PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Jet Blast (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast-16/)
-   -   A USA gun thread. That won't be controversial, will it? (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/549775-usa-gun-thread-wont-controversial-will.html)

John Hill 23rd Dec 2014 19:21

Guns are designed, manufactured and intended to be used as weapons, cars are not.

Chesty Morgan 23rd Dec 2014 19:25


Originally Posted by rgbrock1 (Post 8795043)
Chesty Morgan wrote:

For no reason? Absolutely incorrect assertion.

Absolutely right. Do you need a reason to own a gun? Just because you do have a reason doesn't mean you need one.

Or are you telling me that you're only allowed to own one if it's to resist tyranny?

galaxy flyer 23rd Dec 2014 19:25

SFFP,

Every state, except VT bless 'em, requires a training regime acceptable to the State Police even Texas and ?Utah. Every state, again except VT, has a range of laws limiting some people from gun ownership. See how gun laws work.

GF

West Coast 23rd Dec 2014 19:56


Of course, if you need a gun then it would be a hardship. Not all gun owners need them though. The constitution allows unfettered ownership, for no reason.
Glad to see you've walked back your previous statement as far as hardships. I don't need a reason to own one however, you might as well argue within the framework that exists, not some theoretical or euro platform.



Do you advocate similar training for everyone who wants to own a gun?
As I've said before I think all Americans should have weapons training via compulsory military service. Short of that,if I want to hunt legally I must have received safety training. Don't mistake legal ownership with a thug from the hood who operates outside the law.


It isn't. Otherwise you wouldn't have the number of illegally held guns that you do. Nor would you have the number of gang related shootings.
You need to seperate lawful and unlawful ownership. I guarantee there's illegal ownership of weapons in your country even if all the legal ones are gone. No number of laws, mandated training, or for that matter confiscation is going to stop a good old fashioned Chicago gang banger from shooting up people.

Chesty Morgan 23rd Dec 2014 20:14


Originally Posted by West Coast (Post 8795082)
Glad to see you've walked back your previous statement as far as hardships. I don't need a reason to own one however, you might as well argue within the framework that exists, not some theoretical or euro platform.

I haven't walked anything back. My first statement is still accurate, you even agreed with it.


As I've said before I think all Americans should have weapons training via compulsory military service. Short of that,if I want to hunt legally I must have received safety training. Don't mistake legal ownership with a thug from the hood who operates outside the law.
What about those who can't complete military service, why are you discriminating against them? Those people who want to hunt illegally can just get away with?


You need to seperate lawful and unlawful ownership. I guarantee there's illegal ownership of weapons in your country even if all the legal ones are gone. No number of laws, mandated training, or for that matter confiscation is going to stop a good old fashioned Chicago gang banger from shooting up people.
Well I did separate them by specifying "illegally held". Your laws would work if they were policed effectively.

West Coast 23rd Dec 2014 20:32

Read through your posts, you have contradicted yourself during your short time here.


Of course, if you need a gun then it would be a hardship. Not all gun owners need them though. The constitution allows unfettered ownership, for no reason.

losing your guns wouldn't cause you a hardship.

And now were on to discrimination? Stay focused chap.


Well I did separate them by specifying "illegally held". Your laws would work if they were policed effectively.
Ok, are you an expert on law enforcement at the differing levels, local, state, federal? Offer up your opinion on it. I recognize a throwaway line when I see it, I'll give you a mulligan on that one.

Chesty Morgan 23rd Dec 2014 20:41

Yes West Coast. You and people who need guns. You are not someone who needs a gun and you admitted it would cause you no hardship versus someone who needs a gun. No contradiction.


And now were on to discrimination? Stay focused chap.
You stated that all Americans should have compulsory military service and therefore, weapons training before they can own a gun. I asked you about those who cannot complete military service and why you would discriminate against them.


Ok, are you an expert on law enforcement at the differing levels, local, state, federal?
You don't have to be an expert on law enforcement to realise that laws would work if they were enforced.

Seldomfitforpurpose 23rd Dec 2014 21:18


Originally Posted by galaxy flyer (Post 8795050)
SFFP,

Every state, except VT bless 'em, requires a training regime acceptable to the State Police even Texas and ?Utah. Every state, again except VT, has a range of laws limiting some people from gun ownership. See how gun laws work.

GF


Thank you for that info, in all the threads I have participated in no one has offered that, every day is a learning day :ok:

Zapatas Blood 23rd Dec 2014 21:56

The argument that guns should be available to the public to prevent a tyrannical Government is hilarious.

What makes you think that a society whose citizens can barely find neighboring countries on a map will recognize tyranny? How do you know that tyranny has not already arrived? What does it look like?

A tyrannical Government will not operate overtly. It will be an incremental change accompanied with a subtle crushing of dissent and covert self-censorship by commercial media.

And the tyrannical Government has F-16’s and ICBM’s and a standing army. Does Bubba with an AR15 and a skin full of moonshine really favor his odds?

Get real people, pro gun folk are being manipulated by corporate interests that appeal to a misunderstanding of an outdated document written by largely ignorant white men who had no idea what future technology would be available.

galaxy flyer 23rd Dec 2014 22:15

After, what?, 75 years of PRI one-party rule, you'd recognize tyranny.

As to civilian uprisings against tyranny, I'd suggest the least bit of military history. Russia/Britain/US vs. Afghans to start. So far, primitive Pashtuns are up 4-0 against the three greatest military powers of their age. Then, there's Uncle Ho's 2-0 record against France/US. It's a split record, US vs. Britain.

GF

galaxy flyer 23rd Dec 2014 22:23

SFFP,

I've taken three of the courses, they didn't offer anything I wasn't taught by Dad and friends at age 10. OTOH, I doubt the class work made an impression on the class members who were there to fill a square before getting their license.

I recently picked up a M12 pump shotgun; sat down for an hour with a shooter very knowledgeable to learn the intricacies of them. I'm mostly a doubles gun guy, so I spent the time to learn. That's what I'd expect of anyone with a new mechanical device. It's called personal responsibility and laws won't enforce it, only learned discipline.

GF

PS: I bought the M12 because, as a late friend used to say, "those Euro bar stewards don't shoot 'em".

The Professor 23rd Dec 2014 22:51

Galaxy Flyer

You have provided two countries as examples of where you believe an armed citizenry has successfully repelled an invading force.

Unfortunately, the two examples you provided are of countries where the citizens were working in partnership with the state and its military apparatus.

This is in fact the opposite situation to the rational provided by the gun lobby in the US as to why they feel an armed citizenry is beneficial.

If the armed citizens of the US genuinely felt the need to rise up against tyranny it will be against those who hold office in D.C and those that hold power in N.Y.C. and you will NOT have the support of the military.

An armed rather uninformed citizenry. A government that is largely controlled by corporate interests. An economy that only grows as a result of debt based consumption. Unsustainablely high military spending. A dying and generally uncompetitive industrial base.

What could possibly go wrong?

rh200 23rd Dec 2014 23:39


If the armed citizens of the US genuinely felt the need to rise up against tyranny it will be against those who hold office in D.C and those that hold power in N.Y.C. and you will NOT have the support of the military.
The good thing about the volunteer military is its distubution of values. For a country like America, if there was a significant uprising, then depending on what its about, you may find the military will choose a side. Or may stay out of it concertating on making sure external forces don't take advantage of the situation.

Then you have the problem of the National guard etc etc. In essence any significant uprising will be a complete cluster F#$%k. The simple fact is most party's will get rid of the problem well before that would happen.

The most likely scenario is a slow burn as we further divide our societies leading to a collapse, and or breakup. In that case being well armed to look after yourself and loved ones is a must have.

John Hill 24th Dec 2014 00:04

GF

As to civilian uprisings against tyranny, I'd suggest the least bit of military history. Russia/Britain/US vs. Afghans to start.
Not a good example GF. The wars in Afghanistan have been to preserve the tyranny of the landowner class over the peasants, the peasants are still loosing the battle.

West Coast 24th Dec 2014 02:05

Chesty

Is this about me or gun ownership in the US? Not sure where you want to go with it.

Here's your 101 lesson and the framework I argue under.

1) I don't need a compelling reason to own a weapon. None. That's not going to change. You can reference euro style gun control. Fine, but it's outside the framework of any type of change that's going to happen given the Constitution.

2) You seem to obsess on my ownership of weapons. I wouldn't be burdened today without them, not to say I wouldn't tomorrow. Either way it doesn't matter, see number 1 for explanation. I'm waiting till after New Years to purchase a used Dan Wesson handgun from a neighbor. Why? Simply because I can. No other reason. That's not going to change.

If you want to debate US legal weapons ownership in terms of the reality of it, the above will help you. If you want to talk about wholesale confiscation, you're in fantasy land and you're then entitled to determine your own facts and arrive at whatever conclusion you'd like. Let me know, I'll buy a shotgun to celebrate, simply because I can.

con-pilot 24th Dec 2014 02:24


If the armed citizens of the US genuinely felt the need to rise up against tyranny it will be against those who hold office in D.C and those that hold power in N.Y.C. and you will NOT have the support of the military.
Uh, the military take an oath to uphold the Constitution, not what party happens to be in power or whomever occupies the White House. Just as I did.

So you might think about that for a while.

Personally, I will continue to use the ballot box, it worked last month, thank you very much. :ok:

Chesty Morgan 24th Dec 2014 02:53


Originally Posted by West Coast (Post 8795420)
Chesty

Is this about me or gun ownership in the US? Not sure where you want to go with it.

Obviously it is about both. I merely compared two situations, one which would cause me a hardship and one which wouldn't cause you one. Why are you clinging on to it, it's a minor point?


Here's your 101 lesson and the framework I argue under.
You sure are condescending.


1) I don't need a compelling reason to own a weapon. None. That's not going to change. You can reference euro style gun control. Fine, but it's outside the framework of any type of change that's going to happen given the Constitution.
I have not suggested you do need a reason, in fact I stated nobody in the US needs a reason to own a gun. You think this is a good thing? I have not referenced any style of gun control, Euro or not so why are you inventing it?


2) You seem to obsess on my ownership of weapons. I wouldn't be burdened today without them, not to say I wouldn't tomorrow. Either way it doesn't matter, see number 1 for explanation. I'm waiting till after New Years to purchase a used Dan Wesson handgun from a neighbor. Why? Simply because I can. No other reason. That's not going to change.
You seem to lend greater importance to your ownership of guns than I do. I do not obsess about your ownership of weapons, you were merely an easy example to use.

Now, would you like to answer why you would discriminate over gun ownership between people who have had compulsory military service and those who may not be able to serve? Or will you keep obfuscating over minor points?

West Coast 24th Dec 2014 07:30

If I came across as condescending, you have my apologies. I obviously have strong feelings on the matter and perhaps the language I used wasn't best suited.

I'm simply trying to offer you a framework, yours to accept or not.

You ask if I think it's a good thing that no one needs a reason ( but that doesn't necessarily mean they can get one) to own a gun. Honestly, it doesn't matter what I think, again back to the backdrop of constitutional rights that affords this.

I do place importance on owning weapons, if only to exercise my constitutional rights. For that I make no apologies. My personal weapons have not killed anyone. They have killed game inmthe past and being an ethical hunter I was, the meat was eaten.


Now, would you like to answer why you would discriminate over gun ownership between people who have had compulsory military service and those who may not be able to serve? Or will you keep obfuscating over minor points?
You may be guilty of dwelling on minor points now given it's simply an opinion. I'll humour you however....

Yes, you guessed it, the constitution covers it, my opinion doesn't matter.

Are you honestly that interested in my opinion? I don't care what decision is made, allowances always have to be made to accommodate outliers to a given rule. We good now?


You don't have to be an expert on law enforcement to realise that laws would work if they were enforced.
Now if I may ask a question. What laws among the thousands that exist that apply to guns are not being enforced?

The Professor 24th Dec 2014 07:45

“Uh, the military take an oath to uphold the Constitution, not what party happens to be in power or whomever occupies the White House.”

Correct.

“I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”

If the armed citizens of the US genuinely felt the need to rise up against tyranny then it is the armed citizens that will constitute the domestic threat.

The military will defend the state.

Chesty Morgan 24th Dec 2014 11:53

West Coast, we all know the constitution, more pertinently the second amendment, exists so this is obviously a hypothetical discussion about the ethics of gun ownership is it not? That's why we ask your opinion.

You may think I'm dwelling on minor points but I'm only asking until you give an answer. Falling back on "the constitution says" is the easy way of avoiding giving your opinion. My questions still stand.


I don't care what decision is made
Genuinely? If a decision is made, regardless of how unlikely it is, to ban gun ownership outright you wouldn't care?


What laws among the thousands that exist that apply to guns are not being enforced?
Are you asking for which specific laws aren't being enforced?

It is often cited that the areas with the most severe gun controls are the areas with the highest gun crime. If that is the case then I suggest that those laws aren't being enforced.

Are there illegally held guns in the USA? Is there illegal trade in guns in the USA? Are guns, illegally held or otherwise, used in the commission of crime in the USA?

con-pilot 24th Dec 2014 16:30


If the armed citizens of the US genuinely felt the need to rise up against tyranny then it is the armed citizens that will constitute the domestic threat.
Perhaps, perhaps not.



The military will defend the state.
There is a difference between the "State" and the Constitution.


But, one more time, the ballot box has worked so far and as far I as I can see or am concerned, it will continue to do so.

What we are talking about is so remote, it staggers the mind. Never the less, the Second Amendment remains in place and I see no reason to remove it, nor do I believe it can be because the American people will not allow a change to the Constitution to remove it.

A hundred years from now, who knows.

Mr Chips 24th Dec 2014 16:31

I'm not entirely au fait with how the Police would enforce the law against illegal gun ownership until the owner produces or uses said gun in a manner likely to attract the attention of the police. To claim thT law isn't being enforced is rather stretching the point. That's like claiming the law against murder isn't enforced because people get murdered....

Seldomfitforpurpose 24th Dec 2014 16:51

Define being enforced, if you would be so kind......

con-pilot 24th Dec 2014 18:37


Define being enforced, if you would be so kind......
AH HA! I figured it out, you're Bill Clinton. :p

West Coast 24th Dec 2014 22:00


You may think I'm dwelling on minor points but I'm only asking until you give an answer. Falling back on "the constitution says" is the easy way of avoiding giving your opinion. My questions still stand.
The question will stand for quite some time. I've made my beliefs abundantly clear.

Chesty Morgan 25th Dec 2014 02:45

Right, so you are falling back on the constitution rather than discussing the subject.

Your right of course but why do you partake in these threads if you don't want to discuss other possibilities?

Mr. Chips

I'm not entirely au fait with how the Police would enforce the law against illegal gun ownership until the owner produces or uses said gun in a manner likely to attract the attention of the police. To claim thT law isn't being enforced is rather stretching the point. That's like claiming the law against murder isn't enforced because people get murdered....
It's rather simple. You find someone, even by chance, with an illegally owned weapon then you punish them. If this doesn't happen the law is not being enforced.

Your comparison with murder is nonsensical. The crime of murder is committed and then, hopefully, the criminal is caught and punished. A weapon is held illegally - which is the crime - and then, hopefully, the criminal is caught and punished. The illegally held weapon does not need to be produced or used for it to be, wait for it, held illegally.

West Coast 25th Dec 2014 05:12


Your right of course but why do you partake in these threads if you don't want to discuss other possibilities?
Because there's subjects wrt weapons ownership that aren't covered by the Constitution, and I'm quite happy to discuss those.

I'm still awaiting a proper explanation of your broad based claim regarding enforcement of laws. I'm not going to say I completely disagree with you, but the claim is vague and doesn't cite specifics.

Chesty Morgan 26th Dec 2014 17:19

I'm not sure how you expect me to cite specific examples of something not happening.

West Coast 26th Dec 2014 17:51

How would you know laws aren't being enforced if you don't know what the laws are to begin with?

How can you with any degree of certainty say laws are not enforced? What evidence, what specific areas or is your claim so broad based as to say the laws, which differ greatly from Honolulu to Miami aren't being enforced?

Bear in mind recent census data counts 39,044 general purpose local governments, which includes 19,492 municipal governments, 16,519 township governments and 3.033 county governments all of which may enact laws. Now add in federal and state government as well and see how silly it is to make a sweeping generalization. This especially so given the polar opposites of some of the laws, such as what one can do in Arizona as compared to the mean streets of Chicago wrt weapons carriage.

Chesty Morgan 26th Dec 2014 17:59


How would you know laws aren't being enforced if you don't know what the laws are to begin with?
I didn't say I don't know what the laws are I said how do you expect me to cite specific examples of something not happening.


Bear in mind recent census data counts 39,044 general purpose local governments, which includes 19,492 municipal governments, 16,519 township governments and 3.033 county governments all of which may enact laws. Now add in federal and state government as well and see how silly it is to make a sweeping generalization. This especially so given the polar opposites of some of the laws, such as what one can do in Arizona as compared to the mean streets of Chicago wrt weapons carriage.
Exactly. How long do you want me to search for? I've got better things to do. It's not silly just because it's a general comment, especially if it's true. Why on earth do you need specifics?

Is it illegal for a criminal to possess a weapon in the USA? Yes. Do criminals possess weapons in the USA? Yes. That law is not being enforced is it.

West Coast 26th Dec 2014 18:30


I didn't say I don't know what the laws are I said how do you expect me to cite specific examples of something not happening.
As I said before, I don't necessarily disagree with your point, just the scope. I can cite specific cases where the law isn't being enforced. Why can't you?


Is it illegal for a criminal to possess a weapon in the USA? Yes. Do criminals possess weapons in the USA? Yes. That law is not being enforced is it.
What's a criminal? What makes you think it's illegal for a felon to own a weapon? Hearing something repeated enough doesn't make it fact. No, not all felons are barred from owning a weapon. This is exactly why one needs to know what the law is in order to know if it's being enforced.

Chesty Morgan 26th Dec 2014 19:17


I can cite specific cases where the law isn't being enforced. Why can't you?
I haven't looked for specific cases. If I could be bothered I could find specific examples, I can't be bothered, but I don't need to to know it happens. Why don't you post some examples then, save all this stupid back and forth.


What's a criminal? What makes you think it's illegal for a felon to own a weapon? Hearing something repeated enough doesn't make it fact. No, not all felons are barred from owning a weapon. This is exactly why one needs to know what the law is in order to know if it's being enforced.
Isn't it obvious I'm referring to a criminal who is barred from owning a weapon?!

West Coast 26th Dec 2014 19:56

I make no assumptions on your level of knowledge of various laws. I now have some insight. Some jurisdictions do ban felons from banning owning weapons, others don't. So, which of your statements am iI to believe? You want me to assume you knew that you meant only certain felons are ineligible or your previous one that states all felons can't possess a weapon. You can't have it both ways. Again, you need the to know the laws before you can speak to enforcement.

Chesty Morgan 26th Dec 2014 21:12

You have a talent for being blinkered and being too specific, there are other phrases but I won't use them. It helps you avoid actually discussing the subject matter which, by the way, is not my knowledge of your laws but, in general, gun crime in the USA.

Now, you have specific examples of gun laws not being enforced yet you're still harping on about whether you think I know or not. Who ****ing cares?

Give us your examples or stop muddying the waters.

Mr Chips 26th Dec 2014 22:23

So the fact that not every single illegally held gun is found means that law isn't being enforced, but the fact that murders occur doesn't mean that law isn't be g enforced....

You know you are contradicting yourself? Unless you can demonstrate examples of when someone is discovered with an illegal weapon are not dealt with.....

West Coast 26th Dec 2014 23:41


You have a talent for being blinkered and being too specific, there are other phrases but I won't use them
I guess the spirit of collegial debate has past.


My exercise was simple, the trap basic, to prove to you that you've not enough knowledge of the wide variety of weapons laws to arrive at the conclusion you did.

You claimed to use your word criminals aren't allowed to own weapons, then you infer a level of knowledge that yes, some may. Your own words dug the hole, not mine. Neither of your answer was the correct one.

Honestly, the proper answer is it depends on which laws are applied. It's not a simple yes or no, or a flip flop which best describes your answer. Mate, you got caught trying to play both sides of the coin.


Now, you have specific examples of gun laws not being enforced yet you're still harping on about whether you think I know or not. Who ****ing cares?
Right up until you contradicted yourself, I actually cared. Now that I know your level of knowledge and your lack of desire to learn more, I'm going to admit the give a sh!t meter moving forward is minimal as my point has been made.


Give us your examples or stop muddying the waters.
You honestly expect me to do your leg work? No, if you want to make declarative statements, you can do the research to find out if they're correct. Preferably next time before you post the statement.

So, here's your chance at redemption. Can a felon legally possess a weapon?

Chesty Morgan 27th Dec 2014 02:18

Blah, blah, blah. None of what you write changes reality and is just plain old obfuscating.


I guess the spirit of collegial debate has past.
You attempting to question my knowledge of a multitude of gun laws is NOT debating and it is NOT debating the subject of the thread. You're an obfuscating extraordinaire.


You honestly expect me to do your leg work?
You've already done it apparently. You could, in less words than you last post, inform us. But you chose not to, which is indicative.


Can a felon legally possess a weapon?
What a stupid question.


So the fact that not every single illegally held gun is found means that law isn't being enforced, but the fact that murders occur doesn't mean that law isn't be g enforced....
You're struggling with the difference between found and punished. There's a blindingly large distinction.

West Coast 27th Dec 2014 02:54


You attempting to question my knowledge of a multitude of gun laws is NOT debating and it is NOT debating the subject of the thread. You're an obfuscating extraordinaire.
I believe one should have a knowledge of what is being debated. With respect to US weapons regulations, respectfully you are lacking. I'll be happy to debate at something greater than a cursory level of knowledge.


What a stupid question.
When you state a felon can't possess a weapons, it's a declaritive yet incomplete statement, yet when I ask you, it becomes a stupid question.


You've already done it apparently. You could, in less words than you last post, inform us. But you chose not to, which is indicative.
Further indication of a cursory knowledge. By your admission there's a multitude of gun laws, yet you expect it explained in a maximum of a handful of paragraphs. Sorry, refuting your claim about enforcement can't be answered as easily as you might think. It would take volumes to examine the topic. What I did do in a couple of posts was question your level of knowledge, don't confuse the two.

It's just not that simple.

Chesty Morgan 27th Dec 2014 03:11


With respect to US weapons regulations, respectfully you are lacking. I'll be happy to debate at something greater than a cursory knowledge.
Actually you have no idea about my level of knowledge, which is simply not relevant to the subject, but still keep avoiding the debate if you wish. If one does not know something does it still occur? Certainly.



When you state a felon can't possess a weapons, it's a declaritive yet incomplete statement, yet when I ask you, it becomes a stupid question.
Yours is a stupid question because it was designed to test my knowledge, which again is still irrelevant. You are aware there's this thing called the internet which is easy to use and holds the answer to your question and you also gave the answer to your question in a previous paragraph. Me answering your question proves nothing.


By your admission there's a multitude of gun laws, yet you expect it explained in a maximum of a handful of paragraphs. Sorry, refuting your claim about enforcement can't be answered as easily as you might think. It would take volumes to examine the topic. What I did do in a couple of posts was question your level of knowledge, don't confuse the two.
Laughable. I don't expect or need it explained which is why I didn't ask for an explanation, I hope you're being purposefully obtuse as opposed to genuinely not understanding written words. What I did ask was for you to post your example of gun laws not being enforced - which you have so far refused to do. Keep avoiding doing this as well despite holding several examples, apparently.


I believe one should have a knowledge of what is being debated.
So let us all read your specific examples of this mini debate then. Let's see your knowledge....

Still, poor enforcement of your gun laws is happening despite all the hot air and bovine faeces hereabouts.

West Coast 27th Dec 2014 04:00


Actually you have no idea about my level of knowledge,
You made statements that were factually incorrect regarding felons and legal weapons possession.That's not in debate. To that point, your level of knowledge is known.


Yours is a stupid question because it was designed to test my knowledge, which again is still irrelevant.
I expect a certain level of knowledge of the subject. You may not share the same belief.


What I did ask was for you to post your example of gun laws not being enforced
This was your claim, you support it.


Still, poor enforcement of your gun laws is happening
Again, support the claim with something other than an open ended statement. Do you expect readers to simply accept this as a statement of fact and move on from there without challenging it? You could have cited a number of cases by now to support you assertion yet you chose not to.

Is it your intent to defend your statement by further attacking me or back it with facts? If it's the former, you'll do so minus my continued participation. Should you choose the later, then let's move on.


All times are GMT. The time now is 17:40.


Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.