DAFUQ? O'Reilly PRO-gun control

[nemesiss]

i was looking for a topic on the forum for a topic on gun control, when suddenly this clip of TYT played on my headset



i was quite amused and confused to hear Bill O' Reilly, mr tides, make an argument to regulate gun usage and in such a way that sound intelligent...

though that is an interesting talkingpoint.

In general, what do you think is smart gun control?
Who do you think (should) own/use a gun?
what do you consider gray area's on this subject?

 

[bluejatheist]

Well unless new laws are passed here in the U.S. I'll probably be purchasing at least one firearm for myself (Been planning to since before that shooting)

 

[Prolescum]

I don't think the general public should be able to possess guns except in particular instances (farmers et al), but I'm British (we just moan until someone begrudgingly gives in).

America is a different kettle of fish. Even if they repealed the second amendment, there'd still be more guns there than people. Not that they would, the logic behind it is fine.

The only solution that makes any sense to my mind is to curtail the variety of weaponry/ammunition available to the public, and the age at which you can obtain them.

 

[bluejatheist]

Too much of a cynic to live life unarmed.

 

[televator]

To add to the irony on the topic, Bill O was leveling insults at Bill Moyers for being...pro-gun control. He then turns around on that same segment to propose his own ideas for...gun control. :?

Also, I find it sickening how the gun zealots react after a massacre like this. No introspection what so ever about their beloved hobby around weapons of death. No, just gimme mah guns. I NEED MOAR GUNS! Better get ready before the NRA owned gub'mint tries to take mah guns!

 

[The Felonius Pope]

I'm a pretty liberal guy, but I'm not opposed to the general public owning guns. I've got a Winchester 30-30, a Savage Arms .22 rifle, a J. C. Higgins 12 gauge, a Ruger MK II, a Mosin-Nagant, and a little Italian .25 ACP.

 

[bluejatheist]

Held a Mosin-Nagant, not bad, didn't get ti fire it though.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

The United States supplies 70% of the world's firearms.

This is ALL firearms with public record of being manufactured (including artillery, bombs, and "Big Guns" for all of you Fallout fans) - including those manufactured for military use by governments to supply their own armed forces.

In essence, Gun Control to further extents like what exist in Britain would never work in America - mainly because for it to work, it would include crippling a trillion-dollar enterprise. As well as the fact that, in America, many traditions are derived from the fact that you can make yourself feel safe and secure when your government nor police can. You're allowed to form militia and arm that militia, as well as act in self defense for yourself.

It's an old traditional though back from Colonial times when the British had this dicking about disarming the Americans - the problem is that back then most weapons in the population were used by frontiersmen that had to defend their land and property, and had to form their own ranks to fight of the Natives whom took to raiding their places.

The point is that America has a deep intimacy with guns and weapons - it's the bread and butter of American culture, for better or for worse.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Though, as an aside, I would like to say that people being armed to the teeth would not have prevented this disaster.

Being armed can prevent some things in the correct circumstances and in the right hands - but in this situation, even if I were armed (I'd put myself as a decent shot. I have Expert Marksman in the 9mm) I wouldn't have drawn it and taken a shot.
It's a movie theater. It was dark, people are running around in a frenzy, and he was wearing a tactical vest which, in even normal conditions, would have driven more home as a bulletproof vest. So quick-shooting for center of mass would not (in my mind) have garnered anything aside from the direct attention of his Assault Rifle and a waste of a few rounds on my part.

One thing that DOES bug the living hell out of me is that he could get ahold of a 100-round magazine.
I've never used a 100-round magazine as part of a Military assault rifle loadout - that's what Machine Guns are for. Assault Rifles are too light for an ammo box that size.
A civilian can get their hands on a magazine clip for a medium-range weapon that allows someone to just Pray-'n-Spray is stepping the lines of "Self-Defense" argument for arming one's self.

 

[The Felonius Pope]

Held a Mosin-Nagant, not bad, didn't get ti fire it though.

It has a pretty bad recoil but it's fun to shoot.

 

[evilotakuneko]

"When are we going to have a labeling system that says these weapons are for hunting wild game and these weapons have no legitimate purpose except for self defense"

Um, because pretty much any gun can be used for both? Some are better at one or the other purpose but there's nothing stopping you hunting a bear with a 9mm handgun.*

*Except of course, the bear.

 

[Frenger]

I don't like guns. I don't see the need for anyone to have them other than law enforcers and armed forces.

The problem with joe public having them is they are not trained on how to use them, sure they can pull the trigger but are they completely aware of the consequences of pulling that trigger, do they know when to pull it and in what direction should they aim the muzzle (They still have a muzzle right?)?

The majority of the population are idiots, guns should not be given to idiots.

 

[bluejatheist]

The reality is that, at least here, the public is gun saturated and that is unlikely to change. My own arming would be in reaction to this, along with participation in training to properly handle firearms. I'm not concerned with the long term result of such domestic arms races as I would expect no better of the people regardless. It's a different country, culture and 'world' here.

 

[Frenger]

The reality is that, at least here, the public is gun saturated and that is unlikely to change. My own arming would be in reaction to this, along with participation in training to properly handle firearms. I'm not concerned with the long term result of such domestic arms races as I would expect no better of the people regardless. It's a different country, culture and 'world' here.

The problem with that is, I assume everyones self arming is a reaction to a saturated society. I don't know how you fix that with joining in and helping to prop up that culture.

Of course, this is easy for me to say living in the British Countryside and I pass no judgement.

 

[nemesiss]

i think you could make it an interesting case to mandate that all gun owners must participate in a mental health check every certain time and must be part of a certified gun-club.

for the first section, you can say it's to make sure you don't want crazy people to have guns. then you can mentally blackmail them by talking about mass shootings in school that could have been prevented, not to forget the "well, if your mentally healthy, you've have nothing to fear... right? RIGHT?! " argument.

as for the gun club section, you can use almost the same mental gymnastics to get people to agree. the difficult one is the argument of "too much government". that one is a little bit tricky, but i think americans can be easily persuaded by pulling a Bush Jr and say it's to protect americans from terrorists.

 

[bluejatheist]

The problem with that is, I assume everyones self arming is a reaction to a saturated society. I don't know how you fix that with joining in and helping to prop up that culture.

Of course, this is easy for me to say living in the British Countryside and I pass no judgement.

Not really, generally firearm owners here arm because of a mixture of sport(hunting, target shooting) self defense(a pistol to shoot home invaders, etc) hobby (collecting historical arms, etc) politics(hoardings guns to fight the Feds if they come knocking) For example my brother-in-law owns multiple hunting rifles which he uses to hunt, novelty/collectible arms like old WWII rifles for hobby, and several (always live-round-loaded) hand guns expressly for using lethal force on someone if he ever felt it necessary. It may not be coincidence that he was raised in an abusive home and his closest family member(his older brother) was murdered with a firearm in a mugging here, which explains his kneejerk want for firearms to protect his household, and also some racist tendencies(the convicted murderer was black, he never forgets to mention this and is fond of the term 'Nigger.')

Also the use of military-grade weapons such as assault rifles and sub-machine guns is seen in criminals (Going back to the days of the Italian Mafia, who were better armed that police officers) and in civilians(a chance at shooting various weapons is a main feature of many firearm events). The police are armed often as heavily as the military or at least have SWAT units that are on par with the military. This was a response to increased use of heavy weapons against police- the police did not set the trend. Until recently many urban police faced incidents such as The SLA or the North Hollywood Shootout and there continue to be incidents like this.

There is a reason I don't feel comfortable being unarmed in the United States.

 

[Frenger]

The problem with that is, I assume everyones self arming is a reaction to a saturated society. I don't know how you fix that with joining in and helping to prop up that culture.

Of course, this is easy for me to say living in the British Countryside and I pass no judgement.

Not really, generally firearm owners here arm because of a mixture of sport(hunting, target shooting) self defense(a pistol to shoot home invaders, etc) hobby (collecting historical arms, etc) politics(hoardings guns to fight the Feds if they come knocking) For example my brother-in-law owns multiple hunting rifles which he uses to hunt, novelty/collectible arms like old WWII rifles for hobby, and several (always live-round-loaded) hand guns expressly for using lethal force on someone if he ever felt it necessary. It may not be coincidence that he was raised in an abusive home and his closest family member(his older brother) was murdered with a firearm in a mugging here, which explains his kneejerk want for firearms to protect his household, and also some racist tendencies(the convicted murderer was black, he never forgets to mention this and is fond of the term 'Nigger.')

Also the use of military-grade weapons such as assault rifles and sub-machine guns is seen in criminals (Going back to the days of the Italian Mafia, who were better armed that police officers) and in civilians(a chance at shooting various weapons is a main feature of many firearm events). The police are armed often as heavily as the military or at least have SWAT units that are on par with the military. This was a response to increased use of heavy weapons against police- the police did not set the trend. Until recently many urban police faced incidents such as The SLA or the North Hollywood Shootout and there continue to be incidents like this.

There is a reason I don't feel comfortable being unarmed in the United States.

I suppose it just comes down to different cultures, I have literally no reference point for how you feel in your circumstance.

I would ask though, given what you have said about your brother-in-law, should he have that many guns? And do you think the restriction level is right at the moment for who can get guns and what kind of guns they can get?

Also those incidents you linked are shocking, like I said, I just can't imagine living anywhere near anything like that, I'm sure it's horrible.

 

[bluejatheist]

I doubt any effort to remove guns from the population would be effective or safe, first because many of the weapons are illegal in the first place, used by criminals, gangs, etc which are unregistered and hence unknown to the government until they are found/confiscated by police in the wake of arrests or incidents. Second, I think many of the more extreme people who own weapons would use them against police or federal agents if an attempt was made to remove the weapons. (See Waco and Ruby Ridge of example of this sort of 'crazy') Third the scale of the United States would require signification resources to undergo a disarmament of the public. There have been some programs of trading money for weapons under anonymous pretenses, however, but the government.

Legislating better regulation of guns would be slow and difficult due to an entire political party(GOP) being against such things. Even then, the illegal market of firearms would not be affected.

The very origin of the United States stems from frontier settlements where people relied on their own personal weapons in an era where military and police assistance was rarely available. Also consider the U.S. Constitution which, in spite of being flexible for amendment, still is a document of laws from a time very different from today when national defense relied on the militia, which many agree was written vaguely due to the controversy it sparked in its own time.

As for my brother-in-law, he probably has too many guns for his own good, especially considering he has a child that is currently at the age where they can walk and open doors. When I last visited him I noticed loaded handguns just sitting out in the open, though I think he keeps them less available with the kid.

As for gun restrictions, one should consider that hunting is still a very common sport/practice that are ingrained in the economy and likelihoods of some places. However, there is little reason for civilians to be armed with military assault weapons, automatic weapons and explosives. The main argument given in favor of having these is to oppose the government/attackers in the event of some sort of civil war, government collapse, oppression or foreign invasion. ( One is reminded of the misattributed quote of Isoroku Yamamoto, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.") I'm personally not convinced that any civil or or attack of civilians by the military is likely. But then, it has happened before, and would not betotally out of character for the government.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Personally, I have no issue with US citizens owning guns.

The problem is that the NRA portray any attempt to limit gun ownership as a "right to bear arms" issue.

It isn't - it's a "fitness to bear arms" issue.

"Fitness" is inherent to the Second Amendment - it's just that the "Pro Gun" lobby (NRA et al] have convinced every one that it isn't.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[wswolf]

The lies and distortions in this editorial are so densely packed that it rivals the best efforts of Kent Hovind.

People are buying guns because they fear "politicians are going to take them away." Baseless and inflammatory. The commentators can't possibly know the motivation of thousands of gun buyers. Perhaps some buyers were reminded by the publicity to make purchases of emergency survival equipment that they had been putting off. Or many people had just received tax refunds. Or a popular hunting season was approaching.

". . . it's going to be the OK Corral." Irrelevant. The Clantons and McLowreys at the OK Corral were resisting arrest by law officers. This has nothing to do with individual self-defense. Predictions of blood running in the streets are routinely made whenever concealed carry licenses are issued by objective criteria. These predictions have never materialized. Off-duty police officers commit crimes at a higher rate than concealed weapons permit holders according to data from at least two states.

Celebration time for "the NRA and gun manufactures that fund the NRA." Two blatant lies. The commentators did not quote any expressions of glee because there were none. The NRA is funded by 4.3 million individual members, not gun manufacturers. The commentators would never have imagined a celebration among automobile makers and the American Automobile Association over a terrible crash. Stating that gun-owners, because they are gun-owners, would feel anything but sorrow and outrage over a horrible tragedy is outright bigotry.

"The idea that if you had been armed you would have been able to protect yourself, Scaaary"! An armed person could have an opportunity to defend him/herself. An unarmed person could not. Apparently the scaaary part is the imagined scenario of an armed citizen in a panic, shooting into a crowd. This indiscriminate shooting by a defender has never happened.

[from a poll:] ". . . 74%, including NRA members, favored registration of semi-autos and other reasonable regulations." Unsubstantiated. No citation of the poll was offered and "reasonable regulations" were not defined.

"Scaaary, 26% think you should not be registered to have a semi-auto." Appeal to emotion and ignorance in the same breath. The semi-auto seems to have gained a reputation for potency of mythical proportion. The first commercially successful semi-auto pistol was introduced in 1896 and the first semi-auto hunting rifle that I know of dates from 1906. It has certainly taken them a long time to become so frightening. Registration has consistently failed to reduce crime. Registration could not possibly reduce crime. Its only purpose is to create lists for later confiscation as has happened in Nazi Germany, Cambodia under Pol Pot, California and New York among other places.

Note that the commentators use semi-auto and assault rifle interchangeably. Whether ignorant or dishonest they are engaged in deception.

"Why can't we compartmentalize the debate to consider assault rifles?" Another attempt to create a false equivalence between assault rifle and semi-auto. Assault rifles are already strictly regulated and have been since 1934. In states where they are not completely banned they can be bought only after getting permission from local law enforcement, the FBI and paying a $200 tax to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms for a special license.

"When are we going to get a legitimate labeling system that says these weapons are for hunting game and THESE have no legitimate purpose except for self-defense." Since the commentator stated that both hunting and self-defense are legitimate uses no labeling system is needed. Assault rifle has a strict definition via the US Department of Defense and semi-automatic has an unambiguous technical definition.

"If we are talking about assault rifles, if we are talking about handguns these aren't weapons we use to hunt." Self-defense, a "legitimate purpose" in the previous sentence, is not mentioned. Assault rifles are irrelevant to hunting. Handgun hunting is common enough that several manufacturers offer handguns specifically designed for hunting.

i was quite amused and confused to hear Bill O' Reilly, mr tides, make an argument to regulate gun usage and in such a way that sound intelligent...

Mr O'Reilly describes a display of ordinary handguns, rifles and ammunition as "heavy weaponry", a term reserved for cannon and other crew-served weapons. He rants on that "heavy weaponry" should be registered and that buyers of large amounts of ammunition should be watched by the FBI. Mr O'Reilly pretends he is unaware that a firearm dealer cannot make a sale without a background check by the FBI. He also stated that the theatre shooter has accumulated 60,000 rounds of ammunition. All other reports I am aware of said 6,000 rounds. A serious competitive shooter would find 6,000 rounds barely adequate.

Mr O'Reilly's concerns bring up a number of questions: How many FBI agents would be needed to monitor legal buyers of ammunition? How much is excessive? What are the civil-rights implications of keeping 80 million non-criminal gun owners under surveillance? What would be the monetary cost of this surveillance? How is the possession of a few thousand rounds of ammunition relevant to criminal behavior?

Mr O'Rielly was the same old gasbag, whose knowledge of firearms equals his knowledge of science.

In general, what do you think is smart gun control?

Assuming the goal is to reduce the rate of violent crime it would probably be best to forget about gun control altogether and direct police resources to more patrols. According to More Guns, Less Crime by Dr John Lott, the most comprehensive study of crime ever undertaken, the two most important factors in crime reduction were the per-capita number of police on patrol and the change by many states to "shall issue" concealed carry laws, where anyone meeting objective criteria will be issued a permit to carry a handgun. (Criteria vary by state but usually include but are not limited to training and background check.) If you don't like Dr Lott's conclusions you can crunch the numbers yourself. His entire dataset is available on his website.

Who do you think (should) own/use a gun?

Anyone who is physically and mentally capable of using one without unduly endangering the public should be free to do so. A gun is a tool for self-defense which is a basic human right.

what do you consider gray area's on this subject?

I think the gray area is in how do decide who is capable and who is not.

Beyond this the discussion becomes philosophical and many deeper questions are raised. Self-defense being an individual right: By what criteria can anyone be denied the right or the tools to save their own life? Is it logical to prohibit or restrict of non-malicious behavior by the law-abiding- the ownership or carrying of firearms,in order to prevent criminals from committing crimes? Is a government that criminalizes a basic human right a legitimate government?

Cheers,
Wolf