"Firearms Board added" Topic

I'm in Canada and I think Deleted by Moderator

I'm in the USA and I think Deleted by Moderator LOL

Dn Jackson, I really can't be bothered checking your "statistics", as they sound dodgy and probably came from the NRA. I will, however, give you a real and relevant one in return. Gunshot deaths in USA 12 per 100,000, in Australia, 1 per 100,000 (and far lower than it was before the gun buyback scheme). I can actually understand why you would want to be armed in circumstances which currently prevail in the USA, but the real solution is to get the vast bulk of guns out of private hands. New Zealand didn't follow Australia's lead on gun control after Port Arthur, but they rushed to do so after the Christchurch massacre. Sadly, the number of guns in circulation in Australia is on the rise again. I do get it that no logic, no facts and no amount of dead children are going to alter whatever it is that makes you so attached to guns.

Just for the Heck of it … as it has been pointed out, if you don't like/are not interested in a board or topic. Don't click on it …

And what difference does in make to those that don't live in the USA about our gun control laws, the ability/right for any American to buy pistols and rifles ?

Dn Jackson, I really can't be bothered checking your "statistics", as they sound dodgy and probably came from the NRA.

In the USA crime statistics are published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr .

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is the largest firearms safety training organization in the country firearmtraining.nra.org .

I'm waiting for someone to demand the removal of the firearms board because the mere thought of its existence traumatizes them.

+1 Condottiere, so Bill based on you're earlier post, you did see this coming you just didn't care?

Legion 4, correct, that's what most of us have been saying. If you are a not a US citizen, no offense but our gun control laws don't concern you. If you are a US citizen and disagree, then exercise a couple other American Rights, such as the Right of Freedom of Association, i.e. clic it off, and the Freedom of Speech, that the "other" side has. Once you have exercised this last Freedom, THEN you can decide whether or not you want to exercise the other i.e. the right of freedom of association!

I'll try once more. Gun control is a political issue. Discussion of gun "rights" breaches Bill's own rule prohibiting recent political issues. Bill won't enforce his own rules, presumably because the more hits on TMP, the more money he makes. So, this has nothing to do with your political "rights" as Americans.

I'll also add that some people are going to be uncomfortable with supporting a site that provides a forum for the gun lobby. Hence, all this"just turn the board off" stuff is nonsense.

Surely there are enough other gun lover sites out there for gun enthusiasts without allowing the gun lobby free rein on TMP.

I really don't know where this 'gun lobby' comes from.

Unless someone is getting paid to post here in favor of gun laws, there is no 'gun lobby' on TMP.

Just some miniature and wargame enthusiasts who also own and discuss firearms.

Thanks for the advice von Schwartz. Of course, we all know that the USA has always strictly avoided any interference in the internal affairs of other countries ever since the Monroe Doctrine was promulgated. Not in Venezuala, not in Cuba, not in Iraq, not in Vietnam. Shall I go on?

"Dn Jackson, I really can't be bothered checking your "statistics", as they sound dodgy and probably came from the NRA."

Andy, no problem. I'm fully aware of the concept of, 'I don't like what you're saying, so I'm going to ignore it.'

Firearms can be difficult to get in many parts of the world such as Australia, France, the UK, etc. However, the bad guys seem to have no trouble getting them. How many terrorist attacks have occurred in France where the bad guys had guns?

Charlie Hebdo, Toulouse, Paris, etc. link

Personally, I'd rather have an armed civilian, at least he'll have a chance to fight back.

"Thanks for the advice von Schwartz. Of course, we all know that the USA has always strictly avoided any interference in the internal affairs of other countries ever since the Monroe Doctrine was promulgated. Not in Venezuala, not in Cuba, not in Iraq, not in Vietnam. Shall I go on?"

Please do. If you look at your mini-list you'll notice something. When the US does get involved, and wins, in other countries those countries get the freedom to determine their own path through free elections. If you look at the post-WWII era you'll see that in: South Korea, Nicaragua, El Salvador, South Africa, Taiwan, Poland, Romania, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Chili, Argentina, etc.

By the way, you should learn some history as Australia has been a staunch ally in many of these countries which included sending troops to Vietnam. Sadly, we lost there as did the Vietnamese people.

By the way, ask the people of Venezuela how they feel about being disarmed/unarmed. They've tried twice in the last few months to overthrow their dictator and both times the military put the uprising down with little effort. I prefer to live in a country where I have a chance should my government become overbearing.

Dn Jackson, you don't think that you might be just a bit hypocritical about that? Surely the key point is that Americans are 12 times more likely to die by gunshot than Australians (and there are plenty of countries where you are even less likely to be killed by gunshot than Australia). Answer that properly instead of putting up all the red herring arguments. But I guess that you have no answer to it. I reckon that most of us can figure out what Freud would have made of the obsession with guns.

Again … what difference does in make to those that don't live in the USA about our gun control laws, the ability/right for any American to buy pistols and rifles ?

Sounds like a bit of a "red herring" to me … For people of another country giving a Rats about what a bunch of backwoods, redneck, Yankee rustics do 1000s of miles away. Our rifles don't have that range.

Dn Jackson is a long time US LEO … that is not an obsession with guns, but a tool of the trade. Freud not withstanding.

Those who debated, and voted in, the US Constitution were learned men. They knew of the way the Bitish government broke up protesting citizens, using the Dragoons in particular – flat of the sword against citizens on foot with no weapons. (See the Luddite event of the early 1800's).

They also knew a great deal about other kingdoms of Europe – and how Louis XV of France turned his 13 Dragoon regiments into enforcers of "convert, depart, or die" to Catholicism. Fredericks the Great's Regiment Itzenplitz was originally formed of Heugenot immigrants.

The founders rejected a large standing army and navy, and gave us the right to own weapons to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. Today we see the opposing party working hard and publicly to form and vote in that very same tyrannical government.

GdeP

And I go back to my original post and ask simply, why do you care? If you don't like our laws too bad, don't move here. I don't on and kvetch about the laws in Australia.

Here's a phrase to keep in mind, "..shall not be infringed", doesn't leave a lot of room for debate.

The founders rejected a large standing army and navy, and gave us the right to own weapons to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government.

Very true … but as we see … times have changed a bit. "Tyrannical government", not withstanding. E.g. in both World Wars, the US Military had to do a lot of "catch up" …

We know one of the first "imperatives" of any Republic is the security and defense of it population. And with the evolution of weapons tech, tactics, etc. We see that in most cases, the best option in a large well trained professional military. Today and for quite sometime you can't just pick up your musket and go after those "pesky" lobsters …

However, the average citizen should be able to protect themselves from criminals, etc. As LEOs can't be everywhere. "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws with have guns." Or knives, clubs, etc. which are generally effective when assaulting the unarmed masses …

Today we see the opposing party working hard and publicly to form and vote in that very same tyrannical government.

Be careful … that could be or may be considered "talking politics". And as we know terms like "opposing" is in the eyes' of the beholder … yes ?

I see zombie attacks; urban warfare; and other such civilian wargame encounters today.

"The politics" of today offer some interesting wargame possibilities. Picture a scenario where a single mentally-ill assailant with a semi-automatic rifle is planning to attack a very large high-school or equivalent – in whatever country, or mythical, you prefer.

Run the scenario where the school has one uniformed, armed security guard who is patrolling in a part of this large school unknown to assailant. The school is posted "this is a gun-free zone – no firearms allowed."

Now do scenario where it has been posted that the school has armed uniformed, AND PLAINS CLOTHESED security personnel on duty. This school board cannot afford to have more than on uniformed agent, and is permitting volunteer teacher; office staff; maintenance people; and others to carry concealed to protect the children.

Reality gaming.

GdeP

Scenarios that are educational, but not very enjoyable to play.

Reminds me of a 'rescue the hostages' boardgame I played years ago. You don't feel very happy when you "win" if you don't save all of the hostages…

From Legion 4
However, the average citizen should be able to protect themselves from criminals, etc. As LEOs can't be everywhere. "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws with have guns." Or knives, clubs, etc. which are generally effective when assaulting the unarmed masses…

Reminds me of an old line from several years ago, and please no offense to current or past LEOs and their families and co-workers. The line runs: "When seconds count, a cop is only minutes away." The police and other law enforcement agencies cannot be everywhere at once. All that ever make the news now days is when someone with a axe to grind goes off the deep end and shoots some one else. We never hear of the hundreds, perhaps more, incidents where a bad guy was stopped from causing further mayhem by a good guy with a gun.

My grandfather owned a small butcher shop back in the 1940's in a hard coal town in Pennsylvania. The town was in sad, and permanent, depression, for the United Mine Workers had struck after WWII ended, and the mines never came back. Consumers changed to oil hear or gas heat.

Grandma used work work with him selling the product, and often just staying with him.

While about 9 or 10 years old, I knocked her unusually heavy purse on the floor, and out fell a revolver.

"Grandma, why do you carry a gun in your purse?"

She said, "because a policeman is too heavy!"

GdeP

Surely the key point is that Americans are 12 times more likely to die by gunshot than Australians

So the key point is if someone stabs you to death or blows you up, that's OK?

Providing that statistic outside the context of information on other violent actions simply indicates the preferential means to commit violence by people who chose to do so, not the overall propensity to do so.

to all 3 of these last posts …

" I reckon that most of us can figure out what Freud would have made of the obsession with guns."

To be honest Andy, the only person obsessed with guns in this discussion has been you. You're obsessed with making sure other people can't talk about what they want to talk about because of your obsession.

Andy, your bigotry towards gun owners, ('gun porn' 'gun lobby' 'gun nuts') and your clear rejection of facts because they MIGHT have come from the NRA make it clear you will not be swayed by reason, arguments, or actual facts. However, I'll give it one last try;

Here is a list of mass killings that have occurred in Australia. It includes several mass shootings, even though you claim that none have occurred since your government seized the private property of your citizens: link

I'll note that one of them was the death of 15 people through arson. Is it morally superior in your mind because they died by fire rather than gunfire?

Here's an article about mass public shootings from 2009- 2015 in the US and Europe. The US is ranked #11,
link

Additionally, since bad guys have limited access to guns, knives are now the assault weapon of choice in Australia and the UK.
link

link

It's at the point that ISIS is proudly proclaiming that they have a campaign of random knife attacks going on in the UK. And now the UK is instituting laws to take knives away from people. Why? Because the common man cannot defend himself in these countries. Oddly enough, when you take guns away from people, the only ones who turn them in are the law abiding and bad people always find a way to hurt those they want to hurt.

Additionally, one of the main purposes of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the people from tyrannical government. The first thing any dictator does when they come to power is disarm the people. Ask the people of Germany, Italy, Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela what it means to fight against tyranny unarmed. The people of Venezuela have tried twice recently and the revolt was put down quite easily.

Since the end of WWII we in the west have not had to fight a life or death struggle. There has been no existential threat to any of our countries. As a result, we have grown up without any threats and have come to the collective conclusion that the world is a safe place….it isn't. While we have nothing to fear from our governments right now, I'm sure the Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and other minorities living in Germany felt the same way in 1933.

Additionally, there are bad people who want to do bad things all over the world. Being an American I at least have the chance to defend myself if placed in that situation. Far too many people in the US, Australia, Belgium, France, not to mention many, many non-western countries have died hiding behind a locked door, under a desk, or on their knees begging for their lives. That is something I will never do.

"Reminds me of an old line from several years ago, and please no offense to current or past LEOs and their families and co-workers. The line runs: "When seconds count, a cop is only minutes away." The police and other law enforcement agencies cannot be everywhere at once. All that ever make the news now days is when someone with a axe to grind goes off the deep end and shoots some one else. We never hear of the hundreds, perhaps more, incidents where a bad guy was stopped from causing further mayhem by a good guy with a gun"

von Schwartz; no offense taken, just a statement of fact. The last estimate I read was that defensive gun uses occur about a million times a year in the US. We don't hear about them because they don't fit the media's agenda, they're not reported, or 'no blood, no story'.

GdeP, that's awesome. I read years ago that when Eleanor Roosevelt was driving through the south working to help black Americans gain their voting rights she drove with a revolver on the passenger seat in case she ran into any KKK types.

Is it morally superior in your mind because they died by fire rather than gunfire?

Archie Bunker made this exact point in the '70s
YouTube link

Surely the key point is that Americans are 12 times more likely to die by gunshot than Australians

the US has 11 times the population density as Australia
and many more high population areas
wouldn't that be a statistical wash?

Suggested reading for those who would like to discuss the topic: "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America" by Gary Kleck. The author has his Ph.D. in Sociology and at the time of writing was a professor of criminology and criminal justice at Florida State University. Moderately heavy on statistical analysis, but you don't really need to understand the math to follow the arguments. FWIW

Again … what difference does in make to those that don't live in the USA about our gun control laws, the ability/right for any American to buy pistols and rifles ?

Really …

the US has 11 times the population density as Australia

Actually there are a number of studies that demonstrate that population density is the single driving factor in violent crime and wash out cultural, regional, weapon choice, ideology (reason for committing the crime), and a host of other factors.

I no longer have access to them at work, so I can only mention them anecdotally. If I get some time on the weekend, I may see if I can dig out publically accessible (i.e., you don't have to pay for an academic archive or journal subscription) versions of those or related studies.

wouldn't that be a statistical wash?

But, no. The relative population densities of the countries also takes the provided statistics out of context.

Actually there are a number of studies that demonstrate that population density is the single driving factor in violent crime

I've seen studies with over crowding of rats' in the lab. And the results are basically the same. Save for cannibalism, necrophilia, etc., among the rats …

Again … what difference does in make to those that don't live in the USA about our gun control laws, the ability/right for any American to buy pistols and rifles ? huh?

Never underestimate the power of envy…

"Additionally, one of the main purposes of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the people from tyrannical government."

I think it was included not for protection from a government as much as it was a sop for fearful southerners worried about their slave's rebellion if slave owners did not have arms immediately at hand. It was an instrument of oppression as much as a defense from tyranny. Originalist arguments should not be enshrined since the underlying situations of 21st century America and 18th century Colonial life are different. That is why the constitution is amendable on paper and not written in stone. The founders understood it would have to adapt.

Increased Gun ownership statistics show increased chance of death from a fire arm while states where it is restricted simply do not see the same rate of death from other causes taking up the slack. The sheer efficiency of fire arms is the problem. Intent on mayhem might be consistent but ability to do it not equal. The idea that "bad guys" always can find guns and only outlaws will have the guns is a myth not backed up by real life. It really comes down to access. If there are many legal guns unrestrictedly available, they become the source for illegal guns when stolen( or not when the law abiding citizen decides to break a law.)

I also dispute the idea that gun brandishing averts crime. Just as often it exacerbates situations that would not turn into a crime. The sense of empowerment has shown that even minor infractions can escalate. The very intangible nature of reportage makes me suspect the numbers. Certainly if brandishing a gun is one means to avert a crime, than concealed carry is counter productive.

Never underestimate the power of envy…

Good point !

Most serious statistics regarding gun mishaps and population are calculated on a per capita basis. Gross population disparities wash out.

"I think it was included not for protection from a government as much as it was a sop for fearful southerners worried about their slave's rebellion if slave owners did not have arms immediately at hand."

Nope, not even close. If you read the Founder's own words its clear they wanted to stop a tyrannical federal government form over reaching. In part Federalist 46 says, "Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger….To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."

"Originalist arguments should not be enshrined since the underlying situations of 21st century America and 18th century Colonial life are different. That is why the constitution is amendable on paper and not written in stone. The founders understood it would have to adapt."

Yes, this is true. All you need is 2/3rds of the states to agree with what you want. Otherwise the law says what it says.

"The idea that "bad guys" always can find guns and only outlaws will have the guns is a myth not backed up by real life."

Yet, that is reality. Chicago has some of the toughest anti-gun laws in the country. At one time there was only one gun store in the entire city. Yet it has one of, if not the, highest murder rates I the country.

"I also dispute the idea that gun brandishing averts crime."

Please find a study that supports your position. I've seen several that say civilian ownership of firearms reduce crime.

"The idea that "bad guys" always can find guns and only outlaws will have the guns is a myth not backed up by real life."

To all those believe this, why then are the cities with the most stringent restrictive gun laws the same cities with the highest incidence of gun violence?

Don't know if it still holds true in todays world but I was once told that the country with the lowest incidence of gun violence was Switzerland, because everyone is required to have a gun.

Cities clearly lack the reach to prevent illegal guns from the surrounding countryside entering. They lack an enforced border with customs controls. But states can do a better job of it.

"The idea that "bad guys" always can find guns and only outlaws will have the guns is a myth not backed up by real life."

"I also dispute the idea that gun brandishing averts crime."

WHAT ?!?!?!? Not on this planet !!!!

But seriously … everything I had heard, read, been told says otherwise. As well as, if someone tries to break into my house or tries to mug me, etc., in the streets. And they don't have a gun(s). Or even if they do … They made an error.

I.e. Me: 1(+) … Bad Guy(s): 0

From mother jones:

NAACP Legal Defense Fund president John Payton explained the ugly history behind the gun lobby's favorite amendment. "That the Second Amendment was the last bulwark against the tyranny of the federal government is false," he said. Instead, the "well-regulated militias" cited in the Constitution almost certainly referred to state militias that were used to suppress slave insurrections. Payton explained that the founders added the Second Amendment in part to reassure southern states, such as Virginia, that the federal government wouldn't use its new power to disarm state militias as a backdoor way of abolishing slavery.

This is pretty well-documented history, thanks to the work of Roger Williams School of Law professor Carl T. Bogus. In a 1998 law-review article based on a close analysis of James Madison's original writings, Bogus explained the South's obsession with militias during the ratification fights over the Constitution. "The militia remained the principal means of protecting the social order and preserving white control over an enormous black population," Bogus writes. "Anything that might weaken this system presented the gravest of threats." He goes on to document how anti-Federalists Patrick Henry and George Mason used the fear of slave rebellions as a way of drumming up opposition to the Constitution and how Madison eventually deployed the promise of the Second Amendment to placate Virginians and win their support for ratification.

That is some interesting information. And generally I don't doubt that is factual.

However, I'm pretty sure it does not hold true today.

I would not be surprised if much of the fear prompting for unrestricted gun ownership share the same root. Fear of immigrants and the great unwashed population has a racial aspect. But more to my point, is that originalist arguments about government tyranny and the need for armed militias to combat it is only part of the story. We can also discuss whether gun ownership is a collective or individual right since this is subject to evolution.

unrestricted gun ownership

Well I think that is a bit too "strong". We do have gun laws, etc. Again, save for criminals. Who don't obey laws.

Fear of immigrants and the great unwashed population has a racial aspect

Well for some that may be true. But to me it does not matter who they or where they are from, etc., if they plan to assault, rob, kill, etc. I want to have the ability to protect my family, friends, etc.

And yes, even myself !

Even though this practice actually increases yours and you to a greater chance of a poor outcome? To put it in wargaming terms, you just changed your saving throw to a poorer rating. Not to mention the frictional cost the whole of society pays for you to have a firearm beyond even the direct costs to you for owning it?

I don't think I have a greater chance of a poor outcome.

Regardless, I'm willing to take those risks … After firing and owning firearms since in my teens, followed by 4 years as an ROTC Cadet[where I frequented the weapons range].

Then 10+ years as an Active Duty Army Infantry Officer '79-'90, in 4 Inf Bns[1 Air Asslt, 3 Mech]. I'm pretty confident in my abilities to properly use a hand gun or rifle.

And my ability to make a proper decision when needed. Even if it means to be non-confrontational. As long as the threat does not require me to use a small arm. But if it does … I won't hesitate.

It's like a reserve parachute … better to have it than not.

As far as the whole of society … I'm willing to take the cost/risk for my family, friends', etc. safety and survival.

thanks to the work of Roger Williams School of Law professor Carl T. Bogus

I think the name says it all!

"NAACP Legal Defense Fund president John Payton explained the ugly history behind the gun lobby's favorite amendment. "That the Second Amendment was the last bulwark against the tyranny of the federal government is false," he said. Instead, the "well-regulated militias" cited in the Constitution almost certainly referred to state militias that were used to suppress slave insurrections. Payton explained that the founders added the Second Amendment in part to reassure southern states, such as Virginia, that the federal government wouldn't use its new power to disarm state militias as a backdoor way of abolishing slavery."

Lord, what a complete load of revisionist garbage. I've quoted Federalist 46 twice in this discussion. The Founders CLEARLY wrote that they wanted THE PEOPLE to be armed to stop a tyrannical federal government.

"We can also discuss whether gun ownership is a collective or individual right since this is subject to evolution."

We can talk all we want, it doesn't change what the Constitution actually says, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." You're asking me to believe that of the first ten amendments; nine are exclusively individual rights and the last, which specifies "The People" is collective. That argument holds no water.

"Even though this practice actually increases yours and you to a greater chance of a poor outcome? To put it in wargaming terms, you just changed your saving throw to a poorer rating."

That statistic has been shown to be false repeatedly. At least twice in this thread alone.

"Not to mention the frictional cost the whole of society pays for you to have a firearm beyond even the direct costs to you for owning it?"

The frictional cost is only because statists want me to give up my rights to give the government more control over our lives. I'll ask you again Andy, (for the third time); Do you think the people of Venezuela, where armored vehicles recently ran through crowds protesting to oust a dictator, would prefer your unarmed utopis, or do you think they'd like a chance to fight back against the tyranny they face every day?

You stated earlier that there have been no mass shootings in Australia since 1996. A fact that is demonstrably not true. I count 104 people killed in mass murders in Australia by shooting, stabbing, and fire since 1996 in this list: link
Do you think its possible, just maybe, that some of them would be alive today if they'd had the means to defend themselves?