Guns - Debate and Education

Disclaimer: quite a bit of this is going to be American centered also I may update things from time to time if a particularly compelling point is made (my points are hardly going to be complete off the bat since making this was more impulse than anything) Guns are a hot button issue all over the world and especially in America where approximately 50% of our population really loves guns and the other half really hates them. I must acknowledge there are good points on both sides of the gun control debate and they have their compelling logic. The Second Amendment has for a long time been one of the most debated things in America and guns in general being one of the most debated things in the world. I do have a curiosity how people in the UK and especially Australia feel about this as well so I by no means discourage international discourse (not that I could really stop it anyway). For reference below is the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution regarding guns: "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." As may be well known from seeing many of my remarks around M.O. I am personally Pro Gun rights (Second Amendment) so I shall be upfront about this bias for the record. I'll start by listing out some common arguments / points for stricter gun control laws and then list some common arguments / points against. I will leave out "common sense gun laws" and discuss that separately because that is in my opinion a debate within a debate (what exactly constitutes common sense in this situation). At some point (maybe) I shall introduce a what I feel is a related area of Castle Laws / Doctrines into the equation as well. Statistics of any sort are being left out of the below area due to potential biases and other potential problems. Arguments for stricter gun laws: *You are more likely to harm yourself or a loved one with a gun than someone else (a thief or adversary) *More guns equals more deaths (in smaller and larger scale with mass shootings) *You don't need an Assault Rifle *High capacity magazines are not necessary and should be banned *The Second Amendment does not guarantee unfettered gun ownership rights *Guns aren't often used in self defense *Decreased suicide rates *The presence of a gun is more likely to turn a confrontation (more) violent and deadly *Armed civilians are unlikely to stop a crime in progress *You can/should call the police instead Ammunition against stricter gun laws: *The Second Amendment does guarantee access to gun ownership *Assault Rifles and high capacity magazines are needed in certain circumstances *Gun control laws do not deter crime - armed people deter crime *Gun control laws infringe on one's ability to defend themselves and feel safe *Guns are also useful for hunting and sport *If gun control laws are enacted criminals will feel more secure to commit crimes *You don't need gun control you need people control *The Second Amendment protects the rest of the Constitution and the American people's Freedom *Gun control isn't needed to prevent tragedy - Education is *Gun control inhibits the people's ability to protect against foreign invaders (should something incapacitate the military or greatly diminish them) *Guns are a great equalizer and can empower otherwise disadvantaged people *No other right is as heavily regulated as the Second Amendment (I shall add more or otherwise clarify, condense, or modify these as I see fit - this is not meant to be a comprehensive list and I am not purporting it to be such) You see I feel that both sides have more in common than you would think. Both sides I have found actually support "Common Sense Gun Laws" but where the cataclysmic disagreement is lies within what exactly is a "Common Sense Gun Law" It is commonly agreed on that: *Background checks *A proficiency test at a shooting range should be enacted (similar to a driving test for motor vehicles) *Mental health screening or other mental health measures However..... some people (Liberals / Democrats) have decided that the following are also "Common Sense" and this is where the cataclysmic debate starts: *Limit Magazine Capacities (usually no higher than 10 rounds) *Ban all Assault Rifles and Machine Guns (and Assault Weapons - more on this later) **Some proponents of gun control favor a total ban or other policies similar to Australia Like many issues (I will draw some parallels to the also popular abortion debate) one side tends to have much less education on the matter as a whole than the other side. Liberals when it comes to this issue tend to sound woefully misinformed and uneducated. So instead of lamenting those who tend to be anti-gun just for that I shall throw some educational information out there. There is a whole lot of propaganda that makes most guns seem more dangerous than they already are. Know the difference between a clip and a magazine - THEY ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE TERMS ! (to draw a parallel to abortions / woman's health this is akin to not knowing the difference between the vagina and the cervix or the clitoris) clips are almost never used anymore - chances are very high that a weapon is magazine fed (so chances are if you use clip you just sound ignorant as fuck) A clip is a device that is used to store multiple rounds of ammunition together as a unit, ready for insertion into the magazine or cylinder of a firearm. ... The defining difference between clips and magazines is the presence of a feed mechanism in a magazine, typically a spring-loaded follower, which a clip lacks. http://www.gunsandammo.com/gun-culture/9-misused-gun-terms/ ^Here is some literature on the difference for someone who is interested as well as other helpful information to educate yourself on guns Semi-Automatic- One round will be fired per trigger pull; each round cycles the next round into the chamber Automatic- As long as the trigger is held down the weapon will keep firing until ammunition is depleted Assault Weapon- I dare you to go to any gun store and ask for their selection of Assault Weapons .. I double dare you (you will be laughed out by everyone within earshot) ... this is because THEY DO NOT EXIST !!!! Assault Weapon is a purely propaganda term with no real meaning - it means whatever overzealous gun control advocates say it means with no real standards or logic (very convenient for droning up support). Repeat ASSAULT WEAPONS DO NOT EXIST THIS IS PURELY A POLITICAL TERM IT HAS NO REAL MEANING http://www.assaultweapon.info/ To be honest a great number of weapons banned as an "assault weapon" or Assault Rifle aren't even automatic weapons. A great deal of unnecessary discourse is catered to the cosmetic aspects of the weapon such as how it looks not how it actually performs via its action. Assault Rifles however do exist (but not everything you think is an assault rifle is an assault rifle including the ever infamous AR-15 where AR stands for ArmaLite not "Assault Rifle" .... and the AR-15 is SEMI-AUTOMATIC not Automatic (big difference)) Assault Rifles are due to liberal propaganda a very misused term. Another thing - who is anybody to say "you don't need a high capacity magazine" (although most people arguing this would likely say clip but lol) who are YOU to say what it is I'm up against. Sure 10 rounds will probably do me fine against one or two intruders but what if there's an entire group? What if something really crazy goes down and I'm up against people with Assault Rifles? Just because I don't need a high capacity magazine in some situations does not mean they are unnecessary all together. As soon as I and many pro-gun people hear people arguing magazine restrictions under "common sense" we're lost right on the spot. Not only that but if you're thinking that reducing the capacities of magazines will reduce mass shootings....think again... you just add an extra step and layer of preparation for the nutjob. Someone dead set on a massacre who somehow got himself a gun isn't going to mind acquiring more magazines and spending the time having them loaded and ready to go. The only thing that really accomplishes is having the nutjob have to reload more often but having ready to go magazines greatly reduces the amount of time before the nutjob can shoot again. In other words limiting magazine capacities does more to hinder law abiding gun owners than it does to deter mass shooters (more harm than good). What really bothers me about a lot of gun control laws and regulations is they are focused and derived off of cosmetic factors and public perception rather than functional and actual factors. I was researching Chicago gun laws the other day and some of the things that are in there are mind numbing to say the least. I mean if it looks scary it must be a really scary assault weapon and they all must be banned. For all of you saying "we don't want to ban all guns" if you're a proponent of banning assault weapons ... yeah you probably are or it is reasonable that you can be perceived as such since you're arguing for something that I don't know.... doesn't fucking exist. (purely created like the wage gap). However, the main thing that gets me from the gun control lobby is that most people who are responsible or tasked for making these laws know damn near nothing about guns and can't seem to talk coherently about them. This would be like someone who can't tell the difference between the anus and vagina trying to regulate abortions - the pro choice crowd would rightfully be having fits of rage. However, pro-gun advocates cannot feel the same way when something they care about and is about as fundamental a right in America as anything (as it protects your other fundamental rights) can be regulated by people uneducated in the matter and that's OK?

<reserved for arguments / compelling points and data> If anybody has an argument either of their own thoughts or off of some article or other information they come across please comment (whether its pro/anti gun control) and compelling arguments and data may end up here if they are viable and fair. Also articles detailing stances will also be considered for being linked here. I am hesitant to use any statistics on either side because while correllation can be ascertained from a study with a solid degree of confidence causation is not feasable which should be the standard if gun control legislation is to be enacted. In other words if the topic of something being taken away is a RIGHT and not a privilege then a high standard or burden should be required. In order for corellation to be enough of a standard in my opinion there better be a hell of a lot of it and have it not be contradicted with any validity. I believe this point should be taken into much more consideration no matter your feelings about whether guns should be available to citizens. If you are going off of statistics either way to prove your point then the data must prove CAUSATION or at minimum a very strong and solid correllation that isn't under a legitimate dispute. Correlation does not imply Causation (wikipedia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation The first bit I would like to point out is in America while the Police *DO* have a duty to protect society and people *IN GENERAL* from crime they *DO NOT* have a specific duty *TO YOU*. This can be gathered from the Supreme Court case Warren v District of Colombia (there are other cases but this is one of the go to cases to illustrate this point). To summarize basically three women were raped, robbed, beaten etc for fourteen hours in their home by some intruders and the police officers didn't even ever respond. More on that here: https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

Detailed in this post is information I believe to be purely educational and as free as possible from positional bias. (If this turns out not to be the case I will make edits as I feel necessary) In the space of this post I will do my best to be as neutral as possible (except for the Assault Weapons definition) and to maintain the focus on reliable and valid information. I shall be adding a collection of data on occasion that is meant to educate those who don't know much about guns and I'll admit I'm no expert either by any means and I'll learn things myself If anybody else has some information on guns educationally (how they work functionally and terminology not educating on a stance for the most part) I will gladly edit in said information and probably give credit where I can. "Well Regulated" (as seen in the Second Amendment of the Constitution) - the phrase had a much different meaning at the time the Constitution was written than it does today. If the writers of the Constitution were aware of how the language would evolve they would have probably used "well trained" instead so it is much more educated and accurate to replace "Well Regulated" with "Well Trained". The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm Gun Terminology: Assault Rifle - An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. (or By U.S. Army definition, a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. If applied to any semi-automatic firearm regardless of its cosmetic similarity to a true assault rifle, the term is incorrect.) Caliber - The nominal diameter of a projectile of a rifled firearm or the diameter between lands in a rifled barrel. In this country, usually expressed in hundreds of an inch; in Great Britain in thousandths; in Europe and elsewhere in millimeters. Cartridge - A single, complete round of ammunition. (commonly the term Bullet is used - which is simply a part of the cartridge) Selective Fire - A firearm's ability to be fired fully automatically, semi-automatically or, in some cases, in burst-fire mode at the option of the firer. Semi-Automatic - A firearm designed to fire a single cartridge, eject the empty case and reload the chamber each time the trigger is pulled. Automatic - A firearm designed to feed cartridges, fire them, eject their empty cases and repeat this cycle as long as the trigger is depressed and cartridges remain in the feed system. Examples: machine guns, submachine guns, selective-fire rifles, including true assault rifles. Assault Weapon - A political term used to rally support for gun control legislation and giving gun control advocates wide latitude to designate any guns desired into this category based on factors other than function since a great deal of guns designated an "assault weapon" are Semi-Automatic and therefore cannot even be Assault Rifles (which do exist) <note: this is mostly opinion since well how else do you define something that doesn't otherwise exist> <<another note: please do yourself a favor and DO NOT use this term if you are trying to argue gun control you will sound woefully uneducated on the matter>> Once again I'll leave this here: http://www.assaultweapon.info/ A more comprehensive list of terms can be found here (some of these I copy/pasted from here): https://www.nraila.org/about/glossary/ <<see page 3 of this thread for Assault Rifle regulations - may be updated since they aren't particularly definitive nor am I purporting them to be>>

I too am a Conceal and Carry permit holder (newly acquired but it still counts) and an overall newbie to the gun world but I created this with the purposes of both debate and education (just like the title) I expect (especially around here) more dissenters than anything but at minimum I'd like to expose the dissenters to more correct information and at least be able to use terminology and concepts with how guns work correctly. I am to a degree patriotic (not as much as my rhetoric would indicate) and I am pro Freedom which guns are essential to protecting in America. I'm optimistic what could happen to this thread but like many others ... it'll be on topic for 3-4 pages and then turn into a clusterfuck (everything seems to turn into last post sooner or later) @ordinary I'm going to decode some of your abbreviations just so others know what you're talking about. I assume NFA means non fully-automatic and the .22 LR stands for Long Rifle type of 22 ammunition (I understood these but again trying to maintain some focus on education as well so I do ask if you contribute more to avoid abbreviations without elaborating on what they mean)

While Liberals/Democrats and Republicans/Conservatives both have issues that one side sounds insanely stupid or irrational on guns for the Liberals is one of them. I have some liberal friends who while they oppose guns do so in a more reasonable manner so I can politely disagree with them. Every time I hear a liberal mention "Common Sense Gun Laws" I cringe because more than half of what they propose is irrational fear and ergo not common sense. I would imagine its the same type of reaction most liberals have when conservatives talk about abortion regulations. If both sides would realize the juxtapositions on these issues argumentative bantering would drop dramatically (since guns and abortions are two of the most contentious issues around in America specifically but I'd imagine the world). I currently only own a Smith & Wesson Victory 22 (Semi-Auto) but plan to buy a .357 (Magnum) Smith & Wesson Revolver (with the option of using the .38 Special ammunition as well) I also believe there should be more reciprocity for CCW (Conceal and Carry Weapons) permits similar to drivers licenses. While there is an apples to oranges that applies a fundamental right as this one should not vary so greatly depending on where in the country you are. Imagine the (rightful) rage if you needed free speech permits to speak freely and criticize government or its laws? As much as there's many things that should be left more to the States and not on the Federal level I do believe guns are one of them since the Constitution from which our right to bear arms comes from is a Federal document (and you know the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND - and we know this because the Constitution says so) EDIT: This compelled me to update a definition for "Well Regulated" in the Constitution so liberals can (hopefully) better understand our objections to gun regulations. The only real "regulation" that the Founding Fathers wanted was that everyone have a gun and they sure as hell didn't want anything close to the gun control we have now.

I think the issue is not so much the guns themselves, but the fact there isn't a continued learning process/mental health check ins after the purchase. People and their lives change, so I feel continuous education and check ins would seriously help limit the damage done by shootings and ease the fear of those who have it. I have shot quite a few guns along the way as well and if they were easier to get in NJ I would.

I and to be honest most pro-gun advocates are not against the mental health regulations. I actually wouldn't oppose some sort of mental health screening or check up (as long as the cost wouldn't be too burdensome as I believe a fundamental right shouldn't be expensive *cough* Essex County NY *cough*) us pro-gun people aren't for the mentally unstable with guns because the Lanza's of the world give us all a bad name. People also tend to overreact to guns because it is true they are inherently dangerous and purely destructive in nature unlike cars which can be deadly but have other benefits (transportation). Actually you go to any shooting range and gun safety measures are NOT optional and are taken VERY VERY seriously (as they should) Also most pro-gun advocates would be in favor of having to pass a test of some sort on a shooting range to show proficiency. Again, the problem is liberals want to tag on a bunch of other things under the same guise that something like limiting magazine capacities is as "common sense" as mental health screenings. If the debate was more centered on what is really a "Common Sense Gun Law" we'd probably get somewhere. In Pennsylvania I simply had to pay 20 dollars, fill out an application, get my picture taken and wait thirty days(ish) to receive my permit which is valid for five years. In PA this is done on the county level but other states like Illinois it is done on the state level which draws the process out longer.

I am for the gun rights, (concerning the US). However, to resolve the situation of 'half of the population loves guns, and the other hates guns', I've wondered about could it be a possibility to control the conventional bullet and promote paralyzing type of 'bullets' (either chemical or electrical) instead? Those can be made powerful enough for the purpose of protection, but not lethal enough to cause large number of death in shooting incidents. Of course, I don't mean literally changing only the bullets, the gun itself will also need to be modified accordingly. So in other words, can we seek a revolution of the 'gun' into something that can be accepted by people on both sides of the debate? This may be a silly thought since I'm rather new to this discussion (as I grew up in country with long standing gun-control). So I'd love to hear about what people think of such a possibility.