who should we not allow to buy guns

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

desura

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2013
4,627
129
101
This thread should be in politics.

Anyways, this isn't the same gun issue as like Adam Lanza was a gun issue. I mean, Mateen had anger issues, was a jerk, but lots of guys in security have similar issues. He wasn't crazy like Lanza. You could argue that he was double-vetted and was vetted more than the average gun owner since he was employed at a security company.

What will likely happen I predict is that information about being on a terror watch list will be forwarded to the FBI headquarters when vetting gun purchasers. This will have the effect of causing extra scrutiny on the applicant, and more will be dinged on borderline bullshit grounds.

You see, the fact is that the FBI background check system is overwhelmed and they don't have the resources to give a proper check of everyone who applies. That and there is a 3 day shall issue, meaning that if the FBI is overwhelmed then lots of people just get issued their gun automatically without effective oversight. The reform will basically ensure that people on the terror watch list are flagged for extra attention.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
40,874
10,222
136
This is just foolish thinking. People that suggest this engage in a great deal of cognitive dissonance about the motives behind gun control in order to rationalize the decision to do nothing.

PERFECT SHOULD NOT BE THE ENEMY OF GOOD

The gun violence in America is directly attributed to the wide availability of guns here. There is no credible study that can refute this. If hand grenades were legal to buy, the number of people murdered by hand grenades would increase significantly. If dynamite were legal to buy without permit, the number of people murdered by dynamite would go way up. Here in America where guns are very easy to purchase and own, the number of gun deaths is vastly higher than the rest of the world where gun ownership is severely restricted. You seriously think that is just some coincidence? You think America has a monopoly on crazy people intent on killing others? We willfully provide the tools in this country to enable single deranged individuals to inflict mass carnage, and they are doing just that. Suggesting that every individual intent on killing would have the same success with a pointy stick absent a gun is just plain stupid.

Also, bringing up gun violence in Mexico and Brazil is misguided as well. Where do you think they get most of their guns? Right here in America, where dozens of factories are pumping them out full tilt. All that shit has to be shut down.



p.s. If you think that the human cost of wide gun availability is simply a price worth paying to preserve the current freedoms of gun ownership, just come out and say it, but to suggest that there is no correlation between the availability of guns and the gun violence rate in this country is a bald faced lie.
Great post... kudos! :thumbsup:
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
40,874
10,222
136
It really is astounding the mental gymnastics some gun enthusiasts will go through to avoid this very simple truth. Suicide rates are even strongly correlated with gun ownership. We are always more inclined to do something drastic if we have the effective means to do it. The more difficult it is to do, like most things in life, the less inclined we are to do it. It is simple human nature. I've known I need to change my brakes for a few months now. If I had a hydraulic lift and air tools I likely would have done it already. Is this that difficult of a concept to grasp?
When people are in denial, that's what they do... they find ways to support their position, the truth be damned.
 
Last edited:

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,112
1,587
126
I think THIS video by Penn and Teller sums up the 2nd Amendment pretty well. The commas separating "the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed" from the rest of the amendment make it clear that it is a complete idea granting that right to the people, not people in a militia.

Please ignore the propaganda at the end of the video linked. It was the only copy I could find.

I think you'd do better reading this paper from a doctor of English linguistics and man who filed an amicus brief for the Heller supreme court case. It does a good job of analyzing the syntax of the Amendment based on contemporary language to show that based on the way language was used at the time the Second Amendment granted the right based explicitly on the being part of an organized and regulated militia. Honestly I think the thing that gives the author his best credence is that his amicus brief was negatively mentioned by Scalia in the Heller decision, since Scalia was the most constitutionally ignorant man to ever sit on the bench.
 

Fritzo

Lifer
Jan 3, 2001
41,920
2,161
126
Soooo, to play the devil's advocate here, how many rounds can I have in a detachable magazine?

That's a very valid question. Maybe single shot weapons should only be legal for civilian use? Maybe 6 round magazines, but make them difficult to reload? It's something that would have to be agreed upon. It's difficult to turn a device specifically designed to kill a person into something that is only used in defense.
 

Fritzo

Lifer
Jan 3, 2001
41,920
2,161
126
I don't care about law enforcement personnel. In utopia one wouldn't feel the need to protect themselves but that is ridiculous. The fact of the matter is there will always be situations where the only person you can rely on for protection is yourself. Law enforcement is great but they're not of much use if someone kicks down your door. Heck, remember Biden's infamous suggestion of firing warning shots?

And as far as the government is concerned, the left and the right are always working to take away rights. And yes, I do fear that someday it will go too far.

The "need to protect yourself when you're alone" thing is not a very good argument because there are non-lethal ways of doing that. Security systems, tasers, pepper spray, non-lethal rounds...and truthfully the "I'm alone and my home is invaded" scenario is pretty rare. It's like thinking you need to wear a parachute every time you fly.
 

NutBucket

Lifer
Aug 30, 2000
27,151
635
126
Security systems don't work because they're still dependent on police responding. I agree you can use tasers and such. Non-lethal rounds still require a firearm so that's out. Frankly, the average low life will likely flee when coming face to face with a firearm.

Hell, the one time I had someone from CL come to the house to buy something (item was too large to have met up in a public place) I made sure my wife had easy access to a firearm just in case. You call it paranoia, I call it reality.
 

Artdeco

Platinum Member
Mar 14, 2015
2,682
1
0
The "need to protect yourself when you're alone" thing is not a very good argument because there are non-lethal ways of doing that. Security systems, tasers, pepper spray, non-lethal rounds...and truthfully the "I'm alone and my home is invaded" scenario is pretty rare. It's like thinking you need to wear a parachute every time you fly.

I'm a boring person in my 50's, and have personally stopped 2 attempted burglaries with firearms. It took the police 30-45 minutes to respond each time & arrest the people.
 

desura

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2013
4,627
129
101
I'm a boring person in my 50's, and have personally stopped 2 attempted burglaries with firearms. It took the police 30-45 minutes to respond each time & arrest the people.

Yes, I myself am considering purchasing a handgun due to change in living circumstances.

But a military-style rifle is objectively unnecessary for my personal defense. And I've fired them before.
 

NutBucket

Lifer
Aug 30, 2000
27,151
635
126
Bingo. I sincerely hope I never need to use a weapon in self-defense...much the same I hope to never need a fire extinguisher. Which reminds me, I need to check on the extinguishers I keep the in cars.
 

Artdeco

Platinum Member
Mar 14, 2015
2,682
1
0
Yes, I myself am considering purchasing a handgun due to change in living circumstances.

But a military-style rifle is objectively unnecessary for my personal defense. And I've fired them before.

Those calling for a ban of AR's aren't aware of the stats for handgun involved deaths, evidently.
 

NutBucket

Lifer
Aug 30, 2000
27,151
635
126
Yes, exactly. Just like those that are against CCW don't realize how few CCW holders commit crime!
 

desura

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2013
4,627
129
101
Those calling for a ban of AR's aren't aware of the stats for handgun involved deaths, evidently.

I really don't really care about gun suicides or when some guy shoots an acquaintance because he owed him some money. Simply put, there is an element of personal responsibility here, and someone who kills himself with a gun only harms himself.

I do care about public safety and completely innocent bystanders.
 

Kwatt

Golden Member
Jan 3, 2000
1,602
12
81
I'm a boring person in my 50's, and have personally stopped 2 attempted burglaries with firearms. It took the police 30-45 minutes to respond each time & arrest the people.

I think its about a third of assaults and over half the rapes occur during a home invasion.

.
 

Fritzo

Lifer
Jan 3, 2001
41,920
2,161
126
I'm a boring person in my 50's, and have personally stopped 2 attempted burglaries with firearms. It took the police 30-45 minutes to respond each time & arrest the people.

Where the hell do you live? I'd be moving if that happened twice since the crime rate appears to be so high.

This scenario is literally a huge fantasy for gun fanatics. They crave to be in a situation where they have the upper hand because of a gun.
 

NutBucket

Lifer
Aug 30, 2000
27,151
635
126
It doesn't matter where you live. I would argue home invasion is just as likely in more affluent areas since the "gains" are greater.
 

Fritzo

Lifer
Jan 3, 2001
41,920
2,161
126
I think its about a third of assaults and over half the rapes occur during a home invasion.

.

There are about 100 burglary homicides every year. There are over 500 deaths per year from accidental discharge, around 21000 gun related suicides a year, and 11000 homicides.

We're not protecting much.
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,986
1,388
126
I am the last person on Earth that want to preach anyone but if you think the police/law enforcement will help you when things go bad? Think again.

Cases in point - La Rodney King riot, Katrina, Ferguson, Baltimore, and on and on.

If you do not want to have gun(s) and wait for the police, knock yourself out. I rather have something by my side, just in case.
 

NutBucket

Lifer
Aug 30, 2000
27,151
635
126
There are about 100 burglary homicides every year. There are over 500 deaths per year from accidental discharge, around 21000 gun related suicides a year, and 11000 homicides.

We're not protecting much.
Uh, that's a misleading statistic. Now, if you could figure out how many potential burglary homicides were thwarted by a firearm then you'd have something. I figure that statistic would never be accurate though since it's hard to determine intent...and just because a burglar didn't intend to kill someone doesn't mean they won't, etc.
 

Fritzo

Lifer
Jan 3, 2001
41,920
2,161
126
It doesn't matter where you live. I would argue home invasion is just as likely in more affluent areas since the "gains" are greater.

I've been on this planet for 46 year. Not one person I know, I worked with, or am related to has ever been burglarized (much less had a home invasion). When it does happen, it's so shocking it makes the news...and these news stories only happen a handful of times per year.

I say that most burglaries happen when people aren't home, and therefore guns offer little protection in that aspect. Home invasions are not as common as the securities companies and the NRA want you to believe.
 

NutBucket

Lifer
Aug 30, 2000
27,151
635
126
Well, they happen a few times a year where my in-laws live and its definitely not low-rent.

But I do agree they typically occur during the day when folks are less likely to be home.
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
100,228
17,895
126
I've been on this planet for 46 year. Not one person I know, I worked with, or am related to has ever been burglarized (much less had a home invasion). When it does happen, it's so shocking it makes the news...and these news stories only happen a handful of times per year.

I say that most burglaries happen when people aren't home, and therefore guns offer little protection in that aspect. Home invasions are not as common as the securities companies and the NRA want you to believe.

My house had been broken into, but didn't lose anything other than doors because they got scared off by the alarm.
 

Mayne

Diamond Member
Apr 13, 2014
8,849
1,380
126
I have to reply to this stupid thread. NO ONE SHOULD BE ABLE TO BUY GUNS..it just slaps me in my face as a human being. You better be a cop or military person.
 

Bart*Simpson

Senior member
Jul 21, 2015
602
4
36
www.canadaka.net
In addition to banning certain people, there should also be a mandatory set of courses and tests you have to pass and it should require a license. Basically it should be like driving a car. The tests could cover not only gun safety but other factors like dealing with a hostile situation responsibly.

Add psychological screening to that list and about 80% of the cops in the USA will have to surrender their guns.