Gun Control in the US

Hitman3000

AbusesToilets wrote:

What's your objection to them? They reduce the report of a gun's report approx 30 decibels, from near instant hearing damage to more moderate levels. 130ish decibels is still loud AF. Their use is considered good manners in most European countries.

My objection is they are unnecessary, and the suppressor does not just reduce the report by 30 decibels. The louder the report the better gives potential victims a chance of survival. Ear protection would negate your hearing worries so still not necessary. In European countries we don't have anything approaching the level of slaughter in America. You still haven't given a valid reason for unrestricted availability.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

If your case is that the citizenry needs to be armed in order to resist tyranny, shouldn't they be allowed own fully automatic weapons , grenade launchers, flamethrowers, tanks, F-15s and so on? The government forces have them, surely a level playing field is needed.

Well, citizens can own most of those things, if they want to go thru the mountains of paperwork and tens of thousands of dollars. Not too dissimilar to government themselves.

AbusesToilets

Hitman3000 wrote: »

My objection is they are unnecessary, and the suppressor does not just reduce the report by 30 decibels. The louder the report the better gives potential victims a chance of survival. Ear protection would negate your hearing worries so still not necessary. In European countries we don't have anything approaching the level of slaughter in America. You still haven't given a valid reason for unrestricted availability.

You don't think 130 decibels is loud? Your argument is more of the same illogical, fear mongering wooly thinking that informs most of the anti-gun side. You feel they are unnecessary, but many shooters would disagree.

Hitman3000

AbusesToilets wrote:

You don't think 130 decibels is loud? Your argument is more of the same illogical, fear mongering wooly thinking that informs most of the anti-gun side. You feel they are unnecessary, but many shooters would disagree.

The suggestion of a straight 30 decibel reduction has already been answered on this thread and it was answered directly to you. It does not work the way you are trying to suggest.
Again why are they necessary, you still refuse to answer.

Chiparus

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.

Social drinking in Ireland is responsible for hundreds of deaths , domestic violence incidents , assaults , abuse etc

Imagine suggesting banning alcohol in Ireland - the culture is quite analogous.

weisses

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You don't think 130 decibels is loud? Your argument is more of the same illogical, fear mongering wooly thinking that informs most of the anti-gun side. You feel they are unnecessary, but many shooters would disagree.

Isn't that the practice used to sell guns ?

Fear is the predominant state of mind carefully spoon fed in peoples minds across the whole of American society

Fear is what you drives you to buy guns (for self protection)

Fear is what was used to push through the patriot act

Fear sells

Chiparus

Brian? wrote: »

If your case is that the citizenry needs to be armed in order to resist tyranny, shouldn't they be allowed own fully automatic weapons , grenade launchers, flamethrowers, tanks, F-15s and so on? The government forces have them, surely a level playing field is needed.

I think you can legally own all these under 2nd ammendment rights.

weisses

Chiparus wrote: »

Social drinking in Ireland is responsible for hundreds of deaths , domestic violence incidents , assaults , abuse etc

Imagine suggesting banning alcohol in Ireland - the culture is quite analogous.

If I would have told you 20 years ago that smoking would be banned in pubs you would have probably called me delusional

Hitman3000

Chiparus wrote:

Social drinking in Ireland is responsible for hundreds of deaths , domestic violence incidents , assaults , abuse etc

A person doesn't rock up to a school in Ireland and kill 17 kids with a pint of Guinness.

Chiparus

Hitman3000 wrote: »

What reasoning is behind your logic for a civilian to be allowed have a suppressor?

Hearing protection, it is actually a requirement if you shoot on state forests in the UK.

You still can hear them hundreds of yards away , as most of the noise comes from the bullet travelling faster than sound.

AbusesToilets

Hitman3000 wrote: »

The suggestion of a straight 30 decibel reduction has already been answered on this thread and it was answered directly to you. It does not work the way you are trying to suggest.
Again why are they necessary, you still refuse to answer.

Spoken like someone who has no frame of reference or experience to back up their assertions. Simply because the reduction is logarithmic as opposed to linear, does not mean 130db isn't still extremely loud.

Leroy42

So now we have gun owners complaining that guns are too loud! Wow.

Hitman3000

AbusesToilets wrote:

Spoken like someone who has no frame of reference or experience to back up their assertions. Simply because the reduction is logarithmic as opposed to linear, does not mean 130db isn't still extremely loud.

Actually 13 years in the military never used a suppressor hearing protection yes, you still haven't answered my question. Any chance you will ?

Hitman3000

Leroy42 wrote:

So now we have gun owners complaining that guns are too loud! Wow.

Hilarious isn't it?

spacecoyote

Chiparus wrote: »

Social drinking in Ireland is responsible for hundreds of deaths , domestic violence incidents , assaults , abuse etc

Imagine suggesting banning alcohol in Ireland - the culture is quite analogous.

How is this even slightly analogous?

Alcohol may cause death & injury, but it's not a weapon created for the purposes of causing injury or death.

That's like saying we should ban cars because numerous people are killed in car crashes.

NIMAN

spacecoyote wrote: »

How is this even slightly analogous?

Alcohol may cause death & injury, but it's not a weapon created for the purposes of causing injury or death.

That's like saying we should ban cars because numerous people are killed in car crashes.

Get outta here with your logical thoughts!

Don't you know gun owners and advocates don't like logic.

jobbridge4life

spacecoyote wrote: »

How is this even slightly analogous?

Alcohol may cause death & injury, but it's not a weapon created for the purposes of causing injury or death.

That's like saying we should ban cars because numerous people are killed in car crashes.

Not to mention that our alcohol laws are increasingly more onerous than US regulation of firearms.

dr.fuzzenstein

AbusesToilets wrote: »

What's your objection to them? They reduce the report of a gun's report approx 30 decibels, from near instant hearing damage to more moderate levels. 130ish decibels is still loud AF. Their use is considered good manners in most European countries.

Civilians are already allowed to have them, they have to go thru meaningless layers of bureaucracy to do so.

Silencers are considered good manners in Europe? You must mean that other Europe, where everyone carries a gun.
In this Europe you wouldn't have a gun, let alone a silencer.
But from what a lot of Yanks comment, it looks like you guys are pretty happy to have your mass shootings and consider them a small price to be able to own a gun. Not that it ever does anyone any good at the next mass shooting, because all those fearless gun heroes that claim that only gun violence prevents gun violence never seem to be anywhere near or be able to do anything about them. Or the accidental gun deaths, small price to lose the odd friend and family member as long as you can own a gun.
And the "defence against a corrupt state" argument?
Purleaase! You don't like what the President does? Sure, draw your gun and charge the white house. Be sure to let us know how you get on and how dead you are.

AbusesToilets

Hitman3000 wrote: »

Actually 13 years in the military never used a suppressor hearing protection yes, you still haven't answered my question. Any chance you will ?

Thanks for confirming that then. I did answer your question, the fact you don't like it is your business. They reduce the report of a gunshot from instant, permanently damaging levels, to more ear safe ones. They also have the benefit of increased muzzle velocity, which can be useful for long gun shooting.

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Well, citizens can own most of those things, if they want to go thru the mountains of paperwork and tens of thousands of dollars. Not too dissimilar to government themselves.

You support their restriction though?

It seems to me that your argument for an armed citizenry to resist tyranny doesn’t really hold up if it’s taken to it’s logical conclusion.

Brian?

Chiparus wrote: »

I think you can legally own all these under 2nd ammendment rights.

They are restricted. They are subject to regulations a 9mm Glock isn’t.

Abusestoilets maintains a well armed citizenry is needed to resist tyranny. By this logic we should allow unrestricted access to all weaponry.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

They are restricted. They are subject to regulations a 9mm Glock isn’t.

Abusestoilets maintains a well armed citizenry is needed to resist tyranny. By this logic we should allow unrestricted access to all weaponry.

No right, as others have been quick to point out in this thread , is limitless. 1st Amendment being a prime example.

Leroy42

AbusesToilets wrote: »

No right, as others have been quick to point out in this thread , is limitless. 1st Amendment being a prime example.

Right, so ex convicts can have their 2nd amendments rights refused. The mentally ill (which is such a wide area it staggers me that the NRA have used this as it could cover anything).

So you accept that the 2nd doesn't give you free reign on anything, so we are down to where that line is.

I would argue that anything other than a handgun, with limited calibre and limited magazine size should be enough.

On what basis do you think the line should be higher? and why is there a line at all? If guns are good why not let everyone have one?

dr.fuzzenstein

Brian? wrote: »

You support their restriction though?

It seems to me that your argument for an armed citizenry to resist tyranny doesn’t really hold up if it’s taken to it’s logical conclusion.

The "armed citizen to resist tyranny" argument is bollocks of the highest order.
What chance do even thousands of disgruntled Americans have against even the police force?
None.
What chance do they have against the military?
Less than none.
Pointless bravado talk by keyboard warriors that would lay down their weapon and soil their underwear (and not necessarily in that order) in less than a second if the going got tough and they were faced with some real firepower.
It's their equivalent of pub talk.
That's why, as an argument to keep their weapons it can safely be discounted as nonsensical gibberish.

AbusesToilets

Leroy42 wrote: »

Right, so ex convicts can have their 2nd amendments rights refused. The mentally ill (which is such a wide area it staggers me that the NRA have used this as it could cover anything).

So you accept that the 2nd doesn't give you free reign on anything, so we are down to where that line is.

I would argue that anything other than a handgun, with limited calibre and limited magazine size should be enough.

On what basis do you think the line should be higher? and why is there a line at all? If guns are good why not let everyone have one?

I feel the line is pretty well grounded at the moment, bar the changes that I mentioned earlier.

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

No right, as others have been quick to point out in this thread , is limitless. 1st Amendment being a prime example.

I agree, absolutely.

So now we're agreed on that, do you agree that resisting tyranny can be dropped as reason for gun ownership?

Chiparus

Hitman3000 wrote: »

A person doesn't rock up to a school in Ireland and kill 17 kids with a pint of Guinness.

Innocent children are killed by drink driving.

Chiparus

Leroy42 wrote: »

So now we have gun owners complaining that guns are too loud! Wow.

Like our army.

Chiparus

spacecoyote wrote: »

How is this even slightly analogous?

Alcohol may cause death & injury, but it's not a weapon created for the purposes of causing injury or death.

That's like saying we should ban cars because numerous people are killed in car crashes.

The culture is analogous.

If you suggest bannning alcohol because of the 3 people killed every day from its use , you would have howls of protest about personal liberty being infringed.

AbusesToilets

Brian? wrote: »

I agree, absolutely.

So now we're agreed on that, do you agree that resisting tyranny can be dropped as reason for gun ownership?

Sure don't, but I understand why you would.

briany

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

The "armed citizen to resist tyranny" argument is bollocks of the highest order.
What chance do even thousands of disgruntled Americans have against even the police force?
None.
What chance do they have against the military?
Less than none.
Pointless bravado talk by keyboard warriors that would lay down their weapon and soil their underwear (and not necessarily in that order) in less than a second if the going got tough and they were faced with some real firepower.
It's their equivalent of pub talk.
That's why, as an argument to keep their weapons it can safely be discounted as nonsensical gibberish.

If a militia type group were ever to face the full might of the U.S. army, they probably wouldn't even see a soldier, much less engage with one. Instead they'd find themselves the hapless victims of drones, helicopters, snipers, tanks, artillery and armoured vehicles. All kinds of fun toys that the U.S. military can use to mete out a quick death, and beyond the capability of Mr. Militia to likewise obtain or defend himself from.

But it's been said before that the discontent it would cause among U.S. troops to be ordered to fire upon their own citizens is the real thing that would save the people, not their guns.

Hitman3000

AbusesToilets wrote:

Thanks for confirming that then. I did answer your question, the fact you don't like it is your business. They reduce the report of a gunshot from instant, permanently damaging levels, to more ear safe ones. They also have the benefit of increased muzzle velocity, which can be useful for long gun shooting.

You didn't and still haven't. I won't ask as clearly you have no idea how to justify civilians having suppressors. Hearing protection is sufficient, 13 years using guns hearing is prefect all down to proper ear defenders.

Hitman3000

Chiparus wrote:

Innocent children are killed by drink driving.

They are also killed in many other ways. This thread however is about guns. Maybe start a thread on alcohol abuse?

dr.fuzzenstein

Hitman3000 wrote: »

You didn't and still haven't. I won't ask as clearly you have no idea how to justify civilians having suppressors. Hearing protection is sufficient, 13 years using guns hearing is prefect all down to proper ear defenders.

Exactly. So the militia argument is nonsensical and the silencer argument even more so.
I shot rifles, machine guns, handguns and an Uzi.
Always used earplugs, no silencers of any type and that was with the German army.

So, militia argument, dead in the water, silencer argument dead in the water.
Mr Bathroom abuser knows that, which is why there has been deafening silence from him.
I ask again, would you, Mr Toilet, draw your gun and storm your local government agency to force them to drop a law you don't like.
Yeah, didn't think so.
Just be sure to use a silencer to be polite. :rolleyes:

ArthurDayne

Chiparus wrote: »

The culture is analogous.

If you suggest bannning alcohol because of the 3 people killed every day from its use , you would have howls of protest about personal liberty being infringed.

The only analogous aspect of the two matters is that a lot of people in both the USA and Ireland share a sense of denial over the issues of gun violence and alcoholism. Beyond that it simply isn't analogous at all.

You will often see how people deliberately exclude the number of gun suicides in the USA from the total tally of gun deaths. While there is of course an argument to be made about guns making suicide somewhat easy, there is also a rational acknowledgement that suicide ultimately is self-inflicted. It's still a horrifying problem of course, but self-inflicted nonetheless.

In a similar vein, when one drinks alcohol, the direct effect of that alcohol is on the person taking it. They are taking a decision to drink alcohol and, in the event they decide to overindulge, they are deciding to damage their own body. In an alternate universe, if alcohol was found to give people toxic breath which could kill a dozen people in a matter of seconds, I do not believe Irish society would be slow to call for a clampdown. We all acknowledge the indirect effects of alcohol -- as we acknowledge the indirect effects of a great many other things, from poor diets to work-induced stress.

Take smoking as a different example, where the effect can directly have an effect on the health of others; we banned it from public buildings. A perfectly proportionate response which helps to protect the public from being directly affected by people smoking, while smokers themselves are still able to smoke away outside and at home. It is a question for them whether they wish to subject their cohabitants or families to their fumes but, from my own experience in life, smokers do tend to 'take it outside' or even to an open window these days.

These are incremental and proportionate steps towards trying to address an issue. Does Ireland have a problem with alcohol? Yes. Are Irish people emphatically entrenched in an ideology that says absolutely not a damn thing should be done about that problem? No. The point is though, nobody is going to kill me by spraying Guinness at me from a water pistol, nor is anyone going to able to wipe out a classroom full of kids with a cigarette.

Brian?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Sure don't, but I understand why you would.

I don't understand.

Leroy42

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I feel the line is pretty well grounded at the moment, bar the changes that I mentioned earlier.

Thats fine, because it suits what you want.

But why has the line come down as it has. If you are open to restrictions to other people then why not you.

Why not on the size of the gun. 2nd says nothing about that.
Why not the number of the gun. Same
Why not the capacity of the gun. Same
Etc, etc.

So even you can agree that the 2nd amendment doesn't cover unlimited weapons, but it has been interpreted that way as it suits people to do it that way.

One gun, with one bullet per person is totally compatible with the 2nd amendment. It says nothing about hunting, target practice or whatever.

Ans if you accept that the government can restrict access based on convictions or mental health and age, then why not on eyesight, or attitude, or sheriffs say so.

Chiparus

ArthurDayne wrote: »

The only analogous aspect of the two matters is that a lot of people in both the USA and Ireland share a sense of denial over the issues of gun violence and alcoholism. Beyond that it simply isn't analogous at all.

You will often see how people deliberately exclude the number of gun suicides in the USA from the total tally of gun deaths. While there is of course an argument to be made about guns making suicide somewhat easy, there is also a rational acknowledgement that suicide ultimately is self-inflicted. It's still a horrifying problem of course, but self-inflicted nonetheless.

In a similar vein, when one drinks alcohol, the direct effect of that alcohol is on the person taking it. They are taking a decision to drink alcohol and, in the event they decide to overindulge, they are deciding to damage their own body. In an alternate universe, if alcohol was found to give people toxic breath which could kill a dozen people in a matter of seconds, I do not believe Irish society would be slow to call for a clampdown. We all acknowledge the indirect effects of alcohol -- as we acknowledge the indirect effects of a great many other things, from poor diets to work-induced stress.

Take smoking as a different example, where the effect can directly have an effect on the health of others; we banned it from public buildings. A perfectly proportionate response which helps to protect the public from being directly affected by people smoking, while smokers themselves are still able to smoke away outside and at home. It is a question for them whether they wish to subject their cohabitants or families to their fumes but, from my own experience in life, smokers do tend to 'take it outside' or even to an open window these days.

These are incremental and proportionate steps towards trying to address an issue. Does Ireland have a problem with alcohol? Yes. Are Irish people emphatically entrenched in an ideology that says absolutely not a damn thing should be done about that problem? No. The point is though, nobody is going to kill me by spraying Guinness at me from a water pistol, nor is anyone going to able to wipe out a classroom full of kids with a cigarette.

Just as there are drinkers who feel we have a real problem with alcohol, there are gun owners in the US who feel someting must be done to limit the availability of assault weapons , we also have some in Ireland who believe alcohol is too restricted .

There is an attitude to alcohol in our society by many that sees it as part of our culture.

Chiparus

Hitman3000 wrote: »

They are also killed in many other ways. This thread however is about guns. Maybe start a thread on alcohol abuse?

I am saying is that understanding some americans attitude to guns despite the dreadful trauma and suffering this causes, we can compare it to our attitude to alcohol, which we need to do something about.

AbusesToilets

Hitman3000 wrote: »

You didn't and still haven't. I won't ask as clearly you have no idea how to justify civilians having suppressors. Hearing protection is sufficient, 13 years using guns hearing is prefect all down to proper ear defenders.

Except for the pesky part where civilians can and do own them on the regular. I want to remove the rather pointless hassle of going thru extra paperwork to do so.

Just as with rifles, despite the large numbers of them in circulation, they don't feature in any significant fashion with respect to the annual deaths totals. You will of course, continue to act as though they pose some immediate risk school children everywhere.

dr.fuzzenstein

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Except for the pesky part where civilians can and do own them on the regular. I want to remove the rather pointless hassle of going thru extra paperwork to do so.

Just as with rifles, despite the large numbers of them in circulation, they don't feature in any significant fashion with respect to the annual deaths totals. You will of course, continue to act as though they pose some immediate risk school children everywhere.

Still avoiding the militia question, eh?
As for silencers, I refer to my earlier posts which you also dodge.
Of course a hearty and witty repartee cannot be forthcoming when there is no grounds to base same on.

Manic Moran

Chiparus wrote: »

I think you can legally own all these under 2nd ammendment rights.

No, but they are generally legally ownable as a privilige. The 2nd generally is held only to apply to weapons which one can bear. It's kindof hard for someone to 'bear' a 35-ton tank.

However, under the appropriate regulations and checks, etc, it is legal to own functioning tanks. Owning armed aircraft, however, falls under a different regulation, the FAA has prohibited those excepting for industry use.

On the issue of moderators, (suppressors), they are now being more actively sought by hunters as the current generation increases accuracy in addition to lowering the noise levels a tad.

Silencers are considered good manners in Europe? You must mean that other Europe, where everyone carries a gun.
In this Europe you wouldn't have a gun, let alone a silencer.

Well....
Europeans turn to weapons in growing numbers
Czechs take legal action against EU over proposed firearms restrictions

As for moderators, it depends on where you are in europe. Some places the use of a moderator is mandatory. Some places they are merely over-the-counter purchases available for your use at your discretion. Other places, they are effectively banned. There is no European (or global, for that matter) consensus on the matter.

AbusesToilets

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Still avoiding the militia question, eh?
As for silencers, I refer to my earlier posts which you also dodge.
Of course a hearty and witty repartee cannot be forthcoming when there is no grounds to base same on.

What question was that? You said you shot guns without suppressors, something something militias?

Did you have a coherent point to make? The concept of a militia as it pertains to the 2nd considers every able bodied adult to be member of the militia.

dr.fuzzenstein

AbusesToilets wrote: »

What question was that? You said you shot guns without suppressors, something something militias?

Did you have a coherent point to make? The concept of a militia as it pertains to the 2nd considers every able bodied adult to be member of the militia.

The point you made a few pages back.
Be allowed to bear arms in defense against a corrupt government.
How is that going to work? Will you march up.to the White House and pull a gun on Trump?
I consistently asked this question and you consistently ignore it.
Because that argument is horsesh*t and you know it.

AbusesToilets

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

The point you made a few pages back.
Be allowed to bear arms in defense against a corrupt government.
How is that going to work? Will you march up.to the White House and pull a gun on Trump?
I consistently asked this question and you consistently ignore it.
Because that argument is horsesh*t and you know it.

Well I imagine it would take a form similar to what is occurring a number of other countries that are currently engaged in such actions, throughout the Middle East for example. Or perhaps it would be similar to the battle of Athens, for a more US specific example.

Perhaps you ought to have paid more attention to this thread, as that was a point I've already addressed.

Also, do you accept that interpretation of the concept of the Militia, as it pertains to the US?

weisses

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Well I imagine it would take a form similar to what is occurring a number of other countries that are currently engaged in such actions, throughout the Middle East for example.

How is the situation in the ME in any way comparable to the US ?

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Or perhaps it would be similar to the battle of Athens, for a more US specific example.

That situation could have been dealt with without the use of guns and is something that wouldn't be allowed to happen in this day and age

The American concept of militia to me is one of overweight predominantly white men with delusional ideas on how the world is gonna end ... probably have Alex jones on speed dial

If they think they can take on the "tyrannical government" by confronting them with armed force they better think again

Its just a front for insecure people full of fear

dr.fuzzenstein

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Well I imagine it would take a form similar to what is occurring a number of other countries that are currently engaged in such actions, throughout the Middle East for example. Or perhaps it would be similar to the battle of Athens, for a more US specific example.

Perhaps you ought to have paid more attention to this thread, as that was a point I've already addressed.

Also, do you accept that interpretation of the concept of the Militia, as it pertains to the US?

Battle of Athens, had to read up on that, holy crap!
I would expect that in Irak or Syria, but not 20th century USA.
But even the GI's will admit:

The Non-Partisan GI Political League had replied to inquires by veterans elsewhere in the United States with the advice that shooting it out was not the most desirable solution to political problems.

Also, what would you expect would happen today if a local government building was besieged by a local, armed militia?
Maybe it is the way in the US. You can't resolve your differences peacefully, so you grab a gun and who stands last, is right.

GreeBo

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Thanks for confirming that then. I did answer your question, the fact you don't like it is your business. They reduce the report of a gunshot from instant, permanently damaging levels, to more ear safe ones. They also have the benefit of increased muzzle velocity, which can be useful for long gun shooting.

Here's a mad idea...if using your gun is causing you hearing loss.....dont use it?

Leroy42

What is the law in regards to threating a person with a firearm (legally held).

In terms of the arming teachers, would a teacher be open to being sued if they pulled the gun out to scare a kid for example?

Brian?

Leroy42 wrote: »

What is the law in regards to threating a person with a firearm (legally held).

In terms of the arming teachers, would a teacher be open to being sued if they pulled the gun out to scare a kid for example?

At the least they could be charged with is reckless endangerment, but it would vary state by state.