Controversial Discussion - Guns

[Alexandra]

I heard a really interesting radio program on the way to work this morning.

Question #1They wanted someone to provide a reason as to why owning a semi - automatic assault rifle was necessary and in what scenario it could be used efficiently for good (and other means of protection would not work, glock, etc...)

Not trying to open a can of worms, but this did get me thinking and I couldn't answer it.

Since this is a forum of extremely smart men (and a few extremely smart girlies , I thought I'd see if anyone wants to chime in.

RULE - must answer the question as stated...no digressing

Question #2 - Should folks with mental disabilities, aspergers, autism, mental illness be taught to shoot gun for any reason?

 

[orion949]

Oooh! Let me be first Alex!

1) The Second 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.

Our founding fathers created the second amendment with the idea that every citizen should be armed in similar fashion to a soldier in order that, if needed, they can be organized and called upon to fight a war. (yes, even a Revolution if it comes to that.)

Soldiers carry Assault Rifles, every citizen who chooses to be at the ready to contribute to the Militia in defense of freedom should be armed in similar fashion.

2) NO! Just like we dont let 12 year olds have a drivers license simply based on their mental maturity. (even tho I have seen 30 year olds acting like 12 year olds)
Convicted criminals, the mentally insane/unstable, children, and Democrats should not be allowed to own firearms!

 

[Alexandra]

Oooh! Let me be first Alex!

1) The Second 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.

Our founding fathers created the second amendment with the idea that every citizen should be armed in similar fashion to a soldier in order that, if needed, they can be organized and called upon to fight a war. (yes, even a Revolution if it comes to that.)

Soldiers carry Assault Rifles, every citizen who chooses to be at the ready to contribute to the Militia in defense of freedom should be armed in similar fashion.

Keeping in mind those times, they didn't quite have the fire power we have now. With that said, what might be a scenario that we'd actually benefit from a semi-automatic assault rifle versus a normal handgun?
2) NO! Just like we dont let 12 year olds have a drivers license simply based on their mental maturity. (even tho I have seen 30 year olds acting like 12 year olds)
Convicted criminals, the mentally insane/unstable, children, and Democrats should not be allowed to own firearms!

Should parents who take thir mentally unstable child to gun range be fined?

 

[SiegeTank]

I heard a really interesting radio program on the way to work this morning.

Question #1They wanted someone to provide a reason as to why owning a semi - automatic assault rifle was necessary and in what scenario it could be used efficiently for good (and other means of protection would not work, glock, etc...)

Necessary and "used for good" in the event that the country's armed forces are turned against its citizens by a dictator, despot, etc.


Question #2 - Should folks with mental disabilities, aspergers, autism, mental illness be taught to shoot gun for any reason?

Mental illness is a spectrum of disorders, eh? To some extent, we all suffer from some degree of "mental disorder." I'd be less concerned about being taught to shoot guns than to have access to guns. Even a blithering idiot can figure out PDQ how to work a pistol. Where this mother screwed up, at the cost of her life and that of 26 other innocents, was not having her firearms locked up in a manner which her son could not circumvent. Which no doubt is the law in Connecticut, I bet. If she had lived, I guarantee you she would have been sued, if not prosecuted. As it is, her estate is liable for HUGE judgements against it, I have no doubt.

 

[twizzops]

Answer 1

I did 4 years in the marines and the only weapon that I used was a M16A2 service rifle. With that said, I am most proficient with assault rifles (4 year expert). The AR15 comes very close, as really only the barrel is shorter.

The only reason I would want an assault rifle over a hand gun, shot gun, or standard rifle would be to take down multiple targets from a distance of 50 yards or more. For home defense I can't think of many scenarios in the US that I would ever need one. In my personal opinion, a tactical shotgun is superior in almost every way, which I own 2 of.

The only way that I would need an assault rifle would be (and these are very far fetched).
1. Someone with an assault rifle starts shooting up my neighborhood. (Fight fire with fire I guess).
2. Violent mob riot, similar, but worse to the ones out in Oakland several years ago. Something like Greece maybe (I live in the suburbs, but you never know if the dollar truly crashes).
3. A super power country like China or Russia invades. In Switzerland, every citizen serves and then maintains their military service weapons after service. This along with the terrain kept them safe during both World Wars.
4. Zombie Apocalypse or Alien Invasion ( Too many movies and not really a serious answer, however rewind 100 years and if you talked about flying, space, television, the internet, etc you would be crazy then too).

My problem with the government is that it's slippery slope. You give one thing, like assault weapons, and then it's hand guns and shotguns. I wouldn't lose any sleep if they outlawed the sale again and I would just purchase about 10 of them and sell them for x5 the amount legally at gun shows.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Answer 2

I am not that familiar with all of the possible mental disabilities, but the majority of these shooting are usually from people with "metal illness", according to the news anyways.

Seung-Hui Cho (The Virgina Tech shooter) Eric Harris/Dyland Klebold (Columbine shooters), Nidal Malik Hasan (Foot Hood shooter) and Jared Loughner (Tucson) all had histories of mental illness requiring medication and scheduled meeting with psychiatrists. None of them used assault weapons and still killed countless people because they were the only ones with weapons. Why they had weapons is different with each tragic shooting. The fact is even if all weapons were outlawed, there would still be an active black market for them, much like drugs.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The common problem is even a hand gun can kill 20+ people when the shooter is the only one with a weapon. When you are waiting on the police to arrive, because you have no weapon of your own, you will be driven away in a body bag or ambulance at best.

 

[twizzops]

Necessary and "used for good" in the event that the country's armed forces are turned against its citizens by a dictator, despot, etc.

Countries turn their military on their citizens all the time. The civil war was only 150 or so years ago. I probably should have have used this reason in my list, as I was thinking it, but didn't want to reveal my paranoia about our government and how many of our rights we lose with each election.

 

[Thatatos]

Guns

Ok here goes, first post ever here. Let me start by saying I live in California (Second hardest on gun owners in the United States as far as I know. Think New York is worse.) Have to also say I don't personally own any AR-15 style rifles. I do own a 50 BMG that here in this states is considered an assault weapon. Still can't understand why that was done. There has NEVER mind you NEVER been a crime here committed with a 50 BMG. Lets face it you not going to grab your 50 pound gun to go rob something. That does not even take into account the size. As for personal defense, well my choice is a pistol. Glock more often than not. I have a CCW so well....(Canceled weapon permit for those that don't know what that is) Shot gun just does not seem a good choice to me. Mostly, the spread is bothersome. Lets face it if there was ever a time that is had to be used, would anyone really want to fire one with the chance the spread would hit a loved one? But then I practice. As for owning a semi auto assault style gun, There are competitions with them all over the country. As there is for 50 BMG's. Heck winning one I'd consider "good"!

Can't speak for most states but I know here schools have school police. I've personally never understood why they are not armed. I'd think it would at least limit things like what happened last week if a well trained officer was armed.

Again at least here in California most police cars now have an AR or an MP5. I see that as "good" as well. But then I am a legal gun owner that wouldn't do anything that might give a reason to take my gun right away.

Just my 2cp.

 

[SiegeTank]

The argument against arming school guards---or teachers, for that matter---is that it means more guns would be available in the hands of more people who could themselves "go nuts" and use the weapons right at hand to slaughter other people.

Whether it's a valid argument or not is open to debate.

But consider in England basically no private citizens can carry guns and the British murder rate is 1/40 (that's ONE-FORTIETH) of that in the USA. British cops don't normally carry guns and they are killed much LESS frequently than American law enforcement officers.

Ok, England isn't the USA but neither is it the uniform society of decades ago; the British have seen an enormous wave of immigration just like we have in America.

Problem about this Connecticut shooting is it's really not a good measuring stick because it could have been avoided simply by this woman locking up her guns and making sure her obviously disturbed son didn't have access to her legally owned weapons. This kid doesn't sound like he would have had the "social skills" to go find himself an illegal weapon and train himself to use it on his own. The woman was the first victim so people are trying to avoid pointing the finger at her.

The real problem is if a reasonably intelligent but sufficiently disturbed person wants to get their hands on guns and ammo and then slaughter a bunch of people in a public place, it's damn hard to prevent that crime without a complete overhaul of gun control in this country and NONE of the damn politicians have the guts or cojones to implement such wrenching changes. That's my opinion, for what it's worth.

 

[JimJohnson]

Can't speak for most states but I know here schools have school police. I've personally never understood why they are not armed. I'd think it would at least limit things like what happened last week if a well trained officer was armed.

After I think some I will actually respond to the Original post but this one just pointing out side thought.

You do realize if you put Armed Guards at your school you are basically making them prisoners. At that point you are infringing on other civil liberties. If you have to take away rights to give the illusion of safety, you are going about it the wrong way.

The laws are not the issue. We as a people are the issue.


Also our educational system gets shit for cash now... How you going to justify spending $20+ an hour for armed guards for each and every school?

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Hand guns are to get to your rifles. As for semi automatics, they do not fire any faster or slower than the operator, so user comes into effect. As JJ stated, it's the people that are the issue, not the items used. That's just an excuse. IMHO everyone should be familiar with firearms and how they work. Take the Swiss for example, they do not have a standing military but instead opt for a militia. With citizens being trained and accustomed to such things, it's not 'special' or 'cool' or something out of reach with a subtle effect, or something spectacular from a video game. It just is the norm. People really need to get their head out of their ass. If you're wanting to question semi automatics, then you mine as well ask the same question to someone owning a sports car despite the rarity in legal limits their vehicle can achieve. All in all, it is responsibility.

That being said, I really do enjoy my Barrett 50 BMG! lol

 

[cudacuf]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=evEg1VNfX3o

 

[fauxshizle]

Although this event is horrible....The issue is with the Psychos that are created from our sick society...one of indifference and ignorance.

"Our" Govt doesn't want you to own weapons that could pose a threat to the "hired out" "security" company's that guard all Black Projects and the many facets of THE organization (see link) that pulls all the strings. Its also on the U.N.'s agenda (see link) to have all citizens of the US who own firearms personal history listed. This is NOT conspiracy, this is how the world is run.......these topics are not fiction. Your a jackass if you think that everything you see on TV, and prices you pay for EVERYTHING are not dictated by this small group.

Arkansas governor Bill Clinton, for example, who attended a Bilderberg Meeting in 1991. “There, David Rockefeller told (him) why the North American Free Trade Agreement….was a Bilderberg priority and that the group needed him to support it. The next year, Clinton was elected president,” and on January 1, 1994 NAFTA took effect. Numerous other examples are similar, including who gets chosen for powerful government, military and other key positions. You bow...or bow out.

Im getting errors trying to paste Wiki links in here for some reason.....but Wiki "Bilderberg Group" and " U.N. Arms Treaty"

http://www.businessinsider.com/this...-connection-to-everything-in-the-world-2012-6

Quote from Wiki UN Treaty page: "The most recent draft treaty includes export/import controls that would require officials in an importing country to collect information on the 'end user' of a firearm, keep the information for 20 years, and provide the information to the country from which the gun was exported. In other words, if you bought a Beretta shotgun, you would be an 'end user' and the U.S. government would have to keep a record of you and notify the Italian government about your purchase. That is gun registration. If the U.S. refuses to implement this data collection on law-abiding American gun owners, other nations might be required to ban the export of firearms to the U.S."

Any firearm "bad press" that presents itself, will give this group, that controls the media...an oppourtunity to persuade public opinion to the point where they can eventually disarm the U.S. and take all "revolutionary" power out of your hands...forever.

It will start with the "banning" of one kind of firearm....and continue....until you are left with a golfclub to defend you and your family.

 

[rob]

Question #1They wanted someone to provide a reason as to why owning a semi - automatic assault rifle was necessary and in what scenario it could be used efficiently for good (and other means of protection would not work, glock, etc...)

The definitions of an 'assault rifle' vary from state to state. In California (where I live) we have a list of guns banned by name (Roberti-Roos list) and by feature (sb23). SB23 basically says that if a rifle has a detachable magazine and any of the following, it is an assault rifle:

1) pistol grip
2) folding/telescoping stock
3) flash suppressor
4) bayonnette lug
5) thumbhole stock

There may be others, but those are the big ones. A lot of older battle rifles were very popular with the hunting crowd.

The M1A (A civilian version of the M14), a .308 with a detachable magazine and a flash suppressor became banned over night. This is a long time favorite of collectors, competition shooters, and hunters.

In terms of home protection, an AR15 is not an ideal weapon. Firing one inside the home is not recommended due to concerns the bullet could travel through walls and into unintended things like children. Which is strange because you see SWAT and various other law enforcement agencies using them.

If you go on hikes or live in a rural mountain area, an AR15 is a great companion for safety. The reason we use it in the armed service is the same reason it would be effective in this scenario. It is light, minimal recoil, and accurate. Quick follow up shots and tight groupings allow you to subdue or ward off most threats you'd find (except a bear. wouldn't want to test that would want something bigger).

Question #2 - Should folks with mental disabilities, aspergers, autism, mental illness be taught to shoot gun for any reason?

This is a tough one. There are varying levels of mental disabilities. Just because someone has a difficulty reading for example shouldn't mean that they can't defend themselves.

As far as aspbergers/autism goes, there are a ton (probably millions) of high functioning autistic that just seem to be 'odd'. They can be very successful (they seem to do well in engineering roles) at work and life. It would be a travesty to disallow these kind of people from enjoying the challenge of competition shooting or self defense.

This honestly should be on a case by case basis.

Also, I won't pick this thread apart with how wrong a lot of the answers are, just because you said no digressing!

 

[kirbanmanaburn]

I will just continue to live in a country where nobody owns guns. As for that other country where I grew up -- the one that happens to have a LOT of guns and a LOT of mass shootings...

Well, you all can enjoy it.

Now I'll deploy this ten foot pole...

 

[fauxshizle]

I will just continue to live in a country where nobody owns guns. As for that other country where I grew up -- the one that happens to have a LOT of guns and a LOT of mass shootings...

Well, you all can enjoy it.

Now I'll deploy this ten foot pole...

Without the US rebuilding of Japan after WWII.....you wouldn't be living there...unless you love 3rd world islands. Japan is like Germany, its so embarrassed by its past blunders of moral, that it does a 180, to avoid its past mistakes...then only to Judge other nations, as if it has been a peaceful utopia all along...oh ye of short memory. Truth is, we didn't GIVE Japan that right after WWII. So...enjoy yer lack of rights.

Remember, take your children to the "Hack up a baby dolphin day", those bloody shallow lagoons of screaming death...always bring back smiles. Yum...dolphin ona stick.

In other words, Japan has had some serious issues, and still does.
Oh, and we don't miss you.

 

[Noah3]

Haven't read all this yet, just saw the first reply about the second amendment and wanted to say that every time you ever read about a militia being formed you immediately read about it being disbursed.
I'll try and get some examples, I just got to work and I am still in zombie mode, but the point I am trying to make is 1 person with a gun really poses no threat to the powers that be, but an organized group of people with guns that have made their intentions clear to be against the current standing government are quickly vanquished before their ,sometimes insightful and very well backed with facts, beliefs are heard by enough to insight any larger scale problem for our elected officials.

The point of my point is this,, how come when organizations of civilians challenge the right to bare arms part of that amendment people become patriotic amendment defenders, but I never hear any uproar when an organization of our elected government officials squander the other half of that amendment.

 

[Effico]

We were visited by this spectre back in 1996 when some deranged gunman entered a School in Dunblane and killed 17 kids and some teachers with hand guns.

We have never really recovered from that. The sorrow of it still hangs in the air.

If he didn`t have access to guns, he would have used something else. He was out to kill that day, regardless of weapons.

I don't think banning guns is the answer. As has been said before, there needs to be some kind of psychological examination at least to try and prevent easy access to them but even that is impossible to implement with any sort of success. Hamilton wasn`t always a mass murderer. He simply snapped one day.

The most frightening aspect of it all is that there is no cure or prevention for this.

 

[Noah3]

I'm reading this as I go here , but I see some really good points, and to answer the question, I feel if someone is going to kill someone or ones having a gun present makes it easier and obviously more dmg much faster,
Like I said I just woke up and crawled to work, so I am in zombie mode still, but lemme try and make my point.

1. Guns will still be available even if they ban them, but now good people are gonna have a harder time getting them, and the same crazy people that shouldn't have them now and cause problems, will still get them then, only difference is there will be fewer stable people with guns to counter that crazy gun toter.

2. if guns were gone there would be less heat of the moment shootings, its pretty much fact that the average JOE doesn't like to get his hands dirty and blowing someone away is more of a shoot now and question yourself later type of thing, where as bludgeoning, stabbing, drowning, burning,and or slicing someone to death is much more hands on and aside from the lucky stab or hit takes a bit more time... so in all I do believe there would be less shootings, however there would probably be a few more of the above mentioned killings cuz some people are gonna kill someone no matter what , a gun just made it easier in some cases where a gun was used.

3. as for wanting/needing a high powered fully automatic weapon sign me up
I know a few cats with them and they are no more of a threat than anyone else I know that is minimal threat to society, only difference there is if shit pops off they are going down blazing.
Thats why I keep these people close because those are the first places I am going to go should Armageddon or whatever or some Apocalypse kick off.

4. I fa naythign I think more people should be encouraged to get guns so when these crazy fucks start shooting places up there is a much bigger chance that someone is there to blow there fuckin head off before it gets any more out of control..

 

[JimJohnson]

I know most do not really think about it but US Citizens as a whole are the second line of defense for our nation. We have the paid folk in the service, that travel everywhere to protect our nation including overseas.

If/When we get invaded it will not be our Armed services that make the difference. It will be the BillyBobs in a shanty with his ar15 that dies defending his family/friends/country if anything ever spills onto US soil.

As for adding more guns into the equation that is a stupid idea. People distraught with emotion with fire arms after a situation like that should not be the ones making decisions. Because at the point you execute the other person you step over the line of civility. We do not need people taking the law into their own hands. Specially with so much hate and ignorance in this world.

 

[twizzops]

As for adding more guns into the equation that is a stupid idea. People distraught with emotion with fire arms after a situation like that should not be the ones making decisions. Because at the point you execute the other person you step over the line of civility. We do not need people taking the law into their own hands. Specially with so much hate and ignorance in this world.

Not 100% sure that I am understanding your point in this paragraph. Are you inferring that if I have my legally owned colt 45 on me and I see someone start shooting in public that I shouldn't take the opportunity to take him down?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for the people that live in a Country that outlaws guns. That's your business and if you are happy with it, that's your choice. I will not try and arm you as long as you don't try to un-arm me. Just don't come to us when North Korea, China, or some other country decides it likes your unarmed country.

Guns kill people every day and that's a very sad thing. Those using the guns are usually criminals, but in some cases it's someone protecting their life against someone wanting to take it. Look into the past 100 years of ethnic cleansing. The reason it happened is because a populous of many had no way to defend themselves against a few that did. The US and other countries don't always step in the stop it and if they do, it's usually already too late.