Why illegalizing guns will not work in the U.S

[FiveSpeedf150]

Hassan was able to smuggle a pistol into a soft target. I know you think military bases are more heavily armed inside, but that is really not the case. Stateside, once you're past the gate it's a soft target and Hassan knew this. Shame.

And your point about Cho isn't really the best considering that Cho was killing people for about 2 and a half hours before he offed himself. He killed the first 2 at 7:15. The other 30 at between 9:40-9:51. And that was 30 out of 53 people he shot. I'm sorry but I would not call that a good job on the parts of the reaction force. Adding teachers with guns to that would have made things worse.

Regarding Cho, the two shootings you pointed to occurred earlier in the day and were reported as a separate incident. The timeline for the actual active shooter on campus dispatch is such:

Timeline
0941 Shooting starts
10 KIA
6 W
0942 Disptatch notified, LE dispatched
9 KIA
10 W
0945 LE arrives
11 KIA
11 W
0951 LE makes entry
2 shots are heard (person was already dead)
0952 Cho dead
Cho fired 113 9mm, 61 .22 and conducted 17 magazine changes.


I don't believe that "more guns" is not always the answer, of course, but that guns in the hands of lawful citizens is a good thing and should be encouraged.

They had guns in the hands of well trained police in the Empire State Building when that guy earlier this year decided to blow his boss away in the lobby. Those cops wound up grazing 9 other civilians AFTER shooting the killer.

I actually take great joy in that incident, because NYC is one of those "We are better than you mere peasants, only the trained elite police officers shall be allowed to carry guns!" kind of places.
Seeing the NYPD act the fool while the rest of America smirks is a fine thing indeed. Still, I wasn't in the shooting so I really shouldn't get too smug about it. The two-way range is a *****, or so I hear.

Most school shootings involve people in bulletproof armor and assault rifles so the odds of survival are still vastly in the killers' favour.

Clearly, then, we should roll over and take it. This is when arguing politics with non-Americans gets complicated, as we so often view the world through different glasses.


Disclaimer - I'm military police and have had limited active shooter training, though I thankfully have never had to engage one. The thought of disarming my fellow citizens because one of them "might" snap one day has never crossed my mind. Americans should be as free as possible, and this includes the possession of arms. The second amendment has already been seriously infringed. Lets not continue.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Hassan was able to smuggle a pistol into a soft target. I know you think military bases are more heavily armed inside, but that is really not the case. Stateside, once you're past the gate it's a soft target and Hassan knew this. Shame.

Fair enough.

And your point about Cho isn't really the best considering that Cho was killing people for about 2 and a half hours before he offed himself. He killed the first 2 at 7:15. The other 30 at between 9:40-9:51. And that was 30 out of 53 people he shot. I'm sorry but I would not call that a good job on the parts of the reaction force. Adding teachers with guns to that would have made things worse.

Regarding Cho, the two shootings you pointed to occurred earlier in the day and were reported as a separate incident. The timeline for the actual active shooter on campus dispatch is such:

Timeline
0941 Shooting starts
10 KIA
6 W
0942 Disptatch notified, LE dispatched
9 KIA
10 W
0945 LE arrives
11 KIA
11 W
0951 LE makes entry
2 shots are heard (person was already dead)
0952 Cho dead
Cho fired 113 9mm, 61 .22 and conducted 17 magazine changes.


I don't believe that "more guns" is not always the answer, of course, but that guns in the hands of lawful citizens is a good thing and should be encouraged.
You guys already have guns in the hands of lawful citizens, what with people in certain States having concealed carries and such. My problem is having guns on school grounds in the care of teachers. There are many more cons to that scenario than pros. As I've mentioned before, it would make the effort of potential mass shooters getting guns lower. It would also create the possibility of many gun related deaths due to human error, i.e. teachers accidentally killing the wrong people and such. It also begs the question, what if the teacher goes postal? There are just too many ways guns in school could become a giant mess .

They had guns in the hands of well trained police in the Empire State Building when that guy earlier this year decided to blow his boss away in the lobby. Those cops wound up grazing 9 other civilians AFTER shooting the killer.

I actually take great joy in that incident, because NYC is one of those "We are better than you mere peasants, only the trained elite police officers shall be allowed to carry guns!" kind of places.
Seeing the NYPD act the fool while the rest of America smirks is a fine thing indeed. Still, I wasn't in the shooting so I really shouldn't get too smug about it. The two-way range is a *****, or so I hear.
That's a shame that you're glad that 9 people almost died due to police incompetence. I'm here trying to argue for having less needless gun deaths in that States and you're letting a bit of pride get into the discussion. If those 9 people died would you be so happy about the situation?

Most school shootings involve people in bulletproof armor and assault rifles so the odds of survival are still vastly in the killers' favour.

Clearly, then, we should roll over and take it. This is when arguing politics with non-Americans gets complicated, as we so often view the world through different glasses.
I'm looking at it from a statistics perspective here. You guys have the highest rate of gun related injuries out of the developed countries. 10th on the list of top 10. The top 9 are mostly 3rd world countries. As are the next 6 on the list. Canada is 17th, but looking at you're countries numbers versus ours, we still have a lot less gun related issues be a long shot.

Just looking at the list of rampage killers over history, the US unfortunately dominates when it comes to being the one country with the most of them. And gun laws have become more lax over time in the US. As a non-American, its kind of hard for me and a lot of the rest of the world to look at the US history with mass shootings compared to everywhere else. Like shit, the last rampage killing that happened in Canada was in 1984, and our guns laws are tight as hell. That's almost 30 years without a mass shooting. You guys have a massive access to what seems to be a public arsenal compared to ALL 1st world countries and continue to suffer shooting, after shooting after shooting. This isn't arguing politics with non-Americans anymore. This shouldn't be considered politics, it should be public duty to do something about the violence that keeps affecting innocent families. The last politician to do anything about gun control on a federal level that I know of in the US was Bill Clinton with the assault rifle ban. Now I hear the author of that legislation will be introducing a new version to be voted on next month.



Disclaimer - I'm military police and have had limited active shooter training, though I thankfully have never had to engage one. The thought of disarming my fellow citizens because one of them "might" snap one day has never crossed my mind. Americans should be as free as possible, and this includes the possession of arms. The second amendment has already been seriously infringed. Lets not continue.

The fact that you're military police doesn't taking away from my points. The US' system doesn't work for preventing people from getting killed. And I'm honestly getting tired of people using the 2nd amendment as an excuse to buy a Bushmaster from Wal-Mart. And excuse my french but you saying that it has been infringed it bullshit. At least in the way you're implying. In fact let's read the text of the 2nd amendment:
"
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."

Now last time I checked, the mother of the Sandy Hook shooter was not part of a well trained Militia. Neither have been most Americans in general. You yourself would count was one due to your military police experience.

But in 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller happened and the Supreme Court effectively and officially said fuck it to the militia part of the 2nd Amendment, everyone should have the right to own a gun. So the 2nd Amendment has technically been ignored for the purposes of letting everyone carry a gun. Its ironic that people use it as a defense when its original meaning meant that they themselves could not carry a gun just because they wanted to.

Seriously this conversation is really breaking my head. I'm not advocating for the removal of all guns in the slightest. You guys need them unfortunatley. In fact, and I bet you didn't know this, a lot of the assault rifles that are available in the U.S. are legal in Canada too. Difference is, you have to go through a bunch of regulatory procedure to get one. You have to take 2 tests to my knowledge and pay to take each one. I believe you also have to wait a few months in between tests. Once you have your gun, and it doesn't matter if its a pistol or an AR-15, you have to keep it locked up at all times. That or you get fined. Owning a gun in Canada gives police the automatic right to randomly search your house to see if your gun is locked properly. If you refuse, you get fined. If your gun isn't locked, you get fined. If it's loaded in your home, fined. You take that gun to the gun range and back and no where else unless its a hunting rifle. In which case you take it hunting and back and nowhere else. Since the gun registration in Canada was enacted in 1977, all gun related deaths/injuries fell by large numbers.

I'm not saying you can't have the right to bear arms, but for the sake of incidents like Sandy Hook, that right should not be given to everyone and anyone who isn't ready for it. Guns are very dangerous and need tons of responsibility. Your laws should reflect that. Out of natural human respect for crying out loud.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

you realize that assault rifles are actually hard (and expensive) to get right?

Hard to get my ass. Wal-Mart has SOLD OUT of the same Bushmaster AR-15 that was used in the Sandy Hook shooting in 5 states. Come to Canada and try buying an AR-15 and then talk to me about hard to get.

 

[CapnCJ]

Unfortunately it's not possible to have a sensible debate about gun ownership. Paranoia and pride often get in the way.

For what it's worth, I don't think guns should be in the hands of the general population, but I also believe that disarming America is impossible now. Still, i'm curious as to what would happen if the laws changed, and police started going door-to-door demanding firearms be handed over. I imagine it wouldn't be pretty.

 

[Raytan941]

you realize that assault rifles are actually hard (and expensive) to get right?

Hard to get my ass. Wal-Mart has SOLD OUT of the same Bushmaster AR-15 that was used in the Sandy Hook shooting in 5 states. Come to Canada and try buying an AR-15 and then talk to me about hard to get.

As has already been stated numerous times and AR-15 IS NOT and assault rifle an assault rifle as defined by the US government and governments around the world is

"A selective fire (either fully automatic or burst capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It is not to be confused with assault weapons. Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies."

AR-15's are NOT capable of fully auto or burst fire and therefore NOT assault rifle's.

An Assault Weapon is a fairly new category invented by anti-gun politicians who want to restrict certain features on guns, features that do not effect the function of said guns only the looks presumably because if a gun looks scary it must be dangerous so people shouldn't own those scary looking gun.

I live in California so I am most familiar with assault weapon laws there also CA assault weapon laws are very similar to the Clinton era assault weapon ban and the new proposed assault weapon ban. So lets take a look at the assault weapons laws in California. Under CA law pistol grip's, flash suppressor's, and adjustable stock's are all "evil features" and yes "evil features" is actually the exact wording used in the law (lol). And any center fire semi-automatic rifle that has any of these features AND a removable magazine (CA law defines a fixed magazine as something requiring a "tool" to remove) is an assault weapon and therefore illegal to own in CA unless it is registered assault weapon which had to have been done before the laws went into effect.

As I said I live in CA and I own a perfectly legal AR-15, the only difference between my AR-15 and AR-15's sold in every other state is mine has to have a fixed magazine. With a fixed magazine under CA law my AR-15 is not an assault weapon but simply semi-automatic rifle no different from any other semi-automatic rifle. In order for my magazine to be fixed CA requires that I need a tool to remove it so I have whats called a bullet button installed on my AR-15 instead of a push button magazine release. With a bullet button I cannot drop mag's with my finger I have to use a tool in this case the tip of a bullet makes a great tool and also legally qualifies as a tool but you can also use a key or a screwdriver or anything long and pointy enough to do he job, here's an example of how it works, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VseNzVcIjtc .

If I wanted to get rid of the bullet button and just put a normal push button release on my AR I could do whats called a featureless build and by simply removing the "evil features" and replacing them with (non-evil features? lol) so a fixed stock, a aftermarket grip that is not a pistol grip the monster man grip for example, and a compensator. So if I did that my AR would look something like this http://i48.tinypic.com/nb590.jpg . And I could then put a normal magazine release on it and even use 30 round magazine's provided I owned them before the CA magazine ban went into effect.

TLDR: Assault weapons are a myth invented by anti-gun activists, assault weapon bans only restrict superficial cosmetic attributes of firearms, it's like making a certain color scheme illegal on a car.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

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."

Now last time I checked, the mother of the Sandy Hook shooter was not part of a well trained Militia. Neither have been most Americans in general. You yourself would count was one due to your military police experience.

Spoiler: Really? Your bringing out the militia argument? Just watch this.

But in 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller happened and the Supreme Court effectively and officially said fuck it to the militia part of the 2nd Amendment, everyone should have the right to own a gun. So the 2nd Amendment has technically been ignored for the purposes of letting everyone carry a gun. Its ironic that people use it as a defense when its original meaning meant that they themselves could not carry a gun just because they wanted to.

Spoiler: Here is EVERY thing they decided. It is more than said fuck it to the militia.

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2?53.
(a) The Amendment?s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause?s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2?22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court?s interpretation of the operative clause. The ?militia? comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens? militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens? militia would be preserved. Pp. 22?28.
(c) The Court?s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28?30.
(d) The Second Amendment?s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30?32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court?s conclusion. Pp. 32?47.
(f) None of the Court?s precedents forecloses the Court?s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47?54.
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court?s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller?s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those ?in common use at the time? finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54?56.
(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District?s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of ?arms? that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition ? in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute ? would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56?64.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

Spoiler: Really? Your bringing out the militia argument? Just watch this.

Penn and Teller are funny guys, but you shouldn't use them as a source of information.

For example, that particular video bit is factually wrong, since the Revolutionary War consisted of American militias fighting against the British army. A militia is a group of civilians who take up arms in emergency situations only, and does not now and never did refer to regular armed forces. At the time of the Constitution, England did have a militia, and their colonial militia was the core of the American Revolutionary Army. If there hadn't been a colonial armed militia, the Revolutionary War would probably have failed.

So yes, the Second Amendment does in fact refer specifically to the idea that average people need to be able to own guns so that they can mobilize to defend their nation if it is invaded. Any argument otherwise is specious and easily provably wrong.

I know, I read history. Penn and Teller themselves have been open they have made goofs in the past (they planned for the last episode of Bullshit to be "the Bullshit of Bullshit," but they went onto "Penn and Teller tell a Lie" before they could do that). I think they might of skimmed over what militias are, since they were still a 22 minute show.

However, all this is immaterial, since the part I wanted to note is there is a comma between "the militia" and "the People."

Spoiler: Here is a much more in depth discussion, I went with Penn and Teller first because it was so much shorter

 

[Raytan941]

Spoiler: Really? Your bringing out the militia argument? Just watch this.

Penn and Teller are funny guys, but you shouldn't use them as a source of information.

For example, that particular video bit is factually wrong, since the Revolutionary War consisted of American militias fighting against the British army. A militia is a group of civilians who take up arms in emergency situations only, and does not now and never did refer to regular armed forces. At the time of the Constitution, England did have a militia, and their colonial militia was the core of the American Revolutionary Army. If there hadn't been a colonial armed militia, the Revolutionary War would probably have failed.

So yes, the Second Amendment does in fact refer specifically to the idea that average people need to be able to own guns so that they can mobilize to defend their nation if it is invaded. Any argument otherwise is specious and easily provably wrong.

The preamble "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is NOT a limit on gun ownership it does not say anywhere "if you choose not to be a part of a militia you cannot own a gun" rather it simply reenforces the individual idea of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Check out this video pay special attention to fact's 3 and 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RgLEGibyXs&feature=player_embedded

One other things on militia's, even if you could interrupt the 2nd amendment to mean you have to be in a militia to own firearms it's actually illegal in most states to form a militia without first getting approval from both local and state government, good luck with that.

 

[Raytan941]

I don't see where I lied or made anything up, wanna be more specific? We may disagree about the exact meaning of the 2nd amendment but that's nothing new people have been arguing its exact meaning for decades. However the supreme court has already ruled that the 2nd amendment supports the right of the people to own guns for self defense.

 

[BakedZnake]

stick some tits on the guns and it'll be banned in seconds. fecking sorted

 

[backinthepresentfuture]

America loves guns....america loves violence and war like it loves deepthroating a mayonnaise and lard coated hotdog while popping ritalin and shooting heroin..America is not..never was, and never will be a land where there is no guns.
People need to shut up about the sandyhook thing, because it's happened before and it'll happen again, if guns are taken away then kids'll probably be hacked up with an axe or some shit..killers kill regardless of whether it's a gun or a rock.

 

[BakedZnake]

America loves guns....america loves violence and war like it loves deepthroating a mayonnaise and lard coated hotdog while popping ritalin and shooting heroin..America is not..never was, and never will be a land where there is no guns.
People need to shut up about the sandyhook thing, because it's happened before and it'll happen again, if guns are taken away then kids'll probably be hacked up with an axe or some shit..killers kill regardless of whether it's a gun or a rock.

Would like to see you kill 28 people at once with a rock. You going to coin the new phrase kill 22 kids with 1 stone?

 

[Rigs83]

You talk about removing guns from private owners like it'd be impossible- I present to you this. Give them insintive- Give them a chance to turn them in for money, any that don't have their's taken away by force, preferably by the Military. What are they going to do? Shoot the soldiers at their door who are armed to the teeth?

Actually the whole Revolution kind of started in Lexington, MA when a bunch of British soldiers showed to take away the colonists guns so yeah you do shoot the soldier who shows up at your door. If the American soldier was so superior why is Vietnam not the 51st state?

Possibly because the US wasn't trying to colonize Vietnam but to prevent communism? Maybe you're thinking of France...

Is having a form of government forced down your throat that far removed from colonization.

 

[gphjr14]

Is having a form of government forced down your throat that far removed from colonization.

Yes...