TechNoFear said:
No proper definition?
You mean apart from all those comprehensive definitions in various US state and federal acts?
You mean the definition which does vary from each potential and handful of passed laws and even moreso from public opinion? Ask someone in San Francisco what an "assault weapon" is and then ask someone in Tuscon.
So you are saying the features banned under the AWB do not in any way improve the 'performance' of the firearm?
Not particularly, no. Closest you'd get would be a grenade launcher and, well, no one shooting up anywhere is going to spend the unholy amount of green you'd need for one of those.
If these features were not of benefit why are those features common on military firearms?
Depends on which arms you're speaking of but those features you'll more commonly find on military arms, yes.
Are the armed forces just a bunch of 'idiots who thinks it looks cool' to put those features on their firearms?
No, that'd be equipping your forces with the best possible/what matches their use and heavy training to use these arms to their maximum ability.
As for some of the other excess, well, you tell me what you'd do if your defense budget made what you use to fund schools look like pocket change.
stroopwafel said:
That always sounds like a bogus excuse to me. How the hell are you going to defend against tanks
Well, you'd primarily be seeking to disable the tank by blowing the treads or generally affecting its ability to move. In an urban area, that's a pretty horrifying experience for the crew.
jets/drones/attack choppers
Significantly harder but in two of the three, they need to land somewhere and you would attack their ability to refuel/rearm. Drones have a similar limitation but a weakness the other two don't have, which is the possibility of peeking on the feed from the drone and possibly even preventing control.
Ignoring how awesome and silly that is at the same time, it brings up the issue with using these weapons up to actual WMDs on American soil, which is not going to do you any favors, particularly in dense urban areas. Basically convert the situation in the Middle East to the US and the headlines from "three *insert wherever we've invaded for oil here* children killed in drone attack to "three American children killed in drone attack".
with a pistol and a shotgun?
The US populace has access to far more than you're actually thinking, not even going into what can be made from basic supplies from pretty much any hardware store.
That whole Waco incident from years back kind of dispels that whole myth that small arms serve as a deterrent against the government. Those fruitbags were armed to the teeth and they didn't stand a chance against a chopper and a tank.
Well, you're now technically arguing for access to heavier firepower!
But really, Waco is a very... special case. Not saying it's not possibly an example for your argument but, it's a special case like
this is a special case.
Sure, it might have made some sense centuries ago when it was civilians against musqueteers on horses but nowadays such logic is more than a little ridiculous.
Now it'd be hundreds of millions of guns floating around with infantry and light to heavy armor trying to control a city like LA. I would not have my money on the tanks or soldiers.
In modern society guns in the hands of civilians are just accidents waiting to happen again and again and again.
Accidents of what kind? You're meaning the accidents that happen with virtually anything else someone can be stupid with?
Politrukk said:
Well that reiterates my point then I suppose!
You're the second person to second that opinion and I can't say I've personally experienced it only what it all looks like to an outsider so to speak.
Jot me down as the third person to second that opinion.
erttheking said:
I'm just going to throw something out here. Apparently only 4% of violence in America is committed by the mentally ill, and the mentally ill are actually more likely to be the victims of violent crime than perpetrators. So I don't think this is really a mentally ill thing.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/
Which is why when our President goes on national television to throw an entire group of people under the bus to further an agenda, it really does not help matters at all.
Dalisclock said:
Hell, the US military, due to certain shitty political decisions over the past 15 years, now has about a decade of experience in fighting a counter-insurgency in urban areas against people who generally don't like or support them. Not to mention the military is sworn to uphold the orders of those appointed over them, not the guys who living in the backwoods who see the ACA and gay marriage as evidence of government tyranny(as opposed to holding people indefinitely as enemy combatants and using torture tactics on them because they might be terrorists).
You also have an assload of vets who did not exactly enjoy being sent to desert nowhere in "service of their country" to be treated like nothing by their government when they come back.
And, the wording of the current oath of enlistment:
""I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
Sworn to support and defend the Constitution against
all enemies, which would if it came to it include the President and superior officers. Plus, you're encouraged to know a lawful order from an unlawful order, and not follow unlawful orders.
Politrukk said:
people call it a "mentally ill" thing because they consider people who have suffered abuse for countless of years who then decide to shoot everything that moves because they're so sick of it "mentally sick"
Better term would probably just be "utterly fed up".
as I stated before it's more of a societal/educational thing for the U.S there's a factor in the U.S that leads to so many people having breakdowns and going/wanting to go on murder sprees, the guns are just the tools they utilize to live out their frustrations.
It's kind of like Japan except it comes out as mass sexual assaults on females in subways and high suicide rates with the occasional really vomit inducing murder.
There's a percentage of Americans who think that owning guns is normal, that gun crime is normal, that the rest of the world is just like the U.S or otherwise should be shaped in their image, they can't fathom the fact that they might be wrong, very wrong indeed.
To America, owning guns is a normal thing, and gun crime happens. The vast majority of Americans understand that the rest of the world is not like the US and has no desire to be. We don't want to be you and you don't want to be us.
The US gets the idea pretty easily. The same could be said of other countries but we don't butt in on the affairs of others. The People at least, the military and government is a bit of a different case.
Lense-Thirring said:
The truth is that we have no idea what gun sales really look like, because of laws and congressional actions to prevent data collection. By "Strenghten the ATF" I mean "Actually give it a director this year maybe". It's a country that constantly and relentlessly undermines all efforts to study and regulate firearms. Then when anyone wants to gather data or regulate, the fact that poor data exists is used to prevent any change.
It would be funny, but so many people are dying.
Because people reeeaaalllly don't like the ATF and how it just makes what it feels like illegal by some incredibly stupid logic. Well, that on top of them being an agency that is by very function, an infringement of the right to bear arms.
Petromir said:
The UK often comes up in these discussions as having strict firearm regulations (often mistakenly suggesting a complete ban).
To be fair, the UK is not that far from a complete ban.
Yet still the use of a firearm or shotgun (often seperated in UK law, certainly in licensing terms) in self defence is legal if it is reasonable for you to be in fear of your life. Restriction of firearms legally does not by any means remove the ability to defend oneself entirely.
That varies greatly in application, be it with a firearm or not.
It is true self defence is not a reason to own a firearm here, (hunting, pest control and target shooting are pretty much it), but that does not preclude their use where life is in danger.
Alright.
The rules aren't the clearest on what constitutes sufficient reason, but if you shoot someone,brandishing a weapon, advancing up the stairs towards you, in the front, assuming your weapon is legally owned and stored, then you're likely fine.
The law appears to leave it very open to label a case of self defense as murder.
We also have no lower age limit of shotgun licences.... (Though those under 18 require other licensees for usage, storage, etc).
I always have a bit of a good-hearted laugh on how age limitations are so similar yet so different for various things between our countries.
Also that the right to bear arms is an amendment should be a clue that the US constitution is not a document set in stone.
Sure, it can be changed. Other amendments have been added and removed. We just have not decided
to change it. Might that change in the future? Sure. Doesn't look like anytime soon however.
