Gun control/2nd Amendment

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly

Discipline makes people behave; regulations govern behavior. I'm not sure there's as strong a distinction here as you're implying. Nevertheless, by this logic, madatory training and licensing of gun owners -- just like car owners -- would have been within the scope of the founder's intent -- regulating by disciplining. That's where this thread started.

It's made even more of a muddle because what are we to make of an explanatory clause anyway? There is no regulation there, only an expression of intent. Seeing as how the entire premise of having States control of the vast majority of the military power of the U.S. was circumvented long ago it has even less usefullness today than it did long ago when there were still organized militias that could be well regulated. The actually useful bits of the Amendment which again limit government powers vis a vis the people is still workable, and thus here we are.

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
As for the Revolution, though, the militias did NOT do okay without heavy regulation. Washington complained endlessly about their indolence, insubordination, and extremely high rate of desertion. The regular army did okay, but the militias needed greater regulation, in BOTH senses of the word, and Washington fairly pleaded for it.

Their failures stemmed mostly from lack of discipline IMO, and not from lack of regulations. A soldier who remains at his station for fear of the legal repurcussions of desertion is only marginally better than the one who deserts right off. At least you don't have to feed the immediate coward, nor do you place undue faith in his ability to do his duty when you really need him. Ottoman levies were well regulated, but once they began to break they would tend to flee the field en masse to avoid not only the enemy, but the repercussions of their cowarice from their own leaders. What they lacked was discipline, ie the ability to stand their ground in the face of extreme hardship in the service of a higher goal, whether that was unit cohesion, pride, nationalism etc. An army that serves because of fear is a lot weaker than one that is motivated by something greater than themselves.

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

No full auto, but single/3 round burst OK
Same as above
Nope
Yep
Yep
Depends on size/yield
Nope

Already that list would permit people could have their paramilitary activities to "keep their homes safe." Well, I suppose I'd better stay outside the States if you can soon walk around with a few nades in your bag or have a simple SMG in your violin case. I can't see how one can be proud for all that, but maybe MtG finds guns and fire arms "fun", so that he needs a few to protect himself.

Come on, people! You're not supposed to be lurking at home with an arsenal of weapons, right?

[Wraith]

Bah. I bet y'all picked now to start another one of these because y'all know I'm too busy to get involved.

Wraith
"Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins."
-- Sammy "the Bull" Gravano

[Mercator]

I suppose I don't need to bring up [i]Bowling for Columbine[i] anymore?

I think it's the fear that makes Americans want their guns so badly in the first place.

How often have any of you been in a situation involving firearms? How many of you have been burgled, had a gun pointed at you etc. at home or in your neighbourhood? When's the last time anyone was shot anywhere near where you work or live? And if that isn't zero, how many of those times was it a "real" criminal, rather than, say, your neighbour who had a little too much to drink and pulled his gun on you, or something?

[Az]

q:

Automatic sub-machine-guns (mp5, uzi, mac10, etc)
Automatic rifles (M16, Colt M4a1, ak47, etc)
Automatic machine guns (M60, M249 Para)
Explosives (grenades, rockets, etc)
Man Portable Nuclear Weapons

Forbidding those is logical and understandable, if it also includes the exception of light use by the police and armed forcesand armed forces

[korn469]

here are some things to consider

http://www.ballistics-experts.com/Forensic%20ballistics/Wound%20&%20Terminal%20ballistics/Overview.htm

Shotguns are widely believed to be very lethal, and at close range this is certainly true because the multiple projectiles cause multiple wound tracks over a small area – often resulting in one large hole. However, the pellets must be large enough so that each one has sufficient kinetic energy to penetrate to vital areas. Basically, bird shot (7 1/2, for example) can only be guaranteed to be lethal to a range of about 5 yards, beyond 10 yards, or so, the wounds may look severe, but be relatively superficial due to the lack of penetration of individual pellets. Large buckshot pellets will be lethal at considerable range, but practical accuracy, and excessive spread, will limit their effective range to around 40 to 60 yards, depending upon choke and individual weapon characteristics. Those who choose to cut down their shotgun barrel diminish lethality considerably, because they may reduce the overall kinetic energy delivered by a given cartridge by as much as 50%.
Figure 1 shows a human arm which was injured by a 12 gage shotgun at just 10 yards. The shot size was #6, and the shotgun barrel had been sawn down (length not known, but probably around 14"). Note that pellets are spread over a large area (cartridge contained almost 400) and that they had insufficient energy to penetrate much below the surface of the skin - the silver pellets are visible

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/fl_aw_report2.txt

Madman shoots 35 in Stockton schoolyard; 30 of those hit survive. That
would have been the appropriate headline. Why did the media dwell almost
exclusively on the five that did not survive?
A military type AK-47 rifle was used. Full-metal-jacketed military type
bullets were used. That 86% of those children recovered from their wounds comes
as no surprise to those who understand this particular bullet's wounding
potential
. Those familiar with the international laws governing warfare
recognize that the military full-metal-jacketed bullet is specifically designed
to limit tissue disruption -- to wound rather than to kill. Purportedly
mandated for "humanitarian" reasons by the Hague Peace Conference of 1899, this
type of bullet actually proves to be more effective for most warfare. It
removes not only the one hit from the ranks of the combatants, but also those
needed to care for him.
Full-metal-jacketed bullets
are prohibited for hunting; they are too likely
to wound rather than kill. Most full-metal-jacketed AK-47 bullets do not deform
significantly on striking the body, unless they strike bone. They
characteristically travel point-forward until they penetrate 9 to 10 inches of
tissue (if a bullet yaws, turning sideways during its tissue path, it causes
increased disruption). This means that most AK-47 shots will pass through the
body causing no greater damage that produced by handgun bullets. The limi
ted
tissue disruption produced by this weapon in the Stockton schoolyard is
consistent with well documented data from Vietnam (the Wound Data and Munitions
Effectiveness Team collected approximately 700 cases of AK-47 hits), as well as
with controlled research studies from various wound ballistics laboratories.
To put the 17 January 1989 Stockton incident in context, it must be
compared with past shootings:
1. Only four of the eleven shot at the ESL Co. in Sunnyvale, CA, on 16
February 1988,
survived. The weapon was a 12 gauge shotgun.
2. Only eleven of the thirty-two shot in the MacDonalds (24 July 1984, San
Ysidro, CA) survived. Of the three weapons used, the deadliest weapon by far
was a pump-action 12 gauge shotgun.
The overwhelming majority of the media coverage of the Stockton shooting
has consisted of misstatements, exaggerations and inappropriate comparisons.
It is ironic, in this country where firearms have played such a prominent
historic role, that the general kn
owledge of weapon effects has become so
distorted. Cinema and TV accounts of shootings constantly distort and
exaggerate bullet effect. When shot, people do not get knocked backwards by the
bullet; nor do they become instantly incapacitated, as usually depicted.
False expectations resulting from these misleading performances have
confused crime scene investigators, law enforcement and military trainers, and
our courts of law. Exaggerations of weapon effects in the post Vietnam era even
affect
ed wound treatment adversely. It is just within the past year, that these
errors in military treatment doctrine have been corrected ("Emergency War
Surgery - NATO Handbook", Washington, DC, GPO, 1988).
Television accounts showing assault rifles exploding watermelons, newspaper
descriptions comparing their effects to "a grenade exploding in the abdomen,"
and describing organs being destroyed and bones pulverized by apparently magic
"shock waves" from these "high-velocity" bullets must cause the t
hinking
individual to ask: If these rifles really cause such effects, how is it possible
that thirty children (actually 29 children and one teacher) hit in that Stockton
schoolyard survived?
The effects of the media frenzy have been to produce at least a four-fold
increase in the number of AK-47's in California. This immense demand has drawn
stocks of these weapons from all over the USA and abroad. If producers of these
weapons had advertised their effects as portrayed by the media, they would
be
liable to prosecution under our truth in advertising laws. When the same
misinformation is presented by the "free press" it is apparently perfectly
legal.
These are the facts. Why have you not seen them in the reports of this
incident? Ask the media. Ask them also about accountability and
responsibility. Corrections have been offered, in writing, to the "New York
Times", the "San Francisco Examiner", and the "Oakland Tribune", with no
response. Phone conversations with media sources m
ade clear their preference
for the more dramatic misconceptions and exaggerations over verified scientific
facts.
Everyone with a political axe to grind that can be even remotely related to
the Stockton schoolyard shooting is coming out of the woodwork for their share
of the free publicity ride on the media-produced emotional frenzy roller-
coaster. It's really sad, if not downright disrespectful, to see the deaths of
those children used to produce the lynch-mob/three-ring-circus atmosphere ext
ant
recently in the California State Legislature.
The lack of any comprehensive data on gunshot wounds (incidence related to
weapon type, bullet type, outcome, etc.) has long been a serious handicap in
considering how to approach the gun problem. The situation has now been
compounded by unprecedented media zeal. Zeal mixed with misinformation is a
prescription for disaster. The exaggerations used to whip up their emotional
frenzy have, at the same time, deprived the public of the established
facts
about weapon effects.
Gunshot wounds pose a serious problem. Any sensible solution demands sober
consideration of valid data on wound frequency, severity, circumstances, and
treatment. Considering the many thousands of shootings in our urban areas each
year, competent collection of these data on a national basis could, in a short
time, define the problem realistically and objectively. Both sides of the gun
control argument should replace confrontation with cooperation by jointly
sponso
ring a National Gunshot Wound Study. Valid, objective data might then
replace uninformed exaggeration and hysteria as a guide to action.
The assault rifle fiasco brings to light a far more basic problem: Who is
to protect the public from a zealous media whose "cause" takes them beyond bias
to falsehood and fabrication?

[gsmoove23]

Wow, I'm sure glad only 5 of those kids died. I guess the madman should have practised more, that way maybe he could have aimed for the head. Maybe he would have been more effective with a samurai sword.

[TheStinger]

It reminds me of Alan Partridge who said " what people forget about the Titanic is that before the iceberg there were thousands of miles of trouble free pleasurable sailing"

[gsmoove23]

"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."

I see the first part of that sentence as a qualifying term. It is no longer necessary today and I see no justification for blocking practical legislation regulating firearms. High powered weapons are unnecessary, automatic or semi-automatic weapons are unnecessary and what the f*** is the deal with people blocking identity checks? What possible argument could they do this under.

[David Floyd]

It is no longer necessary today and I see no justification for blocking practical legislation regulating firearms.

Pass an amendment and I'll stop (some) of my *****ing.

You can argue necessity all day long, but until you pass an amendment, Constitutionally, you will still be incorrect.

Further, the use of the word "people" is obviously not a collective right - it refers to individual rights, in the same way it does every other time it is used in the Constitution.

[Sava]

David, is your stance on the legality of weapons ideological, or based upon what's defined in the constitution?

I mean, if the 2nd Amendment was worded so that licensing and gun control programs were mentioned, would you still feel that people have a right to own any type of weapon?

[gsmoove23]

DF, if the first statement is a justication then an amendment doesn't have to be passed because with the absence of that justification...

Pass an amendment and I'll stop (some) of my *****ing.

Why would I want to stop any of your *****ing DF(though I doubt it would stop any of it)? You can ***** to your hearts content.

[David Floyd]

Sava,

I mean, if the 2nd Amendment was worded so that licensing and gun control programs were mentioned, would you still feel that people have a right to own any type of weapon?

Yes.

gsmoove,

DF, if the first statement is a justication then an amendment doesn't have to be passed because with the absence of that justification...

You mean the "well-regulated militia part"? Well, first of all, that's not the main clause of the sentence. Further, the word "people", as an individual rights usage of the word, still exists in the amendment. Next, even IF guns were only allowed to militia members, the militia is still codified in US law.

No matter how you look at it, you need an amendment to restrict firearms.

[gsmoove23]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state

What I meant was the above statement is offered as a given in the beginning of the statement. In the absence of the given...

I didn't mean that guns should only be allowed for militia members, but in the absence of the need for militias, the uninfringed right of the 'people' to bear arms is in question.

[Japher]

Discalimer (sort of): I didn't read all the posts, but I want to put my two cents in.


Before I was allowed to even fire a gun my father made me take a 2 day, 8 hours/day gun safety course, which is required for a hunting license. I was about 8 at the time.

I went hunting once, fired the gun twice at a moving target, missed both times, and never went hunting again.

I am proud supporter of the NRA. Yet, I feel that requiring a person to obtain a liscense to own a gun, and that the requirements for the liscense include a gun safety course is a good idea. I also see no reason to have to ammend the 2nd ammendment for this, as it does not hinder the persons right to have a weapon.

However, it seems to me that most cases where a gun "accidentily" kills some one, it is not in the hands of the person who purchased the weapon. It is their carelessness in storing the weapon that is a greater threat than the knowledge of safety possessed by the owner.

It is not required that the person who purchases the weapon to store the weapon properly so that no one else may fire it.

I have no idea how to handle this situation, but in my safety class the mentioned nothing on how to properly store the weapon, and, my dad was smart enough to store them well except for a revolver he keeps in his nightstand, bullets right next to it. He did, however, train all his kids and his spouse to handle a weapon and of the dangers.