Supreme Court overturns Handgun Ban

[Jarre]

I find that a difficult mentality to digest, the right to bare weapons.

There was a video on youtube where a bloke secretly filmed himself going to a gun fair and he easily bought 2 hand guns, an AK47, an M16 assault rifle and an RG (yes an RPG!!!)

[Caspian]

I find that a difficult mentality to digest, the right to bare weapons.

There was a video on youtube where a bloke secretly filmed himself going to a gun fair and he easily bought 2 hand guns, an AK47, an M16 assault rifle and an RG (yes an RPG!!!)

Gun shows are definately a different breed, and I'm still not sure how they're considered legal. And assault rifles are considered legal (I believe) if they've been mechanically altered to be semi-automatic.

[Feba]

Jarre: You know, bit of a gap between being freely able to procure military grade weapons and being able to go through some checks to get a firearm.

But I mean, quick look at the news... what's the last thing Britain banned? Oh, Martha Stewart? Yeah, real threat that. A country that controls too much is hardly better than one that controls too little.

[Cometgreen]

It's freakin unbelievable in that the Second Amendment does not apply to states or localities, just as none of the other Bill of Rights do (though DC is unique in this case, as it's not a state but still has certain non-fed powers). Though if they're going to ignore the Bill of Rights, at least the majority opinion recognized the meaning of the Second Amendment and voted for FREEEEEEEDOM!

Fixed. Bullet proof vests aren't that hard to come by. Criminals have a pistol, you buy a rifle; criminal buys a vest and a semi-auto, what are you going to invest in for your safety, an RPG?

Gangs are one thing (and that issue should be solved without looking at gun rights), but I think Neomage was referring to your run-of-the-mill baddie. Yes, someone consciously planning to take out his office may do something like buy body armor if he expects others are armed, but it's a stretch to think that muggers or carjackers are going to heavily invest in their crimes.

There's also the amount of gun injuries and deaths caused by people that simply do not know how to properly handle one and should not own one. Every time you've ever heard of one kid shooting another kid, for example. Those guns shouldn't have been left out where a kid could get them.

But of course that should not affect a responsible person from getting a gun, right? It's not my fault if some people are idiotic parents.

If you want to be safe from criminals, you'd be far better off investing in a Safe Room. Those can also serve alternate functions, such as storm and bomb shelters.

If I could carry a safe room with me in my pocket or a bag, then that would be an ideal alternative.

[WovenDarkness]

I'll donate gil to anybody here that can come up with the most quotes that America's founding fathers had to say about firearms. On a different topic, I've been meaning to ask Jarre about this seeing as he's a U.K. person. I've heard it told, and I'm looking for clarification on it, that in the U.K., when people break into a home to rob it, they would prefer that the homeowners be there, that way there is more loot to take. I can state that here in the U.S.A., criminals don't generally target homes for robbery when the homeowners are home, due to not wanting to get shot. What's the general rule of thumb over there?

[Feba]

but it's a stretch to think that muggers or carjackers are going to heavily invest in their crimes.

And I think it's a stretch that you need to use LETHAL FORCE against someone for robbery. And again, if someone is mugging you, how likely is it that pulling your gun is going to make them stop compared to making them attack you? Scaring criminals != good idea.

If I could carry a safe room with me in my pocket or a bag,

No, no, because you just said:

But of course that should not affect a responsible person from getting a gun, right? It's not my fault if some people are idiotic parents.

If you're carrying your gun with you everywhere, you are NOT BEING RESPONSIBLE WITH IT. If you leave it in your bag, you're leaving it IN AN AREA THAT ANYONE CAN GET TO EASILY; especially kids.

If you have your gun locked up, it's not doing you much more good than a panic room would.

Anyway, I was specifically referring to people owning guns that should not own them. You clearly fall into that group, as do most people that own guns. Do I think that responsible people, with training and psychological evaluations, cannot be trusted with guns? Nope. Guns aren't evil-- they're just stupid. There are no good reasons to have them outside of sport-- and there are plenty of good sports out there that don't require instruments of death.

[WovenDarkness]

There are no good reasons to have them outside of sport...

I have to disagree with this Feba. Personal safety is a great reason. I'll give you two examples:



1)A few years ago, a co-worker of mine unintentionally cut off someone that he didn't see in traffic. Even though he mouthed the words "I'm sorry about that" to the guy in the other vehicle, it didn't help much. The other guy was so pissed off that he tried getting my co-worker to pull over and fight him. My co-worker didn't like the odds of getting into a fist fight w/ a 300+ lbs Samoan guy, so he did his best to ignore it. After about 5 miles of the guy in the next lane threatening him, he reached under his seat and produced a .454 Casull. He didn't even point the gun at him, he just produced it, turn and faced the guy and shook his head from side to side in a "that wouldn't be a good idea" manner. The results? The 300+ lb. asshole decided to hit the breaks and get off at the next exit.




2)Approx. 2 weeks ago, a man in his early to mid-twenties arrived at my doorstep shortly after I went to work. My wife, knowing that nobody was home but her, and knowing that nobody was showing up for a visit that day, took a .40 caliber Glock to the door with her. She challenged the man on the other side of my door verbally. After each verbal challenge she issued, he knocked again. After the 3rd time challenging him verbally and him answering only with another knock, she chambered a round.....at which the man at my door left. When I got home and she told me about it, I stepped outside my door and had her chamber a round. The sound of the slide taking a round home was not to be mistaken and clearly audible. Someone could simply say that it was a door to door salesman or a crook. Either wouldn't matter. Neither would it matter if it was just a neighbor. If your intentions are honorable, you'll announce yourself. If not, you generally leave. I find it odd that when verbally challenged at the door, he chose to answer with a knock. Only when the slide was racked did he decide to leave. A salesman with pushy salesman tactics? Something worse? Totally benign? It doesn't matter. None of my loved ones had to find out the hard way. You said there are no good reasons. I've given you two of mine. You should amend you're statement to:



There are no good reasons for me to have them outside of sport...


After all, your previous statement was your opinion and not factual.

[Cometgreen]

And I think it's a stretch that you need to use LETHAL FORCE against someone for robbery. And again, if someone is mugging you, how likely is it that pulling your gun is going to make them stop compared to making them attack you? Scaring criminals != good idea.

Yes, my point is primarily that of the latter: making the person aware that you are armed. If the robber has a comparable weapon of his own, he may take his chances and continue. But the point of a robbery is to get the loot, not get shot. Which, as Woven pointed out above, is why criminals like to rob a house when it is empty. Please also remember that it is the victim's choice to carry the gun, and even then it is his choice to reveal the gun. How is this any different from an armless victim resisting a robber and getting stabbed/shot for his trouble? It's the victim's choice to fight back or bow down, whether or not he has a gun. But carrying a gun would certainly give the victim an advantage.

And again, just the idea that normal folk are packing heat is a pretty substantive deterrent. Using the most dramatic example possible: the 9/11 hijackers knew they could accomplish their goals because they knew no one, not even the pilots, would be carrying weapons. If it was common knowledge that airlines armed the pilots, the little ass hole who thought up the idea would have been laughed out of the room.

If you're carrying your gun with you everywhere, you are NOT BEING RESPONSIBLE WITH IT. If you leave it in your bag, you're leaving it IN AN AREA THAT ANYONE CAN GET TO EASILY; especially kids.

If you have your gun locked up, it's not doing you much more good than a panic room would.

Well sorry, I had no idea that taking a gun outside of your house was being careless. Am I not allowed to carry a knife either? I guess I shouldn't drive, as that kills way more people a year than gun fatalities, accidental and intentional combined.

Anyway, I was specifically referring to people owning guns that should not own them. You clearly fall into that group, as do most people that own guns.

I clearly should not own a gun because I trust that people won't go through my property? I would agree that it's irresponsible for someone to place a loaded gun in a bag and then leave the bag unattended, but I didn't say anything like that. Surely it's not presumptuous of me to believe that little kids won't come up to me and take my gun out of its holster/bag/pant and shoot themselves.

And I'm not a gun owner, at least not yet. And as I'm living in NYC, I probably won't be for a while. The closest thing I've gotten to even touching a firearm is a prop gun.

There are no good reasons to have them outside of sport-- and there are plenty of good sports out there that don't require instruments of death.

You know who found a pretty good use for guns outside of sport?



If you have 30 minutes to kill (OLOL kill lik wit da guns!), you may want to check out the gun control episode of Bullshit!. It's entertaining, if nothing else.

[WovenDarkness]

QFT.

[Malacite]

Exactly. If we outlaw guns, only outlaws would have guns(Who said that?). Alternatively, if everyone had a gun, criminals would be a lot more afraid to pull one because they know that then they would get shot.

Funny, in Japan it's illegal to own a weapon and yet they have the lowest crime rate in the world. And all you really had to do was ask whomever it was to vacate the premises or you'd call the cops.


There's a lot of argument over it, but personally I side with the belief that the second amendment refers specifically to the militia (which would make sense given the time at which it was written)

[WovenDarkness]

Gun shows are definately a different breed, and I'm still not sure how they're considered legal. And assault rifles are considered legal (I believe) if they've been mechanically altered to be semi-automatic.

You can own fully automatic weapons if you have an FFL.


FFLC


An assault weapon must be capable of selective fire. These, depending on weapon type have a couple of "modes" of fire. Usually "full auto" and "burst". Any weapon that doesn't mechanically allow you to select the type of fire isn't an assault weapon. Weapons that fire full auto are machine guns. These also require an FFL.

I'd be carefull about taking an assault weapon and parts swapping to produce the effects of a semi-auto. The reciever is still stamped for select mode fire, and while it only mechanically fires in said mode, it's stamped otherwise. Dumb but better safe than sorry, as there was a story I read somewhat recently about a guy who loned his AR-15(I think) to someone who took it to a range, whereupon it had a mechanical malfuntion that could have been repaired. Long story short, the rifle "hammer followed", local residents complained of "full auto" fire, he was charged in a federal court and convicted of transferring an assault weapon w/o the proper credentials. He's now a felon. The stupidity of this one amazes me.

[Akashimo]

There's a lot of argument over it, but personally I side with the belief that the second amendment refers specifically to the militia (which would make sense given the time at which it was written)

Its more to have people the freedom to arm themselves from the government if they needed to other throw it. What good would having the right to arms if the citizens can't get it?
What I'm getting at, is that lets say that suddenly the government decides to go dictatorship or some sort of crazy system that uses the military against its citizens, and gun laws were strict as possible before the power shift, how would the people be able to rise up against the power and regain control to abolish and reform? Tighter restrictions could lead to a bizarre out come like that.

[WovenDarkness]

Funny, in Japan it's illegal to own a weapon and yet they have the lowest crime rate in the world. And all you really had to do was ask whomever it was to vacate the premises or you'd call the cops.


There's a lot of argument over it, but personally I side with the belief that the second amendment refers specifically to the militia (which would make sense given the time at which it was written)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Japan, the only armed people are the police(not verified). If your really stupid over there and don't cooperate, don't you stand the chance of getting shot by the police, then taken into custody, and tried? You know, if that's the case, hell, I'd do exactly as I was told.

[Empedocles]

-produced a .454 Casull. He didn't even point the gun at him,-

A little point - the casull is a type of cartridge, not a firearm.

[Malacite]

Its more to have people the freedom to arm themselves from the government if they needed to other throw it. What good would having the right to arms if the citizens can't get it?
What I'm getting at, is that lets say that suddenly the government decides to go dictatorship or some sort of crazy system that uses the military against its citizens, and gun laws were strict as possible before the power shift, how would the people be able to rise up against the power and regain control to abolish and reform? Tighter restrictions could lead to a bizarre out come like that.

Except that can not and will not ever happen. It's a little thing the founding fathers liked to call "Checks and Balances." (Granted, Bush has literally gotten away with murder but I PRAY the U.S. will never see such a stupid and dangerous man take office ever again)


And what kind of ignorant argument was that Woven? Yes, the police are the only ones with guns (and only when on duty) but that doesn't mean they can suddenly tell everyone to do whatever they want.