target shooters do everything they can to reduce risk, it's just you can't deny that what it is adds more drama to the party. I do scratch my head at the math of it, as it's based upon people getting shot vs most home defense situations don't devolve into a physical altercation (which I mean someone hit or shot someone), and there are many cases that never get reported where just the fact a gun was there stopped things from escalating. I also don't fool myself into thinking I'll be somehow magically immune and all my bullets are special that only hurt bad people. It's a risk, and should be taken seriously.

We have no training for gun purchases. We also dont hand someone a 1 sheet with all the statistical risks on it. Why not?
I really disagree with that. Not what you're saying, you're dead on right. I really disagree with no training, or mention of how serious a gun is. It's one area where I do see a ton of improvement should be made
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,943
126
im right but the majority of gun owners will fight anything. So to them death of others is worth them owning guns. Its like that pro gun country musician during the vegas shooting. he was progun then after he went through that became anti gun. Hes a fucking asshole that he had to personally experience some horrific shit to get onboard. Thats basically all of these gun nuts.
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
Found the fascist.
If he ever found himself at the mercy of armed evil or oppression he would want a gun, or some other means to combat said evil. But he lives in a safe and (relatively) free democracy, and enjoys constitutional rights that were fought for and provided to him by people with guns. And now he wants to throw away our ability to continue to defend those rights and this country because he doesn't think he will ever need them.

I sincerely hope he is right, but I am not willing to trust it will always be so. I am all for a strong, responsible military and responsible civilian gun ownership. I'm not willing to destroy our constitution, legal due process and the concept of innocent until proven guilty in some misguided attempt at ending gun violence.
 

Veliko

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2011
3,597
127
106
If he ever found himself at the mercy of armed evil or oppression he would want a gun, or some other means to combat said evil. But he lives in a safe and (relatively) free democracy, and enjoys constitutional rights that were fought for and provided to him by people with guns. And now he wants to throw away our ability to continue to defend those rights and this country because he doesn't think he will ever need them.

I sincerely hope he is right, but I am not willing to trust it will always be so. I am all for a strong, responsible military and responsible civilian gun ownership. I'm not willing to destroy our constitution, legal due process and the concept of innocent until proven guilty in some misguided attempt at ending gun violence.
You have already acknowledged, on this page, that it is constitutional to restrict the arms that someone can own.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,943
126
listen to this fucking psycho finally get it...

“Unless anybody has witnessed anything like that or been a part of it, it’s really hard for people to really understand where you’re coming from on that stuff,” Aldean said in a recent interview with The Associated Press. “It’s like the kids from the school in Florida, that shooting. I get it, man. I understand how they are feeling.”

Of course all you dense nobs would take witnessing the death of 10's of people to understand why guns are bad. It doesnt mean you are right. It just means you are idiots.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,943
126
If he ever found himself at the mercy of armed evil or oppression he would want a gun, or some other means to combat said evil. But he lives in a safe and (relatively) free democracy, and enjoys constitutional rights that were fought for and provided to him by people with guns. And now he wants to throw away our ability to continue to defend those rights and this country because he doesn't think he will ever need them.

I sincerely hope he is right, but I am not willing to trust it will always be so. I am all for a strong, responsible military and responsible civilian gun ownership. I'm not willing to destroy our constitution, legal due process and the concept of innocent until proven guilty in some misguided attempt at ending gun violence.
Are you back into your masturbatory fantasy that you will overthrow some evil government?
 

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
im right but the majority of gun owners will fight anything. So to them death of others is worth them owning guns. Its like that pro gun country musician during the vegas shooting. he was progun then after he went through that became anti gun. Hes a fucking asshole that he had to personally experience some horrific shit to get onboard. Thats basically all of these gun nuts.
But you are famous for "fuck guns and the pussies who carry them" statements. You are very open about wanting a complete and total gun ban. You don't care if it's unconstitutional, and you don't care if what you propose will actually get guns out of the hands of those who would use them to murder. You don't care if a gun ban is even possible.

Exactly what about your position are gun owners not supposed to fight? The part where you blame us for the actions of the few who misuse guns? The part where you want to tear down the 2A without the votes to do so? The part where you want us to disarm us even though over 99.92% of guns in America are never used to hurt anyone? The part where your plan does nothing to disarm those who actually use guns criminally?

You didn't come to the debate looking for a reasonable compromise. You really did come with a fascist's attitude on the subject.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,657
136
Yup, different tools for different tasks applies to guns. But I will never be on-board with the idea that guns, or some guns in particular, have some special ability to turn an otherwise law abiding person into a murdering psychopath.
Some guns give them the ability to kill more people in a lot less time. That's the designed purpose of military carbines & high capacity semi-auto handguns. The Sutherland church shooter ripped off 700 rounds in 11 minutes. The Las Vegas shooter fired 1100 rounds in 10 minutes. The rationale for allowing such firearms in civilian hands is utterly absurd. Muh Freedumb!
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY