The Big Gun Control Rant

Remove all ads!

"My superior told me to do it." didn't fly for Hitler's subordinates.

 

No, they aren't. Check again.

You honestly don't understand why silencers are illegal?

I should first clarify that by "legal", I mean "non-prohibited". When I say "legal", I'm not talking about legal but un-registered firearms, borrowed firearms, otherwise legal firearms held by convicted felons, or legal firearms legally sold by an unlicensed sellers on the secondary market, so I'm mystified that you would ask me to prove this.

Absolutely true. The point is that you don't ban things that are necessary. As I'm sure you'll readily concede, Congress didn't ban the features covered under the assault weapons ban weren't banned because they simply felt those features weren't necessary.

You may not have noticed, but you just agreed with me. Perhaps you misread my initial point? Also of note is that most of those studies were looking at larger issues that the assault weapons ban wasn't designed to affect. Weapons covered by the ban were only being used in around 2% of all gun crimes, so a 66% reduction in their use (the percentage of gun crimes committed using weapons covered by the ban dropped by 66% from the pre-ban rate) isn't likely to have a statistically measurable effect on the number of shots fired or overall severity of all other gun crimes.

His direct subordinates? No, it probably didn't. For the rest of them, though, it sure as hell did. Kudos, by the way, for managing to find a way to invoke Hitler in a gun-control thread.

 

I'm sorry, but I did not agree with your statement that:
" ... when a study fails to prove something, it is inconclusive. The studies conducted were done to assess whether the ban played a part in the decline in gun violence. It failed to prove that it did, which doesn't mean that it didn't."

Your above statement was utter hogwash, and I explained in my previous post as to how an absence of evidence where evidence ought to exist can translate into a conclusive finding in the realm of science. I suggest you take the time to examine articles in a reputable scientific journal. You'll find that when a particular study fails to support the author's hypothesis, the author can still draw conclusions from the study. Negative findings are just as crucial as positive findings.

Bla bla bla, I don't care about that. I'm not taking issue with your anti-gun stance, and I don't care about the findings of particular journalistic articles. I'm taking issue with your ridiculous statement that "... when a study fails to prove something, it is inconclusive." That's a blatant logical error and shows a complete ignorance of the scientific process.

Thanks for the kudos. At least you're capable of acknowledging the fact that subordinates are held accountable for their war crimes, even if their superior told them to do it.

 

When separated from its original content, and ignoring its intended meaning, my statement most assuredly was. I thought most people would understand that I was not referring globally to a studies results. If a study seeks to prove a point - and fails to prove that point - is inconclusive on that point unless it uncovers evidence to lead to the opposite conclusion. If all a study fails to do is, say, link the assault weapons ban to the decline in gun crime, that study has not proven that the assault weapon played no part, nor has it proven that the aforementioned ban didn't work, which is what martaug was offering. I invited martaug to post links to the full studies in question, but he has chosen not to do so.

When separated from its original content, and ignoring its intended meaning, my statement most assuredly was. I thought most people would understand that I was not referring globally to a studies results. If a study seeks to prove a point - and fails to prove that point - is inconclusive on that point unless it uncovers evidence to lead to the opposite conclusion. If all a study fails to do is, say, link the assault weapons ban to the decline in gun crime, that study has not proven that the assault weapon played no part, nor has it proven that the aforementioned ban didn't work, which is what martaug was offering. I invited martaug to post links to the full studies in question, but he has chosen not to do so?

Sure, but what does the fact that a subordinate is held accountable for a war crim have to do with this dialogue:

Gnarfflinger wasn't talking about war crimes, and neither was joacqin. NOG made mention of the fact that a soldier who commits a war crime is held accountable, and neither joacqin, Gnarff, or NOG denied it, so I fail to see what this has to do with anything.

 

False. For example, if a big pharm company attempts to demonstrate the effectiveness of their medication in a number of clinical trials, but fails to demonstrate that said medication is more successful than a sugar pill placebo at treating the disease, then the conclusion one would draw from the trials is that the medication is not an effective treatment.

I repeat: An absence of evidence where that evidence ought to exist is evidence of absence. In the scientific realm, a failure to 'prove' your hypothesis can (and often does) lead to a conclusion 'on the point'.

Gnarfflinger claimed that "A Soldier does what he's told by his superiors. The Superiors tell the soldiers what to hit, and they hit it or die trying." in an attempt to exonerate soldiers for acts of violence during a war. I simply responded with the observation that such a cop-out was not accepted when soldiers committed war crimes at the command of their superiors. If soldiers aren't responsible for killing combatants when under orders to do so, then they shouldn't be held responsible for committing war crimes when under orders to do so. It's called consistency, folks.

 

Countduckula, I think you misunderstood the discussion a bit. My point was about respecting soldiers and soldiers not choosing what wars they fight in. It was about wars that they may not understand or agree with the reason for. They should still be respected for being soldiers because they don't get to choose which orders to follow and which wars to fight in unless the orders are illegal. Then they get to choose and are held accountable for their choice.

Drew, from reading your post, I think you missed the lesson you should have learned. Either that, or you are really making the mistake, which is terrible. You posted, in a particular context, a general, sweeping statement about 'studies'. In the context, it was defendable, but the general, sweeping nature of the statement took it out of that context. You were called on this: that it was general and sweeping and that, as such, it was wrong. Your response seemed to recognize this at first, but then went right back to defending the sweeping statement. For the gun studies in particular, a lack of notable evidence merely says that X wasn't achieved, not that Y occurred. This is frequently true of the 'soft-science' studies such as some psychology and most sociology, where variables can't be controlled terribly well (if at all), but it is generally not true of other sciences, like physics, chemistry, etc. where variables can be controlled. In the context, we're talking about sociology, so it's pretty soft, but that's not all studies by any means.

EDIT: forgot about this, Drew:

No, Congress banned them because the anti-gun lobby payed them to. Do you honestly believe that this was the best that Congress could do on the issue of gun control? Did they think about enforcing the laws they have? Did they think of requiring background checks for 'purchaces' at gun shows? I don't know, but I do know what they did. They made a list of add-on features that had almost never been used in any crime other than assassinations, but just looked and sounded bad, and banned them.

 

Ahh, i was interpreting "legal" as in that all of the weapons where legally acquired not just legal types of guns.

About silencers, if you check with the FBI, they will inform you that there are very, very few cases of silencers actually being used in crimes, that's just a hollywood myth.
Back in the '20's & '30's it was considered good manners to use a silencer as it helped keep the noise down.

Yes their website says that they(muzzle brakes) are legal however they still count them towards the 2 feature limit.

Just like the ATF’s position that a pistol with a forward grip is an Any Other Weapon. As a result of their contention, they claim that such a configuration requires said weapon to be subject to NFA registration and a $200 tax.

Now, they have been ruled against in US V DAVIS that a pistol with a vertical foregrip is not an Any Other Weapon because it’s still a pistol

Despite this ruling, the ATF’s official position is still that a pistol with a forward grip is an Any Other Weapon and they will arrest and prosecute you to the tune of ten years in jail and a $250K fine.

Just look up the case of Albert K. Kwan, he was railroaded by the BATF(luckily he has a new trial coming up)

& then there is this little tidbit

And this bit of news

Competent bunch aren't they?

http://www.nfaoa.org/documents/SemonickTestimony.pdf

They are under a microscope to get there records straight as every class-3 weapon owner has been asking them to do for DECADES. Like i have said before, all class 3 owners are supposed to be inspected at a very minimum once every 24 months(used to be 12) but most are lucky to be inspected once every 5 years & the records that the inspectors bring never match with your official records(which are all issued from the BATF(well, the FBI does your background stuff) in the first place!)

 

But a Soldier firing on enemy combatants, who are shooting back is totally different from a soldier firing on innocent, unarmed civilians.

 

I can understand that there is a difference between the two scenarios, but it's not a difference which explains why soldiers aren't responsible for their actions in only one scenario.

Why are soldiers entitled to adhere to defy orders in order to follow their own moral compass in one scenario, but not in another?

Is shooting a civilian really that much worse than shooting a partisan who is simply defending his home from an imperialistic and violent invader? If an armed robber breaks into a house, is he more justified in gunning down the man attempting to defend his home than the grandma in her rocking chair? Sure, the man he gunned down is armed, but rightfully so! There's no way in hell that the armed robber would be able to claim 'self-defense' in a court of law, because he was the aggressor.

I don't have an opinion either way, I'm simply noting some glaring inconsistencies. Either a soldier obeys all of his orders and is not held responsible for any indiscretions he commits while under orders, or a soldier is held responsible for every indiscretion he commits but is entitled to defy orders when they conflict with his own moral compass.

 

Countduckula, the members of the military have to obey the laws as set forth in the UCMJ(uniform code of military justice) & they also have specific Rules Of Engagement for every battle that they are going to be involved in.
If an act of yours was in violation of either you can(& probably will) be charged with a crime. Sometimes your RoE's are very restrictive, as in, "you are under no circumstance to engage the enemy with lethal force" or as lax as "all enemy combatants are to be engaged at will" mainly falling somewhere in-between.
If an officer was to order you to commit an act that you know is in violation of the standing RoE or the UCMJ, you are fully within your rights to refuse that order. It very rarely(not saying never) happens.

 

So if a particular military force doesn't have a RoE or UCMJ, then soldiers aren't culpable if they follow their superior's orders to rape, pillage and burn? And why should the RoE and UCMJ supercede the superior's orders and the soldier's personal moral compass?

 

Well speaking as an american, i can't answer your question fully.
I don't know of any forces i would call an actual military that doesn't have some form of RoE's & a military code. Now there may be some countries were this is condoned but not by most 1st or hopefully 2nd world countries.

As far as the RoE's go, everybody has orders they have to follow, even generals.
The UCMJ is essentally the countries laws as interpreted to apply to military situations.
In some parts it is almost identical but in others it is very different.(Hmmm, i wonder if we have any military lawyers on the boards?)
Just like in RL, you have to obey the law or be willing to face the consequences of your actions.
Hope this helps explain it a little bit better.

 

Count:

As long as the military is a part of the nation, the nation has the right to pass laws governing that military which superceed anything given through the military.

Also, as far as I can tell, there may have been a misunderstanding concerning following illegal orders. The soldier doesn't have the 'right' in a legal sense to obey the order. They are legally bound to refuse the order and, if they follow it, they are guilty of doing something illegal even though they were ordered to do so. Their superior who issued the order is also guilty, but in this case it's like a conspiracy, where all conspirators are guilty of commiting the act, regardless of who did it. At least, that's how I understand it.

 

Resurrect, my friend! I know that I probably should have started a new thread, and I considered it, but this thread is exactly on topic with an article I read today and wanted to share with you all, and I figured I've already started a lot of threads recently. Apologies in advance if resurrecting this sucker causes anyone else major problems.

So here's the article and a quote that I wanted to share -- bear in mind that he states right at the beginning that he is not a fiery right wing gun advocate.

The argument seems to me to be irrefutable -- target the people with problems like poverty, addiction, unemployment and low IQs, not innocent, law abiding gun owners. And when I say "target" I mean put resources into helping them overcome those problems, NOT persecuting them.

 

That gun crime in Vermont is lower than Canada is irrefutable. That there is no correlation between gun control and gun crime is a bit more sticky. If you can't acquire a gun in the first place, you can't kill someone with it. Maintaining a gun registry and requiring background checks for gun purchases (otherwise known as gun control) is pretty darn reasonable. Realize, of course, that the gun registry doesn't exist to prevent crime, but to help law enforcement solve crimes. The background check, on the other hand, prevents 2 crimes* every time a felon is denied because of his background check.

* It prevents the gun seller from making an illegal sale, and it prevents the felon not only from making an illegal purchase, but also from illegally possessing a firearm.

 

Background checks for any gun purchases made now seems reasonable. Requiring people to register their firearms that they already own with the government is not. And as the article stated, having that registry doesn't do a damn thing to reduce gun crime, or crime in general.

 

And as I said, the registry doesn't exist to reduce crime, but to help solve them*. It doesn't matter that registries don't reduce crime. That isn't what they're for.

* You can't trace a bullet to a gun that you don't know exists.

 

The point that the article is trying to make is perhaps valid, but the article itself is ridiculous. By the same token it's not the presence of driving licences that reduces car accidents but people's bad driving, so driving licences are useless and should be eliminated. That's just silly. The whole point of gun control (if it's implemented properly) is to not let criminals get their hands on guns, or in the case of forcing guns to be registered, for these criminals to then be easily traced (as Drew has pointed out). I don't understand why gun owners have this obsessive idea that gun control is targeted at them. It's not, and let's face it registering will not affect them in any way. It'll just make it easier for the police to catch the perpetrators of gun crimes. If you're an innocent gun owner then what do you care? You still have your gun and the police aren't going to be knocking at your door unless you go shoot someone (which, being an innocent gun owner, you don't).

 

...or if you commit a felony and lose your right to bear arms. No one living in the same household as a convicted felon is allowed to keep a firearm there, and firearm registration will also help police enforce that law, too.

 

I agree but additionally I'd like to see careless gun owners to be prosecuted too. If an accident/murder happens while using a gun I think the owner of that firearm no matter who the shooter is should be put under investigation for carless gunhandling and possibly lose his license if it's found that his carelessness led to someone else taking possession of that firearm. I've said it before but I'll state it again. If I learnt something from my time in the military it's that some people are not suited to own guns. They keep forgetting them in places and can't handle them correctly with necessary caution.