Open-carry cop-watchers say they are "pissed off patriots"

boing
165

I think my rational is that because it has been the law for so long it seems to work ok and leave it in place.

But I don’t really have a strong case on why they should have tighter restrictions. They really are not much more dangerous than a regular semi auto firearm. In the military full auto is rarely used except as a squad support weapon. No one I have ever talked to from Afghanistan or Iraq used their M4/M16 on full auto or burst in combat.

My reasoning for removing SBRs and suppressors is

  1. the SBR size is arbitrary.
  2. Anyone wanting to make an SBR for use in a crime only needs a hack saw. 3) Many long barreled pistols are one stock away from becoming an SBR.
  3. Suppressors are NOTHING like they are in the movies and games. They are fun to play with and there isn’t a good reason to further restrict them.
166

Are you arguing on my side now? I’m confused.

If guns killed less people you would be ok with it then?

Yep.

How much less, what is your “OK” number?

Oh, say, a level at which comparable countries with similar socio-economic conditions have? Look at the chart I posted: The countries that surround you are dangerous shitholes. I’m glad you’re okay with that.

but the black market and people getting guns for them (straw purchase or private sales) are the top two ways criminals get their guns.

How can you not understand that more private gun ownership results in more guns making it to the black market? It’s common. Fucking. Sense. Private sales and gun shows can and should be controlled. Private sales and gun shows aren’t even a thing here… we must be some sort of sorcerers or something, right? Also: different types of guns and different background check regulations exist in various states, thereby undermining the efforts of any states that are trying to move in a more sensible direction.

We aren’t?

No, we aren’t. That was you trying to move the goalposts to territory where you think your arguments hold water, remember?

Sooo… making it safer… for the good of society.

individuals ≠ society. Its obvious that society benefits if the individual benefits, but I don’t really care about that. I don’t want the people I care about to be shot or some thin-skinned shithead to shoot me because I hold strong and in-your-face opinions.

you really shouldn’t fear getting shot. It is unlikely

Cool story bro! Tell that to this guy: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/chasing-his-dream-aussie-baseballer-gunned-down-in-us/story-e6frg6nf-1226700161728
…oh wait he’s dead. Tell to his family, I’m sure it will help with their grief.

So if we got the number for fire arms deaths down some, we’d all be kosher?

Yep. Try aiming for Canada’s levels, maybe? Americans always seem to feel superior to them so you might as well try to beat them at that then? I also would have thought that someone who was such a fan of private gun ownership would be able to spell ‘firearm’.

Drinking, smoking and drugs may have less graphic effects, but they are way more common and widespread.

direct negative effects ← try to read more carefully.

How many deaths are caused by them compared to guns? Protip: alcohol and nicotine are drugs. The people who are dying chose to take the drugs. It’s not as if their drug use is gonna kill some bystander, or a school full of kids - at least to the extent that guns can and do on a regular basis.

If you removed the worst urban crime centers, the rest of the homicide rate in the US looks like Canada’s.

Because those people aren’t people… somehow? Hey, if you just remove all the drink drivers from the equation, Australia has NO DRINK DRIVERS!!! YAY! I’m the president of common sense! Shitty US drug/sentencing laws and the decades of shitty gun laws are the reason these places have problems.

because he knows someone some where died getting that drug to him.

What? If he smokes weed that’s fucking bunk. Chemical drugs that come from outside the US: you might be right. Smoking weed gives cartels money and damages US national park land but no one died to bring you weed… The profits from selling weed to you are used by the cartels to buy tons of guns at gun shows in the south and ship them over the border (where private citizens can not own guns). America’s selfish gun laws directly influence the accessibility of guns in Mexico. Thanks again!

And what wizardry do you propose to prevent people from using guns drunk?

…are you serious? Sensible gun laws. We actually have that technology. I’m also in no way opposed to putting BAC testers on cars (apart from the issue caused when a drunk person is the only one who is able to drive in an emergency situation).

Aw man… this last paragraph is pure gold, A+++ misdirection. My question was very specific and just like the rest of your and Kevin’s “contributions” to this thread, you want to change the questions so your answers sound more convincing.

In schools… yes IN schools. I’d contend that zero (or very close to 0) kids were killed by alcohol/drugs in school. A drastic contradiction to the track record of guns in schools.

239 were murdered by drunk drivers.

Murder requires premeditation. Drinking isn’t so good for the ol’ premeditation. Drunk drivers don’t murder people. Gun owners murder people.

Tens of thousands were abused physically, sexually, and verbally by parents and others under the influence with guns.

^See what I did there? Drivers accept restrictions on their freedoms to drink. It’s about time selfish cunts stop holding onto their guns, as if owning them is some sort of human right. It’s just fucking pathetic, especially considering your arguments are based in ignorance, misdirection and lies.

They are fun to play with

^finally we’re getting a bit of honesty!

and there isn’t a good reason to further restrict them.

Bob forbid you’d want a killing tool to make a loud noise! I can’t think of any reason why guns shouldn’t be quieter and easier to fire without drawing attention. Shotguns should totally do this amirite?

1 Like
167

“I am trying to appear reasonable.”

lol. Since he’s not down with explosives maybe all we have to do is inform him that rockets, missiles, gunpowder in cannons and ammunition are in fact just small explosions and we can all go home?

1 Like
168

That’s just it; it shouldn’t. I’ve noticed a similar phenomenon, that even among people I knew who were wary of cops, weary of government intrusion in their lives, and willing to talk about cops who overstep their bounds, are now on the “I support law enforcement” side of the fence.

Thankfully, I can also say that, among the people who fall on the “Officer Wilson did no wrong” side of the fence that I know, they’re also on the “nobody should be choked to death over cigarettes” side of the fence, so it’s not merely racism, but more about the notion that Michael Brown may have been shot while grabbing for a gun. (Note: that does not constitute full agreement on that part. Personally, I still think there’s something suspicious about the situation.)

169

It seems that the pro and anti-gun commenters in this thread have a different idea of what ‘works OK’ means. It’s interesting that the pro-gun position seems to involve being fairly sanguine about the actual deaths that do happen now as a result of the accessibility of firearms, but are totally knock-kneed and trembling with fear about the potential deaths that might happen sometime if firearms are restricted further.

It’s also funny that the analogies being made relate so often to driving and alcohol consumption because both individually and in combination we accept strict restrictions about how we do both these things, and that has had a measurable effect on the number of deaths that are caused by or made more likely by their use. I personally would like to see better enforcement of traffic laws in the UK, and drivers’ lobbying groups here are well known for their strong responses to developments that they fear will infringe upon their ‘right’ to break traffic laws (Protip - traffic cameras only catch you out IF YOU’RE BREAKING THE LAW), but ultimately they acquiesce because their argument boils down to “fuck off, I like driving cars like a bit of a twat sometimes”.

The reason full-auto is not used often in the military is because soldiers are rarely trying to kill indiscriminately. But full auto facilitates indiscriminate killing and isn’t much use for any other application (as you just acknowledged); not in a military and certainly not in a civilian context. It’s basically a feature that is most attractive to precisely the sort of bump-firing jerkoff who ought not to be trusted with guns.

I believe we have similar laws about shotgun length in this country, and it’s specifically because sawn-off shotguns were so popular amongst gangsters. Interestingly, although our handgun regulation is so strict that our Olympic team trains in France, and is often considered an outright ban, I believe that pistols over a certain length are permitted - presumably this includes some types of target pistols. I’ve never seen anyone using a target pistol, though.

As for suppressors, I can see a civilian application for them in small calibres for pest control, but you might be better off using a higher-powered air rifle for this, as then you wouldn’t need a suppressor. Although I’ve heard that using an air rifle instead of a Real Gun can make your penis drop off or something. The suppressor is also a military-chic piece of kit, and it’s interesting that snipers generally score highly on tests of human empathy - I don’t know if anyone has tested wannabe-snipers.

2 Likes
170

+∞

All of this. Did you know that the airbag was invented because stubborn Americans didn’t want the draconian seatbelt imposed on their freedoms? I’m not even joking. Just like they wised up and now use seatbelts because “no shit, sherlock”, they will one day wise up on guns too. I’ll personally fly over to the states to take Kevin’s off him.

PS is the snipers bit true and do you have a citation/source? Very interesting.

1 Like
171

The problem is that in an authoritarian society, there is no way to opt out if/when one chooses to do something regarded as risky. So The State has the same obligation to try patching somebody together to provide medical care whether a person was restrained by their seatbelt, or thrown through the windshield. The down side of being recognized as having individual agency is that it doesn’t leave you a safety net to rescue you from bad decisions. Meanwhile, bureaucrats love having the excuse to meddle in people’s lives. There is no “waiver” a person can use to make the final responsibility their own rather than the governments.

Anyway, the debate about the legality of firearms has effectively derailed the original topic, which was cop watching.

2 Likes
172

Not sure how this is any more on-topic than discussion of firearm ownership in a thread which starts with “Open-carry” as it’s very first title words.
Are we off topic? Yes, sort of. but at least we’re in the ballpark. Anyway, it should be of no surprise considering the topic at hand.

Ive read plenty about what educated people have concluded about outcomes and effectiveness of the supposed benefits of private firearm ownership put forth by the pro-gun lobby and the evidence mostly contradicts the claims. That aspect of the story I feel versed enough to discuss. The other aspect (“libertarians”* watching The Man) I know little about, other than they’re mostly crazy old cooks with too much time on their hands and often a selfish attitude dressed up as pragmatism.

*I use the quotation marks as I consider myself to be fairly libertarian and I feel they’re tarnishing the name with their heavily republican-leaning rhetoric.

1 Like
173

I don’t think most people live in “knock-kneed fear”. I think most people have one around “just in case”. I think the defense drum is beaten to death because it is an argument point that is hard to counter.

I’ve used air rifles. Penis is OK!

174

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.