Gun Control in the US

Tabnabs

notobtuse wrote: »

Some good news, for some… Remington Arms, manufacturers of firearms, is in serious financial trouble and has reached an agreement to file for bankruptcy protection. They blame their need to file for bankruptcy because of Donald Trump. According to Remington, Trump’s talk about protecting Second Amendment rights has had the effect that people aren’t in as much of a rush to run out and buy firearms as they did under Obama. Because now people are not worried that the government will be coming to take their guns away.

What really happens when American's feel unsafe and at risk? More guns.

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/965955990591074305

vetinari

Why is it so hard for gun rights people to understand that you have to start somewhere?
The general argument seems to be that if legislation doesn't stop all mass shootings by next week then it isn't worth it.

That line of logic is not applied to any other social problem.
Mandatory wearing of seat belts is enforced even though thousands still die in car accidents in the US.

You start gun control with the incredibly basic step of banning semi automatic weapons except for special use cases.
There can be arguments over what those special use cases are. That's not really important.
The important step is that they are not for general sale.
Coinciding with such a law, you implement a gun buyback program for those types of weapons.

Voila, you've actually done something related to the actual problem of school mass shootings.
If there are more further mass shootings, you reassess and make further legislation.
How is allowing of mass shootings in schools an acceptable status quo?
Talk about mental health, better security in schools is missing the point.
The US is a first world country, it's schools are not meant to be under constant attack.

AbusesToilets

vetinari wrote: »

Why is it so hard for gun rights people to understand that you have to start somewhere?
The general argument seems to be that if legislation doesn't stop all mass shootings by next week then it isn't worth it.

That line of logic is not applied to any other social problem.
Mandatory wearing of seat belts is enforced even though thousands still die in car accidents in the US.

You start gun control with the incredibly basic step of banning semi automatic weapons except for special use cases.
There can be arguments over what those special use cases are. That's not really important.
The important step is that they are not for general sale.
Coinciding with such a law, you implement a gun buyback program for those types of weapons.

Voila, you've actually done something related to the actual problem of school mass shootings.
If there are more further mass shootings, you reassess and make further legislation.
How is allowing of mass shootings in schools an acceptable status quo?
Talk about mental health, better security in schools is missing the point.
The US is a first world country, it's schools are not meant to be under constant attack.

The place you're starting at is the most severe restriction possible. How could you expect anyone who is a gunowner to give any regard to an idea like that?

How do you envision a but back program going? In an era of reduced government budgets, you expect municipalities to find millions to billions of dollars.

FatherTed

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Classrooms that can be locked from the inside is a must, maybe they can be already? Seems crazy if it's not the case.
Need to raise age one can buy those AR 15 type guns to 25, would make sense.

But what is the purpose of anyone owning an AR 15?

Hitman3000

AbusesToilets wrote:

The place you're starting at is the most severe restriction possible. How could you expect anyone who is a gunowner to give any regard to an idea like that?

So do nothing and hope people stop murdering kids in schools.

Leroy42

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The place you're starting at is the most severe restriction possible. How could you expect anyone who is a gunowner to give any regard to an idea like that?

Again, the US has a major problem on its hands. They have already tried to 'do nothing or very little approach' and it is only getting worse. Instead of a gun owner try thinking as a parent. Do you think it is correct that your kids should be in fear for their lives going to school. Because that is the decision you are making.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

How do you envision a but back program going? In an era of reduced government budgets, you expect municipalities to find millions to billions of dollars.

Spending Billions on a wall seems perfectly acceptable. Increasing the military budget, annually, by 54bn seems almost to be cheered. Giving massive tax cuts is being touted as one of the great achievements. But money to potentially save people from being killed is a price too high?

Manic Moran

Mellor wrote: »

That's only true at 100% accuracy. If accuracy is 50% the rate of needs to be double, if it 10% it needs to be 10x the availability. So inversely, by achieving a higher rate of fire, it allows somebody shoot volume and hope rather than aim for technical, accurate shooting. You see the other issue here, right? By chieving the same outcome with a low accuracy, the technical threshold to become a capable mass shooter plummets.

I take your point, but it's still not enough to make a difference. Using one pistol with a 15-round magazine, and one with a 10-round magazine, Cho still managed to fire 174 rounds in nine minutes, causing 49 casualties, 32 of them dead. Also using two pistols, Hennard shot 50 people out of 140 present, 23 dead. If you're shooting fish in a barrel, you can take your time. At the other end of the scale, Alexis walked onto a Navy base with a pump action shotgun with 8 in the tube and killed 12. Whitman managed to kill as many with a bolt-action with a 3-round magazine (Plus one with a shotgun). The counter to "Well, what if he had weapons like Pollack" are that pollack had an area target, and students and faculty shot back, which limited him from shooting anyone else.

Two-way shootouts such as would be found in a defensive situation, have much higher stress rates, resulting in the lower accuracy and greater requirement for ammunition capacity.

A 30-round mag isn't, by any stretch, a limited capacity magazine.

No, it's a standard. You misunderstood me on that one. The point is that even though our active shooter in our drills has a 30-round magazine, he doesn't fire fast enough that it makes a difference.

So far far more than he'd have been able to achieve without cranks, or bumpstocks

Umm...

Well, no, you can accurately bumpfire without use of the special stock, especially if you're using a bipod, as Pollack was. Here, an AR-15 back in 2009 with a normal stock. Note the amount of smoke coming from the barrel after his 50 rounds have been fired. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEAxXMOVPh4 . If you look at the description, you can see the link to show the target after this guy bumpfires a 40-round mag from a wooden stock rifle in about 8 seconds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMUF-eqSliA
Cranks and bumpfire stocks are gimmicks.

And, frankly, I can dump 100 rounds a minute with a regular semi-auto from the shoulder.

Irrelevant. He had 23 guns (due to another ridiculous lack of regulation) they were essentially throwaways. He doesn't ned to be concerned with ruining his firearms or avoiding jams. He could fire until they jammed and just grab the nest one.

He could, but they were not going to be as close to hand. 23 rifles takes a lot of floorspace. Further, most folks don't do mass shootings with 23 rifles, they tend to carry more magazines instead. Vegas was an extremely special case.

Presumably the civilian version doesn't fire at 800 RPM though. Regardless, the fact that a civilian version of the M249 was availible to him is exactly the issue. Bringing that up helps my position, not yours.

It doesn't fire at 800rpm cyclic, no. (Unless you bump-fire, which will get you close). But it is rated to conduct the demonstrated rate of fire from Vegas. Which brings us back to an earlier argument. How you do define the civilian M249 in law so that it is prohibited, but not other commonly used rifles? Fundamentally, anything from the Remington Woodsmaster to the M249S is a closed-bolt, gas-operated, semi-automatic, center-fire, magazine fed rifle. Nearly 30 years of trying (The first California Assault Weapons Ban was 1989) hasn't managed it yet.

Doesn't this completely contradict your opening line about rate of fire only needs to match targets.

No, because the sustained rate of fire assumes the ability to reload (And in a mass shooting, it also likely has no stress on the shooter). Thus rate of fire becomes irrelevant when you don't have anything to reload with of any capacity. I don't sleep with a duty belt or web gear next to the bed. I strongly suspect most other folks who keep a firearms for protection don't either.

I agree that the problem might be too wide spread to get under control. That doesn't make it any less wrong though.

So wrong or right in moral principle, if you accept it'll not do any practical good, why bother? You're just annoying law-abiding folks without providing any particular impediment to those who feel like plotting to do a mass shooting.

Some good news, for some… Remington Arms, manufacturers of firearms, is in serious financial trouble and has reached an agreement to file for bankruptcy protection. They blame their need to file for bankruptcy because of Donald Trump.

Whoever they blame, they're certainly not going to blame their own mismanagement, stale product line, and terrible reputation for quality control. Their sales have been plummeting for several years, and they've been laying off staff for about two. Do a google for "Remington quality decline", this has been on the cards for the better part of a decade. The recent recalls for their staple products the 700 and 870 have not helped either, and their new product launches (esp for their pistol) have been utter disasters.

vetinari

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The place you're starting at is the most severe restriction possible. How could you expect anyone who is a gunowner to give any regard to an idea like that?

How do you envision a but back program going? In an era of reduced government budgets, you expect municipalities to find millions to billions of dollars.

Banning of semi automatic weapons for general sale is the most severe restriction possible?? If you truly believe that, then it's impossible to have an argument with you. To reiterate, you think the banning of the actual weapons that are causing mass shootings in schools is the most severe restriction possible. People can still hunt and defend themselves without semi automatic weapons.

AbusesToilets

vetinari wrote: »

Banning of semi automatic weapons for general sale is the most severe restriction possible?? If you truly believe that, then it's impossible to have an argument with you. To reiterate, you think the banning of the actual weapons that are causing mass shootings in schools is the most severe restriction possible. People can still hunt and defend themselves without semi automatic weapons.

The overwhelming majority of firearm owned are semi automatic. You're talking about 100s of millions of guns at a stroke. It's extremely wooly thinking, which is typical of those who are anti-gun.

Mellor

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Noise reduction and hearing safety are pretty valid concerns to me. Bearing in mind a suppressor typically only reduces the decibel level of a gunshot from approx 180 to 150s. Still very loud.

I would disagree with you on an acceptable number of magazines.

I don't disagree with those reasons. But only in cases where they apply.
Noise reduction applies to hunters. 100% agree. Home protection, doesn't apply in the slightest bit. Shoots for fun. Nope.

Ear protection is a valid concern for target shooters. Ear protectors are much more suitable there. You don't see benchrest boys with supressors.

AbusesToilets

Mellor wrote: »

I don't disagree with those reasons. But only in cases where they apply.
Noise reduction applies to hunters. 100% agree. Home protection, doesn't apply in the slightest bit. Shoots for fun. Nope.

Ear protection is a valid concern for target shooters. Ear protectors are much more suitable there. You don't see benchrest boys with supressors.

What is at the root of your the reticence for allowing suppressors? I get the impression that peoples perceptions of them are coloured by movies etc and associate them with nefarious deeds.

Hitman3000

A suppressor reduces the report of a weapon, a loud report will help give warning to potential victims. Cannot understand why you would wish to deny potentials victims a chance of survival?

vetinari

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The overwhelming majority of firearm owned are semi automatic. You're talking about 100s of millions of guns at a stroke. It's extremely wooly thinking, which is typical of those who are anti-gun.

To be more specific, start with semi automatic long guns. To be honest, gun control people haven't been harsh enough on gun owners. We're allowing someone's hobby to come before the lives of kids in schools.

AbusesToilets

vetinari wrote: »

To be more specific, start with semi automatic long guns. To be honest, gun control people haven't been harsh enough on gun owners. We're allowing someone's hobby to come before the lives of kids in schools.

Long guns account for somewhere in the region of ~300 deaths annually, out of some ~30,000 some deaths total.

AbusesToilets

Hitman3000 wrote: »

A suppressor reduces the report of a weapon, a loud report will help give warning to potential victims. Cannot understand why you would wish to deny potentials victims a chance of survival?

The report from a suppressed rifle is in the region of ~130 decibels. Hardly quiet.

Hitman3000

AbusesToilets wrote:

Long guns account for somewhere in the region of ~300 deaths annually, out of some ~30,000 some deaths total.

They said start with... little steps.

AbusesToilets

Hitman3000 wrote: »

They said start with... little steps.

I wouldn't consider banning approx 1.5 million rifles a small or justifiable step.

Hitman3000

AbusesToilets wrote:

I wouldn't consider banning approx 1.5 million rifles a small or justifiable step.

If it saved the life of just one child I'd find it quite a justifiable step. Different priorities I guess.

Hitman3000

AbusesToilets wrote:

The report from a suppressed rifle is in the region of ~130 decibels. Hardly quiet.

An AR 15 can drop to 116 with a suppressor.

AbusesToilets

Hitman3000 wrote: »

An AR 15 can drop to 116 with a suppressor.

Depends on ammunition type, still not very quiet though.

If it saved the life of just one child I'd find it quite a justifiable step. Different priorities I guess.

I take it you're in favor of banning all these other items too?

Hitman3000

AbusesToilets wrote:

Depends on ammunition type, still not very quiet though.

Lot quieter than 180 db. I would imagine in a school the background db is high at least an suppressed weapons report may cut through that noise, a silenced or suppressed weapon may not.

sdanseo

Florida's state legislature just had a lovely prayer for everyone before deciding not to even debate gun laws this term.

The pope himself probably places less actual value on the power of prayer. It's beyond obscene.

Youngpensioner

Simply put Americans are just nuts in the head. Complete waste of time.

Youngpensioner

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Depends on ammunition type, still not very quiet though.





I take it you're in favor of banning all these other items too?

You can't kill hundreds of people with knives from a hotel room when they're hundreds of yards away at once. Seems like you already banned brain cells. Such a dumb attempt. Unfollowing this crazy infested thread waste of time. No handguns or shotguns etc on that list. How convenient. Later Loops.

Hitman3000

Youngpensioner wrote:

Simply put Americans are just nuts in the head. Complete waste of time.

The gun nut is a special breed altogether.

Mellor

Manic Moran wrote: »

I take your point, but it's still not enough to make a difference. Using one pistol with a 15-round magazine, and one with a 10-round magazine, Cho still managed to fire 174 rounds in nine minutes, causing 49 casualties, 32 of them dead. Also using two pistols, Hennard shot 50 people out of 140 present, 23 dead. If you're shooting fish in a barrel, you can take your time.

How would the kill rate look like if they were armed with, say full auto M4 or M242?

No, it's a standard. You misunderstood me on that one. The point is that even though our active shooter in our drills has a 30-round magazine, he doesn't fire fast enough that it makes a difference.

30 magazine being "standard" in the US is part of the problem.

How would those active shooter drills turn out if they were carried out in Ireland, with legally available hardware in ireland.

Well, no, you can accurately bumpfire without use of the special stock, especially if you're using a bipod, as Pollack was. Here, an AR-15 back in 2009 with a normal stock. Note the amount of smoke coming from the barrel after his 50 rounds have been fired. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEAxXMOVPh4 . If you look at the description, you can see the link to show the target after this guy bumpfires a 40-round mag from a wooden stock rifle in about 8 seconds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMUF-eqSliA
Cranks and bumpfire stocks are gimmicks.

And, frankly, I can dump 100 rounds a minute with a regular semi-auto from the shoulder.

I haven't watched the videos, I don't need to. I'm familiar with bump-fire. What's your point.
If there is no difference, why is there a market? Because they making bump fire significantly easier. A bumpstock allows you to bumpfire from the hip. Pretending it's no is different is silly. I'm being respectful of your opinions, at least be honest.

100 rounds a min sounds achievable. Can you maintain that for an extended period?
What does a bump stock on a ar-15 achieve? Maybe 800, significantly faster. I'm not suggesting a bumpstock allwos you to hit 8 times more targets. But it could mean the difference between hitting somebody twice verses hitting that 10 times. I don't need to e3xplain the implication.

He could, but they were not going to be as close to hand. 23 rifles takes a lot of floorspace. Further, most folks don't do mass shootings with 23 rifles, they tend to carry more magazines instead. Vegas was an extremely special case.

It was the example you used. I was simply elaborating on it.
It would be quicker to pick up a second rifle off the bed than changing barrels on a SAW.

It doesn't fire at 800rpm cyclic, no. (Unless you bump-fire, which will get you close). But it is rated to conduct the demonstrated rate of fire from Vegas. Which brings us back to an earlier argument. How you do define the civilian M249 in law so that it is prohibited, but not other commonly used rifles? Fundamentally, anything from the Remington Woodsmaster to the M249S is a closed-bolt, gas-operated, semi-automatic, center-fire, magazine fed rifle. Nearly 30 years of trying (The first California Assault Weapons Ban was 1989) hasn't managed it yet.

The civilian M249 would be illegal in Ireland. Lawmakers had literally no difficulty achieving that.

In case it's not obvious, I'm not anti-firearm. I don't particular buy into the idea that certain "scary looking" rifles should be illegal. I also don't think firearms should feed into people Walter Mitty fantasies.

No, because the sustained rate of fire assumes the ability to reload (And in a mass shooting, it also likely has no stress on the shooter). Thus rate of fire becomes irrelevant when you don't have anything to reload with of any capacity. I don't sleep with a duty belt or web gear next to the bed. I strongly suspect most other folks who keep a firearms for protection don't either.

I'm pretty sure does.
You said increasing rate of time doesn't increase availability of targets. Which is true.
But then you pointed out the abysmal hit rate in high stress environments, as a justification for higher capacity mags as a means to hit more targets.

So wrong or right in moral principle, if you accept it'll not do any practical good, why bother? You're just annoying law-abiding folks without providing any particular impediment to those who feel like plotting to do a mass shooting.

Making something undesirable more difficult to obtain is always a plus. Even if is still obtainable for criminals. (example trying to take drugs off the street).
But the main reason, that you appear to be overlooking, is that by making all of these things available to civilians you normalize them. Why don't these incidents happen in other countries?
Anyone could get their hands on a legal firearm and 3D print a 50 round mag and a bump stock. Yet, it doesn't happen. Surely you see there massive difference is laws has led to a massive difference in attitudes.

Mellor

AbusesToilets wrote: »

What is at the root of your the reticence for allowing suppressors? I get the impression that peoples perceptions of them are coloured by movies etc and associate them with nefarious deeds.

The general public certainly are coloured by movies. I'm not.
I simply believe that society as a whole dis pretty stupid, and needs babysitting on a lot of issues.
I'm not against suppressors. If I was in Ireland (or the US) I would probably own one myself. But that doesn't mean I support the dipshit next-door's right to use a suppressor when he messes about with firearms.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The report from a suppressed rifle is in the region of ~130 decibels. Hardly quiet.

Depends on the rifle, the ammo, the caliber etc. This one is a lot quieter for example. And yes, I'm aware that's a 22LR


Do you understand how DBs values work? Im not being smart, most people don't understand. Most people would assume that 180 to 130 DBs was a reduction to 70-75%.
Which is completely wrong. DBs are a logarithmic scale. That means the 140 is ten-times 130, 150 is ten-times 140, and so on. So 180 is 100,000 times the power of 130. Or in terms of amplitude, a reduction from 100% to 0.3%

AbusesToilets

Mellor wrote: »

The general public certainly are coloured by movies. I'm not.
I simply believe that society as a whole dis pretty stupid, and needs babysitting on a lot of issues.
I'm not against suppressors. If I was in Ireland (or the US) I would probably own one myself. But that doesn't mean I support the dipshit next-door's right to use a suppressor when he messes about with firearms.




Depends on the rifle, the ammo, the caliber etc. This one is a lot quieter for example. And yes, I'm aware that's a 22LR


Do you understand how DBs values work? Im not being smart, most people don't understand. Most people would assume that 180 to 130 DBs was a reduction to 70-75%.
Which is completely wrong. DBs are a logarithmic scale. That means the 140 is ten-times 130, 150 is ten-times 140, and so on. So 180 is 100,000 times the power of 130. Or in terms of amplitude, a reduction from 100% to 0.3%

I'm pretty intimately familiar with suppressors and their manifold benefits. I don't see any great issue with them being available to the general public. It's not hard to fabricate one and as of yet, I'm not away of there being many instances of their use in a crime.

Mellor

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I'm pretty intimately familiar with suppressors and their manifold benefits. I don't see any great issue with them being available to the general public. It's not hard to fabricate one and as of yet, I'm not away of there being many instances of their use in a crime.

You ignored most of what I said tbh.
Is there anything in my post you disagree with

vetinari

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Depends on ammunition type, still not very quiet though.





I take it you're in favor of banning all these other items too?

Someone's hobby being responsible for 252 deaths is way more than should be socially acceptable. If 250 people were killed with Japanese Samurai swords in a year, they would be banned in an instant.

AbusesToilets

vetinari wrote: »

Someone's hobby being responsible for 252 deaths is way more than should be socially acceptable. If 250 people were killed with Japanese Samurai swords in a year, they would be banned in an instant.

And what of hammers? Twice as deadly seemingly.

AbusesToilets

Mellor wrote: »

You ignored most of what I said tbh.
Is there anything in my post you disagree with

Your position is confusing. You say you would prob own yourself, but not support someone else messing around with one?

What is the metric you would use to determine who could get one?

gimli2112

AbusesToilets wrote: »

And what of hammers? Twice as deadly seemingly.

I'd rather someone come at me with a hammer than an AK47.

AbusesToilets

gimli2112 wrote: »

I'd rather someone come at me with a hammer than an AK47.

I know your love of hammers

Hitman3000

gimli2112 wrote:

I'd rather someone come at me with a hammer than an AK47.

Slap a high tax on ammunition and an AK 47 becomes as much use as a hammer.

Mellor

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Your position is confusing. You say you would prob own yourself, but not support someone else messing around with one?

What part is confusing?
Firearms are inherently dangerous. I don't support anybody "messing around" with them in any capacity. Especially not by idle minded fantasists.

What is the metric you would use to determine who could get one?

As I said;

Mellor wrote: »

Suppressors should be availible to anyone that has a valid reason for one.

I'm honestly not sure where the difficulty is with that.

I'd also apply that logic to firearm ownership in general. I don't think it's in anyway controversial. People shouldn't get to own any gun they want just because it's exists. There should be a demonstratable reason for needing the firearm. Simple enough.

oscarBravo

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Depends on ammunition type, still not very quiet though.





I take it you're in favor of banning all these other items too?

While acknowledging that you're specifically talking about a hypothetical ban on rifles, that's a seriously misleading graphic right there.

Let's take the same source data and include all firearm-related murders:



Firearms accounted for 71% of murders in the USA in 2015.

I think it's a mistake to focus on bump stocks, or AR15s, or magazine sizes, or any of those other details. It allows the sort of deflection technique we've seen on this thread: arguing over the minutiae of whether or not a particular measure aimed at a particular type of firearm will or won't be effective.

The conversation needs to move away from the minutiae of particular types of weapon or accessories, and in one specific direction: the defenders of the status quo need to explain how they propose to fix America's gun violence problem. And yes: the onus is on them to explain that. They're the ones telling us that there's no connection between the fact that there are more guns than people in America and the insanely high gun murder rate for a developed society. They're the ones telling us that it would be an unforgivable intrusion on a law-abiding citizen's civil rights to require them to register the ownership and transfer of weapons. They're the ones telling us that it would be pointless introducing gun registration laws, because law-abiding citizens would ignore those laws - an interesting take on "law-abiding". They're the ones who don't see any issue with someone who can't yet legally buy alcohol having no problem buying a semi-automatic rifle.



None of which, of course, is going to happen. The USA is irredeemably broken. Gun rights advocates have basically accepted that school shootings and ten thousand gun murders a year are the price they're prepared to pay for the right to own the means to kill people.

There just isn't a rational conversation to be had.

AbusesToilets

Mellor wrote: »

What part is confusing?
Firearms are inherently dangerous. I don't support anybody "messing around" with them in any capacity. Especially not by idle minded fantasists.


As I said;


I'm honestly not sure where the difficulty is with that.

I'd also apply that logic to firearm ownership in general. I don't think it's in anyway controversial. People shouldn't get to own any gun they want just because it's exists. There should be a demonstratable reason for needing the firearm. Simple enough.

I like to shoot at the range, am I a fantastist? Are hunters the only ones with legitimate reason for one?

The 2nd provided for everyone to avail themselves of firearms. Do you think personal defense is a reasonable action?

GreeBo

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I like to shoot at the range, am I a fantastist? Are hunters the only ones with legitimate reason for one?

The 2nd provided for everyone to avail themselves of firearms. Do you think personal defense is a reasonable action?

Just because you like to do something doesn't mean you should be enabled to do it when/where ever you want.

listermint

You might not agree with it, You might think this fella is stupid or wasteful. Or you might think this is an ordinary guy who is standing by his convictions.

Whatever you think its quite powerful the questions he put out as they were personal to him.

Watch it through its matter of fact.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1993509594242800&id=100007513365065

Quin_Dub

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I like to shoot at the range, am I a fantastist? Are hunters the only ones with legitimate reason for one?

The 2nd provided for everyone to avail themselves of firearms. Do you think personal defense is a reasonable action?

That's really only been true in the last 25/30 years though..

The NRA successfully perverted the meaning of the 2nd amendment in recent decades

The Second Amendment to the Constitution says this: “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.” For most of U.S. history, that was understood to mean that the freedom guaranteed by the Second Amendment was precisely what it said: the right of the people of each state to maintain a well-regulated militia.

So clearly and unequivocally held was this worldview that no less a liberal squish than Richard Nixon Supreme Court appointee Warren Burger said after his retirement in 1991 that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word ‘fraud’—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” This reading was based on precedent.

The Supreme Court had clearly agreed with Burger’s interpretation and not that of the special interest groups he chastised, perhaps most famously in a 1939 case called U.S. v. Miller. That ruling said that since the possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” had no reasonable relationship to the “preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,” the court simply could not find that the Second Amendment guaranteed “the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Period, full stop. And that was the viewpoint adopted by the courts for years.

What changed? What changed things was a decades-long effort by exceptionally well-organized, well-funded interest groups that included the National Rifle Association—all of whom “embarked on an extraordinary campaign to convince the public, and eventually the courts, to understand the Second Amendment in their preferred way.” It’s rather miraculous, if you stop to think about it: In a few short decades the NRA’s view of the Second Amendment became the law of the land. By 2008, writing the majority opinion for the Supreme Court in District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, Antonin Scalia enshrined this view for first time that: “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.”

So - It's really only since the Heller case that the "right to bear arms" has meant "anyone can buy all sorts of guns"

Clearly NOT a coincidence is the fact that in the 10 years since Heller, there have been 12 Mass shootings resulting in the deaths of 270 people, whereas in the 10 years before that there were only (!!) 4 Mass shootings resulting in 68 deaths.

Of the 270 deaths in the last 10 years , 153 have happened in the last 2 years.

So - in the context of saving lives , which is more important, a recent (2008) interpretation on the 2nd Amendment giving everybody guns or the original, long held interpretation that it meant that States had to right to stand up (and regulate) their own Militias/Armies ??

Quotes above are from here

Mellor

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I like to shoot at the range, am I a fantastist? Are hunters the only ones with legitimate reason for one?

I've no idea if you are a fantasist, I know nothing about you. You could be I suppose, anyone could.
I said hunting was a valid reason, not the only reason btw.
Although, If you're shooting at a range, ear protection will do a much better job of protecting your hearing, if thats the goal.

The 2nd provided for everyone to avail themselves of firearms. Do you think personal defense is a reasonable action?

The second amendment was written over 200 years. Firearm technology has changed significantly. Do you think people have the right to own anti-aircraft guns and rocket launchers due to the 2nd. Of course not. Because it's necessary to draw a line somewhere.
As for personal defense, are you refering to supressors or firearms generally.
If you mean suppressors, then no I don't think it's really valid. For two reasons. If you need to defend against an intruder, it doesn't matter old loud the report is, if anything louder will alert more people that you are trouble. And also because if an incident arises you probably won't have time to fit a suppressor.

jem

this 2nd ammendment gives the right to bear arms. No hope of banning guns so.
Howabout banning the ammo. Then you have all these guns with nothing to fire with them.

Varik

Regulate means train. It's why standing armies at the time referred to the soldiers as regulars.

vetinari

AbusesToilets wrote: »

And what of hammers? Twice as deadly seemingly.

Again, if someone was collecting a certain type of hammer that was used only to kill people (say some type of antique war weapon) and 250 people were being killed by it's usage every year, then I would ban it. Not sure what's so hard to understand about my position.

Eric Cartman

vetinari wrote: »

Someone's hobby being responsible for 252 deaths is way more than should be socially acceptable. If 250 people were killed with Japanese Samurai swords in a year, they would be banned in an instant.

Its not just somebodys hobby, rifles are used for pest control and personal protection too.

Manic Moran

listermint wrote: »

You might not agree with it, You might think this fella is stupid or wasteful. Or you might think this is an ordinary guy who is standing by his convictions.

Whatever you think its quite powerful the questions he put out as they were personal to him.

Watch it through its matter of fact.

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1993509594242800&id=100007513365065

Well, it's only partially wasteful. I can have that AR shooting again in under a minute. He didn't destroy the receiver, which is the 'legal' part of the firearm. Pull two pins, swap out upper body, push the pins back in, continue shooting. (In the interests of financial economy, add twenty seconds to exchange the bolt carrier group and charging handle). For all we know, his barrel was worn out and he was going to swap it out next week anyway.

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, it's only partially wasteful. I can have that AR shooting again in under a minute. He didn't destroy the receiver, which is the 'legal' part of the firearm. Pull two pins, swap out upper body, push the pins back in, continue shooting. (In the interests of financial economy, add twenty seconds to exchange the bolt carrier group and charging handle). For all we know, his barrel was worn out and he was going to swap it out next week anyway.

I had someone try to argue with me for a good while that the whole thing was a plastic replica.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

listermint

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, it's only partially wasteful. I can have that AR shooting again in under a minute. He didn't destroy the receiver, which is the 'legal' part of the firearm. Pull two pins, swap out upper body, push the pins back in, continue shooting. (In the interests of financial economy, add twenty seconds to exchange the bolt carrier group and charging handle). For all we know, his barrel was worn out and he was going to swap it out next week anyway.

That's the message he wanted to send I'm sure.

Mellor

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, it's only partially wasteful. I can have that AR shooting again in under a minute. He didn't destroy the receiver, which is the 'legal' part of the firearm. Pull two pins, swap out upper body, push the pins back in, continue shooting. (In the interests of financial economy, add twenty seconds to exchange the bolt carrier group and charging handle). For all we know, his barrel was worn out and he was going to swap it out next week anyway.

The statement is about gun control, not an individual firearm. While it's possible that somebody could sacrifice a $200 barrel make a statement, rather than a $800 gun. I this case you are incorrect.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1994242224169537&set=p.1994242224169537&type=1&theater