Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Xoon

United States Gun Control Megathread

Recommended Posts

While it is convenient to pretend that school shootings are somehow uniquely American and a recent phenomenon, this isn't the case. Here is the Wikipedia list of the top school massacres (insert gallows humor joke about this list being incomplete and you can help here).

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_massacres_by_death_toll#List_of_school_massacres

 

Topping the list is the 2004 Beslan School attack in Russia/North Ossetia where Chechan terrorists took over a school resulting in 334 deaths and 783 injured. Without doing the math, I'd wager the casualties in that one single attack outnumber every school shooting in US history. Numbers two and three are similar terrorist attacks in Pakistan and Kenya.

 

At number four, the US finally makes the list with the "Bath School disaster" which occurred in 1927 resulting in 44 deaths and 58 injuries. A disgruntled school board treasurer killed his wife and firebombed his farm after not being able to pay taxes and losing a school board election, whereupon he made a bomb out of "hundreds of pounds of dynamite and incendiary pyrotol" which he loaded in a truck, drove to the Bath School and blew it up with a rifle, killing himself in the process. 

 

Focusing on the top 50 of these events, 19 occurred in the US, 8 in China/Hong Kong, 5 in Germany, 2 in Russia, 2 in Finland, 2 in Israel, and 1 in Canada, Great Britain, Burma, Japan, etc. So this is hardly a unique occurrence.

 

The oldest school shooting/massacre listed occurred in 1913 during the Second Reich in Bremen, Germany, where an unemployed teacher filled a suitcase up with pistols and ammunition and killed 5 little girls and wounded 21 others, presumably using the "New York reload" tactic.

 

So the first school shooting occurred in Germany? Boy, the German's invented EVERYTHING!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

This is flat-out false. Where do you get this fucking stuff, dude?

23 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

Even left-wing estimates show that guns are used to stop crimes at about 10-20x the rate they are used to murder.

 

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/

 

16 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

So here's the study they cite. What have we here?

j202MdM.png

 

3sa3nky.png

 

NEXT!

 

Well I didn't knew that it was a anti-gun association and I should have checked, thanks for pointing it out.

The most interesting source in the article was however the "meta study" :

 

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

 

Altough all cited works are not completely neutral either I agree.

 

18 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

Question: Whenever something bad happens, do a bunch of Americans show up on your forums and tell you every way that they think you should do things differently, even though they've never been to your country?

 

If yes, then I'm sorry, and also please stop doing it to us.

If no, then why are you doing it here?

Coming at it from another angle: We could castrate every boy at puberty, and I am 100% certain that violent crime would plummet. We don't do this. Why? I want you to think about potential answers to this question, and how they might be similar to the reasons Americans don't want to give up their gun

 

Well we do have our fair share of BS from Trump or some US media every time a terror attack happen in Europe but that's beside the point.

 

But if I'm getting annoying (apparently yes) I'm sorry as well I'll stop here.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Alzoc said:

Well we do have our fair share of BS from Trump or some US media every time a terror attack happen in Europe but that's beside the point.

 

But if I'm getting annoying (apparently yes) I'm sorry as well I'll stop here.

 

It's difficult to annoy me on this subject (as you can tell, I like writing about it), but I do want you to think about it. Don't you think it's a little imposing to use a tragedy as an opportunity to tell people from another country how they should do business?

You've said things to the effect of "I don't understand why you don't just X", well yes. You don't live in the US, and probably have a relatively poor understanding of our culture and ways of life. It's not easy to understand, as the US is a large, expansive country with lots of different kinds of people in it, who rely on different things, and have different ways of living. I've lived here my whole life, and I've traveled all over this country, and the number one thing I've found is Don't Make Assumptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sturgeon said:

Don't you think it's a little imposing to use a tragedy as an opportunity to tell people from another country how they should do business?

 

Again, I really want people (particularly those who live outside the US, but anyone is welcome) to think about this: What good reasons might there be to not enact a policy that was proven to be effective at one thing or another? Can you think of examples why you might not do something like this? Do those examples have any parallels to the gun issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Don't you think it's a little imposing to use a tragedy as an opportunity to tell people from another country how they should do business?

 

That definitively wasn't my intention but I reckon that I have been patronizing (or at least sounded so).

As I said the US is perceived as an anomaly from Europe and each time a mass shooting happen it raise the question again, I though it would be interesting to talk about it since as you said our cultures are extremely different and point of views were bound to be different.

 

However I didn't came with enough knowledge (especially about the legal text associated) and argument while talking to people who obviously had this discussion countless time ^^

I did learned some new thing however for example the FFL system was completely out of what could be acceptable within my own cultural bias and I would have never imagined it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FINE. Part threeeeeeee

 

3. Why America Should Keep Her Guns

 

It is an uncomfortable fact that, when it comes to guns, analysis of the problem must bow to the principle of "lies, damn lies, and statistics". That is, the problem of guns, gun violence, and violence in general is such a complex and multi-variable one, that virtually any conclusion can be engineered with legitimate-seeming statistical basis just by omitting a variable or two - although more often many more variables are omitted than just that. This means that neither studies supporting the Left's, or the Right's position on gun control can be trusted without exhausting scrutiny first, and even then no firm conclusions can possibly be reached due to the simple admittance that social engineering is too difficult a problem to address via mere study and statistics. Indeed, social engineering is almost always too difficult a problem for empirical trials, as well, although they have somewhat more success.

 

A broad view of society, which at least attempts to account for all these variables, therefore makes the simple "optimization" perspective on guns seem inadequate to address the issue. How are we to possibly account for all possible outcomes, when this has never been possible before? How can we optimize for a single criteria, when so many others hang in the balance? Should we?

 

The reality is that social engineering has never been more than a laboratory curiosity in any society. Rather than curated terrariums of human life, societies resemble more messy, sprawling compost heaps, ripe with the putrid flavors of chaotic interaction and self-interested motivations latticed together in a moldy 3-dimensional fabric that has always been little more than ad-hoc. Therefore, attempts to engineer society to benefit man seem a bit like trying to change the wind by waving into it.

 

Moreover, there are lines in the sand. There are changes we humans, are not willing to make to optimize our society. So many books, movie scripts, and television episode plots have been written about this that it's a cliche. We aren't willing to join the Borg, even though it would make our lives better, because that would lose what makes us human. We don't geld boys at puberty to reduce crime, because that would infringe upon their freedom and right to life as they choose. We don't restrict the right to vote to a select few, because we believe all men deserve a say in how they are governed. We don't install surveillance cameras in every household, even though we could catch crimes before they start, because our people have a right to privacy and to not have the government spying on them all the time. So it is with the right to keep and bear arms. It's a part of what makes us, not only American, but human. No other animal uses projectile weapons, it is unique to us. A byproduct of our arms and eyes and brains, in that special combination that separates a man from a bear or lion or dog. This is romantic, but so is every other right. The right to free speech, assembly, religion, the right to vote, all these things are not done at the bidding of social engineers, but of human hearts. Perhaps life would be better if none of these rights were granted, but the human heart would be crushed, and the world turned grey and pale. Novels and films have been made about that, too. Experiments with totality that crushed the human spirit, because the social engineers found it too difficult to account for.

 

We can weigh the goodness and badness of our rights in the balance, and create some conclusion from it, but that conclusion will likely be more myth than reality. Maybe we should throw the scale out, instead, and focus on what being American means, and why it's special and unique, and lights in all corners of the world a fire in the hearts of men. And the American right - as uniquely American as the atlatl and slingstone and are human - to keep and bear arms is essential to that. Not an appendage from an 18th Century prototype of the affirmation of rights, but an essential ingredient which every imitator has failed to capture from the original. It is a key part of the bond between the American and his government: A covenant kept from the founding of the nation, that the men of the government see its people, not as subjects, but as equals. From this, they entrust, and have entrusted for well over 200 years, the citizenry with weapons of war. And, it is the final word on the truth and realness of all other rights - I, and each American, can and may back these words up with our will and weaponry, if necessary. That alone is powerful, it stokes those heartfires and holds accountable the officers who administer to them. A feeling of justness, of accountability and fairness, is guaranteed by the right to arms that cannot be guaranteed elsewise. This central point is missed by the social engineers, and for that they have lost the whole problem entirely. For societies are not machines or systems of machines, but a complex and fertile bed of feelings and thoughts, felt, thought, and acted upon by millions of hearts and minds all at once. The social engineer's paradox is this: It is the flicker and sway of the flame inside man that determines the prosperity and success of a nation, not the choice of machinery or style of gears.
 

Someday, maybe the time will be right and a Constitutional Amendment will be passed that repeals the Second Amendment. But after that, the country will not be the same, and I don't think the American fire will burn quite as hot.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

That definitively wasn't my intention but I reckon that I have been patronizing (or at least sounded so).

 

It's all good, but I definitely am glad you're seeing it now.

 

30 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

the US is perceived as an anomaly from Europe

 

Given European history, good! Who the fuck wants to be more like Europe?

 

32 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

each time a mass shooting happen major European war happens it raises the question again

 

32 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

I though it would be interesting to talk about it since as you said our cultures are extremely different and point of views were bound to be different.

 

Yeah, but listen, there's a big difference between talking about it and strutting in like you've got all the answers, right? We're not asking for you to shut up, we would just like a little cultural sensitivity, ya ken? :)
 

34 minutes ago, Alzoc said:

I did learned some new thing however for example the FFL system was completely out of what could be acceptable within my own cultural bias and I would have never imagined it.

 

MURICA!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Alzoc said:

That nuts will be nuts I won't disagree with that.

But it's obvious that they will do less damage with a knife or a vehicle than with a firearm.

 

I know that a full war weapons ban is practically impossible because the US will be the US, but a first step would probably to severely reduce the amount of license delivered and to make it harder to obtain one in the first place.

 

Like, for example, bringing proof that you belong to a shooting club and bring a medical proof that you are sane both body and mind before you are authorized to get a license.

 

Over the years, the number of weapons in circulation should decrease naturally.

 

It doesn't infringe on the "right" for a person to own a weapon, but it make it harder for deranged people or criminals to get one in the first place (sure they can always bypass that but it will cost them more than just buying one in a store).

 

Then on the argument that having a weapon is a constitutional right, I call it not respecting the spirit of the law.

AFAIK the second amendment authorize the People to own weapons in order to be able to create militia aimed at defending the Nation against another state (in that period of time the UK) or against their own government if things go south.

 

It has nothing to do with self-defense, at it's root the 2nd amendment carry the idea of an army of citizens like in all democracy over the world.

Nowadays the context has changed, defending the Nation is the job of the professional army (but still composed of citizens) not the one of various militia.

I'm sure you've already been schooled on U.S. firearms laws by the time you get to this, but  the concept of licensing a (supposedly) Constitutionally guaranteed right,  is more than mildly distasteful to many.

Furthermore, the suspension of one of these rights without due process is similarly looked upon with disgust (even though it happens, and has been proposed many times).

 

That aside-

 Per your suggestions I would be unable to own the firearms I have collected. I do not belong to a shooting club, nor am I of sound body.  According to your proposal (and to many looking to remove the Second amendment), "there is no legitimate reason for me to own a firearm" per your reasoning (and the reasoning of may others).

Ponder this a bit. "How does one, and Who, determines the legitimacy of an individual to exercise said right"? and "At what point do you stop? ".

I'm sure (Having met more than a few) there are many many people who would love to see the First, Fourth and Fifth amendments go away along with the Second.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Meplat said:

I'm sure you've already been schooled on U.S. firearms laws by the time you get to this, but  the concept of licensing a (supposedly) Constitutionally guaranteed right,  is more than mildly distasteful to many.

Furthermore, the suspension of one of these rights without due process is similarly looked upon with disgust (even though it happens, and has been proposed many times).

 

That aside-

 Per your suggestions I would be unable to own the firearms I have collected. I do not belong to a shooting club, nor am I of sound body.  According to your proposal (and to many looking to remove the Second amendment), "there is no legitimate reason for me to own a firearm" per your reasoning (and the reasoning of may others).

Ponder this a bit. "How does one, and Who, determines the legitimacy of an individual to exercise said right"? and "At what point do you stop? ".

I'm sure (Having met more than a few) there are many many people who would love to see the First, Fourth and Fifth amendments go away along with the Second.

 

 

 

 

I want the same restrictions on Voting to be put on gun purchasing... Maybe that way the left wouldn't call voter ID laws racist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, at this point, with all the problems with the Meuler probe, all the shit that came out about how they gave Clinton a free pass on her crimes because they wanted her to win, and now this, the FBI is at maybe the lowest point in its History.  It is, of course, ironic Karma,  for them trying to help Clinton fix an election. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the "Why won't you do something?!" calls from foreign peers, this is what "gun control" proposals look like when they percolate in Congress(Granted this was for the Vegas shooter, but still)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎16‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 7:29 PM, Sturgeon said:

OK, so there are really a few issues we need to tackle here. I'll try to make this brief, so please look into these subjects yourself for additional info. I am trying to keep it to 1-2 paragraphs per issue.

 

1. Gun Law in the USA

 

On ‎16‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 8:03 PM, Sturgeon said:

2. The Nature of Terror Attacks and Mass Shootings

 

On ‎16‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 9:56 PM, Sturgeon said:

FINE. Part threeeeeeee

 

3. Why America Should Keep Her Guns

 

This has been a fascinating read, a real insight.....I am starting to see a certain new sense to the US perspective.

 

This struck me as particularly insightful:

 

On ‎16‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 9:56 PM, Sturgeon said:

From this, they entrust, and have entrusted for well over 200 years, the citizenry with weapons of war. And, it is the final word on the truth and realness of all other rights - I, and each American, can and may back these words up with our will and weaponry, if necessary. That alone is powerful, it stokes those heartfires and holds accountable the officers who administer to them. A feeling of justness, of accountability and fairness, is guaranteed by the right to arms that cannot be guaranteed elsewise.

 

The final sentence in this quote is interesting from my British perspective.....It's also exactly why our police don't carry guns as a matter of course (& also why they do carry a big stick).

 

PS - Please don't blame folks outside the US for sometimes being thoughtless in their expressions of shock.....We genuinely do care believe me, but the US experience with firearms is so very far from our own that it can be hard to comprehend.

 

For some reason this latest one has particularly bothered me.....Heartbroken TBH.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

PS - Please don't blame folks outside the US for sometimes being thoughtless in their expressions of shock.....We genuinely do care believe me, but the US experience with firearms is so very far from our own that it can be hard to comprehend.

 

Yeah, I get that. I appreciate the patience and understanding.

 

Getting rid of the Second Amendment is, culturally speaking, a bit like the suggestion that the UK ditch their monarchy - except other countries have monarchies, whereas no other country in the world has a true right to arms like ours.

 

2 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

For some reason this latest one has particularly bothered me.....Heartbroken TBH.

 

I hear ya, me too. One of the reasons American gun owners get so touchy about this stuff is because they just want to mourn, but have to deal with verbal assaults about their rights and lifestyle from all sorts of people, including foreigners. The worst part is when we get called heartless monsters for not supporting gun control - and we do every single time something like this happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://thetab.com/us/2016/06/14/i-was-able-to-buy-an-ar-15-in-five-minutes-19833

Quote

 

I was able to buy an AR-15 in five minutes

I’m 20 and my ID is expired


 

 

 
This is your classic "look how it easy it is to buy a MURDER MACHINE IN AMERICA" piece. Though this time, the author was mostly wrong instead of completely wrong. 
 
My reply to this filth...
 
You can legally be trained on repeating grenade launchers and end up dying via a well placed RPK in Syria/Egypt/Iraq/Sandbox at age 18. Therefore, as a constitutional right, 18 years of age for a long gun is perfectly reasonable.

The entire article reads like the author is attempting to paint the small business owners as eager death-dealing pushers. When in reality, the author clearly doesn't have an understanding of the laws or even firearms as a hobby. And the staff can see it. If you've ever worked behind the counter ANYWHERE, it's easy to pick out the noobies. 

So they attempted to educate him. And why wouldn't they try to sell him an AR for 700 dollars instead of a Ruger 10/22 for 200? They couldn't keep their doors open otherwise. Just like you're more likely to sell a 42 year old recent divorcee a sportscar rather than a minivan.

The bit with the "expired ID" is an obvious bait-and-switch tactic that is honestly dangerous for the shop to be printed. His ID was not expired, and thus saying so in the title of this article puts the shop owners in danger. His ID did not have the correct information, but that information (like place of residence) can be verified via a car registration or the like. That's common practice, and part of the federal background check procedure. 

Also, the "adding an accessory lowers the age by 3 years" line is hogwash and incorrect. The author, not knowing anything about the laws, misunderstood them. 

Firearms are, from the factory, labeled as "pistol" or "Rifle." There are AR-15 "pistols" that if you added a stock to it's a federal offense. If you would like, I can give you the links to the laws themselves so you can read them.
 
This entire piece was written from one ignorant person with the sole purpose of scaring other ignorant people that just don't know any better. It's spreading false information in order to push an agenda. 

The hard part about having a "conversation about gun control" is that it is so one-sided. One side has been studying for years, the other is new to the block. 

I can't have a "Conversation about fluid dynamics" with my mother, because she has no idea what I would be talking about. Same goes with this tired debate. One side has been studying the laws and defending them/making compromises for an entire CENTURY. The other? 

They quote Occupy Democrat or whatever leftists facebook memes they can find while screaming loudly that their opponents love seeing people die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Oedipus Wreckx-n-Effect said:

https://thetab.com/us/2016/06/14/i-was-able-to-buy-an-ar-15-in-five-minutes-19833

 
This is your classic "look how it easy it is to buy a MURDER MACHINE IN AMERICA" piece. Though this time, the author was mostly wrong instead of completely wrong. 

 

That whole article (and many of the comments) are comprised of weapons grade idiocy and doublespeak.

Good work on the reply, I see articles (and sites) like that and write them off as echo chambers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Meplat said:

 

That whole article (and many of the comments) are comprised of weapons grade idiocy and doublespeak.

Good work on the reply, I see articles (and sites) like that and write them off as echo chambers.

The guy who posted it came to me in a private message and wanted my sources on the laws themselves. I layed out everything from the ATF.gov site.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing that is infuriating to Americans that may not be fully understood by other members of our forum is th complete lack of consistent logic. 

 

 

The Left have spent a year calling our current government a bunch of Nazis. 

And then called for the government yo ban and confiscate guns. 

 

Do you see how confusing this is?

 

 

Our Left spent months protesting the police.  But believe they should be saved by the police in a violent situation.

 

Logical inconsistency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Belesarius said:

 

2 hours ago, ApplesauceBandit said:

 

I've not read the article and I've seen a lot of sources reporting it, but that's not the message I got by reading their source

 

wPRXXnZ.png

 

Pretty much how I read it too atm. 

 

Again, I don't care much about bump stocks other than to thwart gun-grabbers by giving no inch period. But if the end result mean that bump stocks will require a tax stamp or whatever paperwork is needed, who cares?

 

Edit: Hilariously, Dianne Feinstein doesn't think this memo will do jack shit and it'll take Congressional action in order to succeed. Gee, ya think?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×