Poll for Gun Control Advocates

[Explodicle]

5) Unless you don't care what they'll use it for as long as you get paid, in which case you'll sell to anyone who wants one. Free market and all. There are plenty of criminals, so I'm sure you can make a good living catering their needs.

Oh, certainly. Until you get tracked down by people ready and willing to hold you accountable for those actions. Then you're in trouble.

If tracking them down was easy, then the Armory would still be in business.

I never said it would be easy. But your statement just proves a point I made earlier. We can't stop it from happening now. If the bad guys can get them, why prevent the good guys?

I agree with your point earlier. I just don't think going after dealers will work, even if you only want to hold them liable/accountable. We can only punish gun owners, and even then only AFTER they reveal their gun ownership.

[1714963414]

1714963414

[1714963414]

1714963414

[1714963414]

1714963414

[mdude77]

Gun control is impossible and gun control advocates aren't even striving for that. They want a subset of the population to control things with guns.

Bingo!!

+1

M

[myrkul]

I agree with your point earlier. I just don't think going after dealers will work, even if you only want to hold them liable/accountable. We can only punish gun owners, and even then only AFTER they reveal their gun ownership.

Well, it's much easier to catch bad guy owners than merchants, that's true. But most people don't really like operating in the black market. It's risky, your clientele tends to be assholes, and most importantly, you have to hide it. If you can be quite profitable in the white market, and the risk of loss from black market transactions exceeds the cost of due diligence, then we can expect to see very few black market merchants. So we have three options: Increase the profit of white market business, increase the cost and risk associated with black market transactions, or reduce the cost of due diligence. The internet is doing a pretty good job of reducing the cost of due diligence, and by removing restrictions on weapons, you would reduce it even further, and also increase the profit of white-market business by moving more business into the white.

Hey, imagine that. Fewer laws, fewer criminals.

[Rarity]

All this took was one google search for the term "can cops buy automatic weapons?".

This one looks like it's illegal to do this in cali, but the cops do it anyway.

http://calcoastnews.com/2011/12/peace-officers-buying-and-selling-assault-weapons/

That is referencing "Assault Weapons" which is mostly a made up legal term for scary guns.  The article is talking about semi-automatic weapons.

The lack of registration became public after a man stole Solomon’s loaded semi-automatic gun from her unlocked car.

It isn't particularly pleasant that a cop may sell such a weapon, but such weapons are available in any gun store so it's not a huge deal.

The question here is about a P90 which is a fully automatic sub-machinegun of the type banned by previous laws, not the assault weapons ban.  You are not googling very well and you don't seem to have any understanding of guns or gun law.  That is a bad thing both for gun supporters and gun control advocates.  It just muddies up the conversation.

I'm not finding directly applicable data on actual full auto weapons, but this is loosely related...

"Q: Are SAWs and LCAFDs marked “Restricted law enforcement/government use only” or “For export only” now legal to sell to civilians in the United States?
Yes. SAWs and LCAFDs are no longer prohibited. Therefore, firearms with the restrictive markings are legal to transfer to civilians in the United States, and it is legal for non-prohibited civilians to possess them. All civilians may possess LCAFDs."

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/saws-and-lcafds.html

Again, the P90 question has nothing to do with semi-auto weapons.  You can easily buy a semi-auto P90 if you want.

I can't find any current data on an import ban for automatic weapons, not even on teh BATF site.  Are you sure you are not thinking of the assault weapons ban?  That has expired.

No, you are confused as all hell.

Gun control is impossible and gun control advocates aren't even striving for that.

And yet the gun control on fully automatic weapons worked.  And gun control works in England making crime far less deadly.  I'm sympathetic to arguments that gun rights are a freedom worthy of protection, though I disagree with it, but the argument that you can't control guns has no basis in reality.

[Rarity]

You can probably find a "study" to back up anything you say. The experts in your quote are concerned about damage to the home? Seriously? My house can burn to the ground for all I care, as long as my family is safe.

Well again you are entitled to your opinion but I think I will stick with the experts and scientists on this.

I would never shoot anyone in the dark (unidentified), and I never said anything of the sort. I said I could manoeuvre through my house in the dark, as opposed to any intruder. I know where my family is located, and we've discussed and made plans for home invasion just the same as we've done for fire, etc. The very first thing I would do is secure my family.

You know where you're family is located?  What if someone got up to go to the bathroom or get a midnight snack?  You don't know jack.  You're gonna stop to turn the light on before shooting the armed armored robbers exposing yourself to sudden bright light while you're unable to shoot because you took your hand away but the cold blooded murderer robbers still can?  Dude, you're in a fantasy world.  I hope for your family's sake you start to think this through better.  Gun accidents happen all the time and such irresponsible users are a major reason we need gun control, to protect certain folks from hurting themselves and their families unintentionally.

[Coincomm]

You can probably find a "study" to back up anything you say. The experts in your quote are concerned about damage to the home? Seriously? My house can burn to the ground for all I care, as long as my family is safe.

Well again you are entitled to your opinion but I think I will stick with the experts and scientists on this.

I would never shoot anyone in the dark (unidentified), and I never said anything of the sort. I said I could manoeuvre through my house in the dark, as opposed to any intruder. I know where my family is located, and we've discussed and made plans for home invasion just the same as we've done for fire, etc. The very first thing I would do is secure my family.

You know where you're family is located?  What if someone got up to go to the bathroom or get a midnight snack?  You don't know jack.  You're gonna stop to turn the light on before shooting the armed armored robbers exposing yourself to sudden bright light while you're unable to shoot because you took your hand away but the cold blooded murderer robbers still can?  Dude, you're in a fantasy world.  I hope for your family's sake you start to think this through better.  Gun accidents happen all the time and such irresponsible users are a major reason we need gun control, to protect certain folks from hurting themselves and their families unintentionally.

Cops just injured 9 people in New York with their arms. You're implying some dim-witted government employee can do a better job at protecting and possibly saving a home than a private citizen.

[Rarity]

You can probably find a "study" to back up anything you say. The experts in your quote are concerned about damage to the home? Seriously? My house can burn to the ground for all I care, as long as my family is safe.

Well again you are entitled to your opinion but I think I will stick with the experts and scientists on this.

I would never shoot anyone in the dark (unidentified), and I never said anything of the sort. I said I could manoeuvre through my house in the dark, as opposed to any intruder. I know where my family is located, and we've discussed and made plans for home invasion just the same as we've done for fire, etc. The very first thing I would do is secure my family.

You know where you're family is located?  What if someone got up to go to the bathroom or get a midnight snack?  You don't know jack.  You're gonna stop to turn the light on before shooting the armed armored robbers exposing yourself to sudden bright light while you're unable to shoot because you took your hand away but the cold blooded murderer robbers still can?  Dude, you're in a fantasy world.  I hope for your family's sake you start to think this through better.  Gun accidents happen all the time and such irresponsible users are a major reason we need gun control, to protect certain folks from hurting themselves and their families unintentionally.

Cops just injured 9 people in New York with their arms. You're implying some dim-witted government employee can do better than a private citizen.

Yes, police officers are much more worthy of trust with guns.  Anyone forced to shoot because someone pointed a gun at them on a crowded street runs the risk of hitting others.  And if multiple people in the crowd try to stop the shooter and they aren't in uniform they run the risk of confusing each other for the shooter and making the situation even worse. Something like that almost happened during the Gabby Giffords incident.  It again sounds like I'm talking to someone who doesn't have much experience with firearms. Most of it was ricochet off the big anti-car bomb planters as far as I know.  The whole situation could have been avoided had the murderer they were confronting not had access to a handgun in the first place, of course.

However, as I mentioned the ideal scenario is that cops don't have them either aside from very special circumstances like in England.

[mdude77]

Cops just injured 9 people in New York with their arms. You're implying some dim-witted government employee can do better than a private citizen.

Yes, police officers are much more worthy of trust with guns.  Anyone forced to shoot because someone pointed a gun at them on a crowded street runs the risk of hitting others.  And if multiple people in the crowd try to stop the shooter and they aren't in uniform they run the risk of confusing each other for the shooter and making the situation even worse. Something like that almost happened during the Gabby Giffords incident.  It again sounds like I'm talking to someone who doesn't have much experience with firearms. Most of it was ricochet off the big anti-car bomb planters as far as I know.  The whole situation could have been avoided had the murderer they were confronting not had access to a handgun in the first place, of course.

However, as I mentioned the ideal scenario is that cops don't have them either aside from very special circumstances like in England.

You missed a key point.  Only a completely insane individual would pull a gun in a public place if he knew at least 50% of the individuals around him were armed and knew how to use it safely.  The "gun free" zones are killer havens because the killer knows they are likely to encounter little resistance.

Cops are nothing more than people in uniforms.  There are countless cases of them abusing their power and presumed authority.  I'm not sure I'd trust one with a gun more than I would a law abiding citizen.  The latter is far less likely to abuse his power and only use it for self defense measures. 

M

[Rarity]

You missed a key point.  Only a completely insane individual would pull a gun in a public place if he knew at least 50% of the individuals around him were armed and knew how to use it safely.  

And yet this guy pointed a gun straight at two armed police officers and isn't crazy as far as I know.  Adding extra guns to the scenario just makes it more dangerous.  The national gun control method has been proven to work well in practice and is the best way to go.  

I'm aware there are bad apples among the police, but they are generally heroes of the community who train hard and do their best to protect us all and enforce the laws the government we voted for has written. 

[Coincomm]

You missed a key point.  Only a completely insane individual would pull a gun in a public place if he knew at least 50% of the individuals around him were armed and knew how to use it safely.  

And yet this guy pointed a gun straight at two armed police officers and isn't crazy as far as I know.  Adding extra guns to the scenario just makes it more dangerous.  The national gun control method has been proven to work well in practice and is the best way to go. 

What if the government becomes corrupt and unresponsive to its citizens and needs to be overthrown? How are we supposed to get our guns back and ready?

[Rarity]

You missed a key point.  Only a completely insane individual would pull a gun in a public place if he knew at least 50% of the individuals around him were armed and knew how to use it safely.  

And yet this guy pointed a gun straight at two armed police officers and isn't crazy as far as I know.  Adding extra guns to the scenario just makes it more dangerous.  The national gun control method has been proven to work well in practice and is the best way to go.  

What if the government becomes corrupt and unresponsive to its citizens and needs to be overthrown? How are we supposed to get our guns back and ready?

Our heroes in the military are sworn to uphold the constitution, not the government.  In the case of a corrupt government that abandons Democracy they will restore order and the police will side with their local communities against any abuse.  Sometimes the police or armed forces make mistakes and it has led to deaths and civil unrest, but as institutions their records are extremely strong.

[Coincomm]

You missed a key point.  Only a completely insane individual would pull a gun in a public place if he knew at least 50% of the individuals around him were armed and knew how to use it safely.  

And yet this guy pointed a gun straight at two armed police officers and isn't crazy as far as I know.  Adding extra guns to the scenario just makes it more dangerous.  The national gun control method has been proven to work well in practice and is the best way to go. 

What if the government becomes corrupt and unresponsive to its citizens and needs to be overthrown? How are we supposed to get our guns back and ready?

Our heroes in the military are sworn to uphold the constitution, not the government.  In the case of a corrupt government that abandons Democracy they will restore order and the police will side with their local communities against any abuse.

You know, that's a really good response actually. It's good to meet you.

[myrkul]

Our heroes in the military are sworn to uphold the constitution, not the government.  In the case of a corrupt government that abandons Democracy they will restore order and the police will side with their local communities against any abuse.

In theory.... https://rt.com/usa/news/chesterfield-veteran-facebook-arrest-106/

[Rarity]

You missed a key point.  Only a completely insane individual would pull a gun in a public place if he knew at least 50% of the individuals around him were armed and knew how to use it safely.  

And yet this guy pointed a gun straight at two armed police officers and isn't crazy as far as I know.  Adding extra guns to the scenario just makes it more dangerous.  The national gun control method has been proven to work well in practice and is the best way to go. 

What if the government becomes corrupt and unresponsive to its citizens and needs to be overthrown? How are we supposed to get our guns back and ready?

Our heroes in the military are sworn to uphold the constitution, not the government.  In the case of a corrupt government that abandons Democracy they will restore order and the police will side with their local communities against any abuse.

You know, that's a really good response actually. It's good to meet you.

You too. 

[myrkul]

Hey Coincomm, maybe he'll answer you....

Both should be banned.

One small question: Why?

Again, Rarity, this is a very simple question: Why?

As a gun control advocate, you should be able to answer why you think guns should be controlled.

And what is your motivation for the belief that they should be banned?

Anyway, why? Because you think it will price them out of the range of the common criminal?

But I wouldn't hold your breath.

[MoonShadow]

You missed a key point.  Only a completely insane individual would pull a gun in a public place if he knew at least 50% of the individuals around him were armed and knew how to use it safely.  

And yet this guy pointed a gun straight at two armed police officers and isn't crazy as far as I know.  Adding extra guns to the scenario just makes it more dangerous.  The national gun control method has been proven to work well in practice and is the best way to go. 

What if the government becomes corrupt and unresponsive to its citizens and needs to be overthrown? How are we supposed to get our guns back and ready?

Our heroes in the military are sworn to uphold the constitution, not the government.  In the case of a corrupt government that abandons Democracy they will restore order and the police will side with their local communities against any abuse.

You know, that's a really good response actually. It's good to meet you.

It's also an unrealistic assumption that those who are in control of the government at that time would be unprepared for a military coup, nor that any significant number of young officers would be free thinkers capable of seeing past the indocrination and propaganda campaign that would have preceded such a tyrannical government taking control.  It is for this very reason that the Department of the Army (plus Air Force) and the Department of the Navy (plus the Marine Corps) each, independently, answer to an appointed civilian in the executive branch, namely the Secretary of Defense.  In the hopes that a single carismatic leader wouldn't be able to take control of the entire military alone, but doesn't help if the civilian government in charge of the military is the problem.  There would be a great number of veterans who could see through such b.s., removed as they are from the immediate influence of the military culture, and veterans outnumber active miltary by a large margin at any given time, but if the veterans are effectively prevented from owning the tools of their former trade (for example, labeled as 'mentally defective' and therefore ineligible to own firearms http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/citizen-warrior/2012/aug/23/judge-orders-brandon-raub-released-hospital/ ) then they are a neutered threat to tyranny.  Same goes for the organized training of firearms safety to children.  (http://www.adl.org/special_reports/rage-grows-in-America/introduction.asp which is attacking the appleseed project http://appleseedinfo.org )

[Rarity]

It's also an unrealistic assumption that those who are in control of the government at that time would be unprepared for a military coup, nor that any significant number of young officers would be free thinkers capable of seeing past the indocrination and propaganda campaign that would have preceded such a tyrannical government taking control

It's an unrealistic assumption that they would be unprepared for an armed popular uprising or that the people would not fall under the sway of a tyrannical government as well.  What we know for sure is that the military is full of heroes who have already signed on to put their lives on the line for the sake of the constitution.  They have proved over the history of our Republic to be a force for good, marching to end armed popular insurrections like the Whisky Rebellion and the Civil War and fighting against tyranny overseas.  Our military is an institution worthy of trust and staffed by our friends, family, and neighbors.  The same goes for the police.

[myrkul]

What we know for sure is that the military is full of heroes who have already signed on to put their lives on the line for the sake of the constitution.  They have proved over the history of our Republic to be a force for good, marching to end armed popular insurrections like the Whisky Rebellion and the Civil War

...and that Kent State thing...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_state_shooting

[MoonShadow]

It's also an unrealistic assumption that those who are in control of the government at that time would be unprepared for a military coup, nor that any significant number of young officers would be free thinkers capable of seeing past the indocrination and propaganda campaign that would have preceded such a tyrannical government taking control

It's an unrealistic assumption that they would be unprepared for an armed popular uprising or that the people would not fall under the sway of a tyrannical government as well.  What we know for sure is that the military is full of heroes who have already signed on to put their lives on the line for the sake of the constitution.  They have proved over the history of our Republic to be a force for good, marching to end armed popular insurrections like the Whisky Rebellion and the Civil War and fighting against tyranny overseas.  Our military is an institution worthy of trust and staffed by our friends, family, and neighbors.  The same goes for the police.

The Whiskey Rebellion is an great example of exactly what I'm talking about.  Those men were being directly targeted, and had a fair gripe.  They were too far from the markets on the East Coast to do anything other with their surplus corn than make whiskey with it, and suddenly they were being heavily taxed for their relatively rare form of income after fighting a war of independence that was, at it's root about the uneven and oppressive taxation imposed upon them by a distant authority.  They were ignored through normal channels, so when they refused to pay the taxes that the new government demanded of them, the revered President Washington sent the US military into a soveriegn territory to force compliance.  Do you think that the officers & enlisted men of that army unit considered the ramifications of their actions?  Do you?  The very fact that we refer to it as "The Whiskey Rebellion" in history books is propaganda, because it wasn't a rebellion in arms until the army showed up, it was a tax revolt.

[Rarity]

It's also an unrealistic assumption that those who are in control of the government at that time would be unprepared for a military coup, nor that any significant number of young officers would be free thinkers capable of seeing past the indocrination and propaganda campaign that would have preceded such a tyrannical government taking control

It's an unrealistic assumption that they would be unprepared for an armed popular uprising or that the people would not fall under the sway of a tyrannical government as well.  What we know for sure is that the military is full of heroes who have already signed on to put their lives on the line for the sake of the constitution.  They have proved over the history of our Republic to be a force for good, marching to end armed popular insurrections like the Whisky Rebellion and the Civil War and fighting against tyranny overseas.  Our military is an institution worthy of trust and staffed by our friends, family, and neighbors.  The same goes for the police.

The Whiskey Rebellion is an great example of exactly what I'm talking about.  Those men were being directly targeted, and had a fair gripe.  They were too far from the markets on the East Coast to do anything other with their surplus corn than make whiskey with it, and suddenly they were being heavily taxed for their relatively rare form of income after fighting a war of independence that was, at it's root about the uneven and oppressive taxation imposed upon them by a distant authority.  They were ignored through normal channels, so when they refused to pay the taxes that the new government demanded of them, the revered President Washington sent the US military into a soveriegn territory to force compliance.  Do you think that the officers & enlisted men of that army unit considered the ramifications of their actions?  Do you?  The very fact that we refer to it as "The Whiskey Rebellion" in history books is propaganda, because it wasn't a rebellion in arms until the army showed up, it was a tax revolt.

You are practicing revisionist history.  The Army was sent out only after 500 armed men attacked the home of a tax inspector.  The tax was entirely just and was going to be used to pay down the debt for the very war you are talking about.  The tax was later repealed by Democratic action rather than hot headed and pointless violence.  You don't found a stable country by refusing to pay your debts and allowing citizens to spit on Democratically passed laws.  I'll take George Washington as my leader over any Libertarian ever born.