Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'LA Galaxy' started by Bilgediver, Sep 5, 2019.
Man, I keep forgetting you're way out that way. May Zlatan's mighty arms shield you from the winds.
My comparison of the AR15 to a Mini14 was earnest. Everyone in this thread has been really fair and I am not trying to make any “bogus” comparisons. I don’t care to win an argument here.
I honestly don’t see a difference in the guns. They function the same. An AR15 is lighter and easier to break down. It is the same round and can have the same size magazines. An AR has a pistol grip standard which does nearly nothing for shooting. It has a telescoping stock which also does nothing. To me there is no difference except an AR looks scary. You can do just as much damage with each.
It’s also not really meant to kill multiple people in a short amount of time. That would be something like a Mac-10 or an Uzi.
Honestly if I were to take one of those guns for the rest of my life it would be the Mini14. It is not picky about ammo and it will last forever no matter how you treat it.
You do need to demonstrate competency by showing that you know how to load and unload. Maybe also lock the slide open? I can’t really remember. It is nothing big though just at the counter. In california now you have to take a written test for both rifles and handguns which are very very easy if you know anything about gun safety.
There really is no “licensing”. Either you are allowed to own guns by being a citizen of the country or you are a prohibited person. There is no license to apply for.
To buy a gun you have to pass a background check every time and there is a 10 day waiting period. The background checks are thorough. You aren’t getting a gun if you are a prohibited person. If you are a convicted felon, if you have been adjucated mentally ill and other things that I don’t know too much about because I don’t have a record. The background checks are not flawed at all. It goes to the Department of Justice and they clear you or they don’t. Either way you have to wait the full 10 days.
I believe the U.K. does have a lower homicide rate but a few years back I had read about how they also had 4 times the violent crime per capita. I had then read a fact check on that explaining that those numbers were inflated because of the different ways each country categorizes violent crime. But even after correcting for that the U.K. has either 2x or 2.5x the violent crime rate which includes things like stabbings, rape, assaults etc...
No waiting period or background checks on private sales, fyi... (see latest Texas shooting for how to legally get around background checks)
This is not generally true in the US. I've bought both a piston and a shotgun and all I had to do in either case was give the cashier my money. I've never had to demonstrate any gun knowledge whatsoever.
I called your comparison bogus because it seemed you were saying that all semiautomatic rifles were the same. I don't think you would argue that the 22 semiautomatic rifle my cousin uses for varmint hunting is comparable to either. I am not saying that semiautomatic rifles should be banned, I am saying that weapons designed for the military that can easily be modified into something illegal to own should be banned. As for the AR15 and Mini14, they are more or less functionally equivalent, in that they fire the same round and be easily modified to be bump fired. IMO, there is no legitimate reason to have either.
I read something similar but the conclusion was that it was hard to tell and that the violent crime rates weren't dissimilar. However, whereas as the UK had more assaults, the US was higher on homicide and sex crimes.
The caveat of course, as you said, is that it's very hard to make a comparison on violent crime because the UK applies it very liberally, whereas the US is very narrow. I know for a fact that so much as deliberately spitting on somebody in the UK is classed as assault, which automatically tallies as a violent crime there. Meanwhile, the US only counts murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault as violent crime, so unsurprising that the UK rate is higher.
Even trying to account for the different classifications, physical assault is such a broad term in the UK that it must be pretty hard to analyse without knowing details of the various cases.
In California you have to do a private sale at a dealer and they do a background check and hold the gun for 10 days. Some states don’t have that law. It is a felony to sell to a prohibited person in those states.
There is no way to “get around” background checks. Either you have to do a background check or you don’t. If someone buys a gun from a dealer for you to do a private sale later that is called a straw purchase and it is illegal.
It is true in California where I am able to buy a gun though. I can’t buy out of state so I am not sure how they work. But I said it’s nothing big and no license really. Pretty much you are able to buy what you want if you are not a prohibited person.
Yeah I made the comparison of the AR and Mini14 not a .22. I was explaining what semi-automatic means because it gets twisted. All semi automatics function the same there are just different rounds that are more powerful.
You can’t really legislate for things that some people may do illegally. You can make altering something illegal but banning something because someone might do something illegal is a step too far. If you are going to go that far you could just 3D print a gun now. Or buy an illegal gun. I always say go find a drug dealer and they can get you a gun. Making it illegal wont make it go away whether it is gun, abortions or drugs.
Yeah I agree that it is hard to determine exactly what the difference is but this article does a good job at debunking the higher numbers while showing that their violent crime rate is still higher.
I mean we know that the U.K. has had a big problem with stabbings in recent years and the government is cracking down on knives.
I believe in the US spitting on someone is also assault.
My point in all of that is that taking away guns won’t stop violent crime. Bad people will find ways to do bad things.
On top of that gun crime is way down. Most gun deaths are suicides and the second most is gang on gang. There is actually a very small percentage of gun deaths against normal people. So if you don’t want to get shot don’t kill yourself and don’t be in a gang and you should be good.
If you believe Wikipedia here are the US vs UK homicide and suicide stats, gun and non-gun related. These stats, which while not perfect, are more readily compared than definition-dependent "violent crime," "assault", etc.
Firearm related deaths per 100k pop, by category :
So 53 times as many in US.
So 74 times as many in US.
So 49 times as many in US.
Overall, not just gun related:
So 4.4 times as many in US.
Suicide (age standardized)
So 1.8 times as many in US.
Obviously there are other differences in the US and the UK so these differences aren't all explained by gun ownership. But I would argue that ready access to guns explains some of the differences for what -- to me -- seem like obvious reasons. Take hypothetical "anger control issue" me for example. I'm not a big guy and if you gave me a knife and I would still have a very hard time dispatching someone in a bar fight. Give me a gun and it will be all over quick.
Yup. Guns make emotionally charged moments like murder and suicide much easier. Research seems to indicate that guns make these easier to go through with because there is some real physical distance between you and the victim. Other forms of violence require literally getting your hands dirty and/or more planning that can help defuse that momentary charge emotional moment in which an otherwise rational person will commit violence against another or themselves.
Imagine how much easier it would be on our emotions if we could do it from a remote location using drones.
Like I said before most firearm deaths are that aren’t suicide are gang on gang violence. Like the vast majority. Of all firearm murders per year rifles make up 300 deaths per year. That’s 0.085 per 100,000 if we have 350m people.
Of those 300 rifle deaths per year it is safe to say a good amount are gang related. That’s why I have been saying the “assault rifles” are not a problem at all.
We don’t have a gun problem we have a gang problem.
Tell that to the Sandy Hook parents or the little girl who got her face shot off last week....
That’s an awful thing and I think there is a bigger discussion to be had. It’s really awful that this stuff keeps happening. We need to talk about some plausible steps we can take as a nation to stop these situations.
I wish the media would stop reporting all of the details of these things. It is the new way to get ultra famous for a few weeks. There needs to be a blackout of personal information and a time restriction on reporting it. We can’t have them blaring the details all day over it.
Let’s talk about how nearly all mass shooters are on SSRI medication. I have been on SSRIs and they worked wonders but it can totally change how you think. Also the scary thing about them is that there is no reliable way to test if they are working. It’s not like you can draw blood and examine if a person is ok on them. A psychiatrist has to rely on someone being honest during evaluations. It is more than a coincidence that so many mass shooters are on them.
In the end though there are evil and crazy people in the world and no amount of legislation is going to stop them. It is already illegal to shoot someone.
Edit: I also didn’t mean to hijack this thread and start a long gun debate. I was replying to someone that brought up that most Americans wanted restrictions on “the most lethal” types of guns and I wanted to point out that they don’t. That is a narrative that the Democratic Party pushes. All I was trying to do was point out that these most lethal guns are used in a very very small percentage of murders. The fact that they are so demonized is mind boggling. But I get that these recent waves of mass shootings cause an emotional reaction. The thing is there is no way to get rid of the guns. It will just turn regular citizens into criminals when they keep theirs. The criminals definitely aren’t turning them in. We have more guns than people in this country. Add to that that our constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms and as pointed out in Heller that means on your person to protect yourself. Not for hunting.
With that said I won’t comment anymore about guns in this thread as it was never my intent to start a war. Go G’s!
I don't think you started a war.
This was a very informative discussion. The modern world needs more of this.
Well this got interesting. I was just posting about something that seemed a little ridiculous, no matter what your political beliefs were, no matter the couple's original intentions.
For example, look up second amendment audits. Most guys walking around open carrying rifles in public spaces are complete d-bags and don't do it because they think people will react well to seeing a guy dressed in Camo with a rifle slung over his shoulder. Yet it is well within their rights to do what they are doing. In almost every video the police show up, act civil and tell them to basically "play nice".
I'm not sure what point you are making here Bilge? I know what "second amendment audits" are and I know they are in vogue in recent years. But I'm not sure how they are relevant to gun rights vs gun control arguments? In fact I would argue the name is a misnomer since open carry is not a right guaranteed by the second amendment according to US courts. Open carry is completely illegal in some states including Florida, Illinois and most of CA, and is restricted in in various ways in every state. Maybe they should be called "current local gun law audits"?
Since it isn't a constitutional issue that means every state legislature make their own open carry laws. Proof that this isn't that logic based comes from the fact that their decision making is all over the place -- in some states only handguns are legal for open carry, in other states it's the opposite, only long guns are permitted. In some states carrying an AR-15 into a McDonalds isn't seen as a problem, in others it's punishable with a jail sentence. And, as I just pointed out, some states have decided only law enforcement should be allowed the right of open carry.
So given it's clear that open carry laws aren't a constitutional issue (unless you think US courts are wrong on this issue?) that means they are just the product of whatever current state politicians have decided to make legal or illegal. In theory these would considered a public policy issue or a public health issue and decided on that basis. But lobbyists, including the NRA and gun manufacturers, have so much say into who gets into office and who gets kicked out that the laws usually reflect their wishes instead of the public's interest. And in fact the laws often even reflect their words, since many are completely written by lobbyists promoting their self-interests.
So in reality an honest weighing of whether more or less gun control would help or hurt our society is not being carried out in state legislatures these days. Sadly only after mass shootings does public opinion does play a little in this calculus, but so far not enough to matter.
By the way many gun rights activists, include portions of the NRA are strongly against so called "2nd amendment audits" but they have been shouted down. See https://www.idahostatejournal.com/o...cle_46946ec5-da9f-5a56-9f17-e5bb85d58fa7.html for example.
I wasn't even talking the laws themselves, I was pointing out that the people who do it, while technically legal in the areas they live in, are generally the type to go out of their way to be complete d-bags, as in they do it without the best of intentions.
This was the first time I heard about audits. In states that allow public carry can business owners deny them service (or even admission)?
Don't read too much into it though. An "audit" is usually no more than a prick with a camera walking around in public trying to be as confrontational about carrying a gun in public as they can. Not really looking to cause real problems, just looking to be confrontational and make people uncomfortable.
The Antifa vs Proud Boys mechanisms are somewhat similar to to "gun rights audits" and are taking place at MLS games, among other places. Neo-fascist, white-supremacist-adjacent club members post on social media and coordinate to show up at games, sometimes wearing symbols indicating their affiliations, acting confrontational and basically daring anyone to do something about it. In response Antifa does the same, but for the anti-fascist side. Like the "gun rights auditors" both sides often mix provocation while arguing they are acting within their legal rights. I have more sympathies with Antifa because they are anti-Nazi but I realize that if you look closer it gets a lot more complicated and the motivations of all members aren't always pristine. Some are just looking for a fight.
This is my take on that whole thing:
Another good read! I feel the same way. It really is such a nothing issue and MLS fumbled it big time. They can’t at once have “pride night” and also say we will have nothing political. It wasn’t too long ago that we were voting on gay marriage and it was a divisive issue for some. I think it’s great that we do have pride night and sometimes being political is a good thing.
I get that Don and co. want to just stamp out any problems before they arise but it’s much easier to say we support gay rights and we support anti-racism and anti-fascism. Hate has no place in our stadiums.
I also understand that with “Antifa” people and the news conflate what is going on. There is no Antifa. It just means Anti-Fascist and there are no members. It is just an idea. If you want to be in Antifa right now all you have to do is think it.
It’s funny because I have known about Antifa and the Iron Front symbol for decades and never thought in my wildest dreams that average Americans would ever know the names of either. Those words are what you would find if you were deep into political theory previously.
I was thinking when this happened that the fans up in Portland and Seattle should just switch the symbols to the much better movement which was the German Communist Party’s antifaschistische aktion symbol. It’s a red and a black flag together. Or even just write out AFA(Antifascist Action).
Then a week later I noticed that they did. The Timber Army even have a cool version of the AFA symbol that has black and red hatchets instead of flags.
So instead of the social democrat symbol they switched over to the Communist Party symbol