Guns, The 2nd Amendment and the Legitimacy of Their Necessity

[Kalbear]

Again, my point was not that concealed carry was the problem. I see the concealed carry fetish as a symptom of what I'd consider the main problem with US gun culture, compared to Swiss gun culture.

And that's a fair point. To my knowledge no other country in the world has the notion of keeping firearms as self-defense as the US does, though I'm willing to believe that other countries do indeed have this cultural value. 

Which is another reason why I think it's really important to have mandatory training and licensing. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OAR,

And in fairness that is the implication, not express holding, of Miller, a case that was only briefed and argued by those advocating the Militia argument.  It is interesting that the Court in Miller didn't expressly hold the right to keep and bear arms expressly collective.  I do wonder if they held back because the other side was not argued.  As such I think Heller is good law.

[Kalbear]

What would you say constitutes "safely secured" in this scenario? 

Keep in mind that I don't know fuck all about guns.

I'd say that firearms when not in your immediate possession (either holstered or carried) should be in a locked safe that is accessible only to licensed owners of the firearms. Trigger guards may also be sufficient. Ammunition should be separate from the weapons, though it can be near them (IE, in the same safe) but firearms should be kept unloaded when not in direct use. 

When being carried, trigger guards would be a good thing. I would also state that holsters (if used) should be in proper working order and properly used, and failure to do so is again negligence. 

[JonSnow4President]

Keep in mind that I don't know fuck all about guns.

I'd say that firearms when not in your immediate possession (either holstered or carried) should be in a locked safe that is accessible only to licensed owners of the firearms. Trigger guards may also be sufficient. Ammunition should be separate from the weapons, though it can be near them (IE, in the same safe) but firearms should be kept unloaded when not in direct use. 

When being carried, trigger guards would be a good thing. I would also state that holsters (if used) should be in proper working order and properly used, and failure to do so is again negligence. 

Once it's secured, there's no real reason it can't be stored loaded, especially if defense is supposedly a use.  

Do you mean trigger guards (a standard feature on every gun I've ever seen), or the trigger locks, which would defeat the purpose of carrying?

[Lily Valley]

Keep in mind that I don't know fuck all about guns.

I'd say that firearms when not in your immediate possession (either holstered or carried) should be in a locked safe that is accessible only to licensed owners of the firearms. Trigger guards may also be sufficient. Ammunition should be separate from the weapons, though it can be near them (IE, in the same safe) but firearms should be kept unloaded when not in direct use. 

When being carried, trigger guards would be a good thing. I would also state that holsters (if used) should be in proper working order and properly used, and failure to do so is again negligence. 

One of the safest and sanest gun owners that I know carries her gun in her brassiere.  I'm already seeing some holster problems here.

The only issue that I have with this is that I know a lot of people live alone and buy guns for home defense, and I could see taking a gun out of a safe and loading it in time to defend one's self being a problem in the event of a home invasion. While I like your overall idea, I think there should be some variation between the securing procedure for different guns. I would say that hunting riles, and magazine-fed rifles and handguns, for example, should be more strictly enforced with regards to storage and security, than shotguns and revolvers, which are more often used for home defense and wouldn't be as dangerous if they were to fall into the wrong hands.

As a victim of 2 home invasions, I can promise you one thing. If there was a gun on my property  a criminal would now have a valuable and dangerous weapon.  An ounce of prevention is worth more than a thousand guns.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Mandatory gun training in schools is a must. The irrational fear of guns needs to be eradicated. Guns are tools. Dangerous tools like chainsaws, nailguns, welding machines  etc. But they are not inherently evil.

And magazine limits are unacceptable. My Glock has a 17 round primary mag in it, and a 33 round backup mag ready if reloading is required.

I like that setup very much, thank you.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

33 round pistol mag.?  Is it extended to allow the extra ammo?

[Free Northman Reborn]

33 round pistol mag.?  Is it extended to allow the extra ammo?

Indeed it is.

Not that many of the hoplophobes around here are likely to be interested, but one of the great selling points of Glocks is that any smaller model can accommodate the magazines of larger models of the same caliber. And the largest factory produced magazine is a 33 rounder, which fits all of the double stack 9mm models, down to the sub-compact Glock 26.

So yes, on a full size Glock 17, about half of the 33 round magazine extends below the grip of the pistol.

[Free Northman Reborn]

 

 

. Who the fuck cares if you prefer to not have to reload quite as soon as you otherwise would have to?

Erm...the original poster obviously cares. Hence the request along the lines of :"I'd love to hear gun owners' opinions on the matter.."

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

I will try to be more forthright. I was looking for an answer along the lines of

''My personal preference to not be inconvenienced in the slightest trumps the safety of others because X'' 

So, yeah in an ideal world you're welcome to not be inconvenienced. Unfortunately, we (or rather, you) have a not-so-minor issue of hundreds of homicidal maniacs running around perpetuating mass shootings. So since you're perfectly fine with these people having easy access to guns, can you explain why you're unwilling to at least make these guns a little less good at doing what they're designed for (killing people very easily and quickly)? 

Also, feel free to comment on the status of guns as weapons/tools. 

The fact that someone ELSE may run around with a 33 round magazine and commit mass murder with it should have no bearing on whether I should be allowed to own such a device. It is unjust that the irresponsible actions of others should have an impact on my rights.

By all means, remove the right to own firearms from guys who have committed mass murder with them. But since it is a tad difficult to identify these guys ahead of them committing said acts, I guess we're shit out of luck and will just have to let everyone have them.

The opposite course of action - which is removing those rights from too many people rather than from too few, is not an option. Speaking as a gun rights advocate, that is.

[JonSnow4President]

Indeed it is.

Not that many of the hoplophobes around here are likely to be interested, but one of the great selling points of Glocks is that any smaller model can accommodate the magazines of larger models of the same caliber. And the largest factory produced magazine is a 33 rounder, which fits all of the double stack 9mm models, down to the sub-compact Glock 26.

So yes, on a full size Glock 17, about half of the 33 round magazine extends below the grip of the pistol.

There becomes a point where we're arguing for ridiculousness.  I've been shooting for over 20 years (I'm 24).  The vast majority of that is shotguns/rifles, and I've never had a strong inconvenience by not having a mag size above 15 (a .22).  On the rare occasion I've shot my dad's pistol, reloading a 15 round mag is so painless, it's a non issue.  

We already license particularly dangerous/weapons in excess of reason.  Explosives fully automatics, etc. are legal to own with the right licensing.  I'm not opposed to making large mag sizes fall into that.  

There is no "need" for a civilian owned 33 round mag outside of some competitive shooting event I'm not aware of.  There's a small convenience factor, but even with my limited pistol usage, I'm able to switch out for another one quickly enough to where it is a non-issue.

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

There becomes a point where we're arguing for ridiculousness.  I've been shooting for over 20 years (I'm 24).  The vast majority of that is shotguns/rifles, and I've never had a strong inconvenience by not having a mag size above 15 (a .22).  On the rare occasion I've shot my dad's pistol, reloading a 15 round mag is so painless, it's a non issue.  

We already license particularly dangerous/weapons in excess of reason.  Explosives fully automatics, etc. are legal to own with the right licensing.  I'm not opposed to making large mag sizes fall into that.  

There is no "need" for a civilian owned 33 round mag outside of some competitive shooting event I'm not aware of.  There's a small convenience factor, but even with my limited pistol usage, I'm able to switch out for another one quickly enough to where it is a non-issue.

 

So if the 33 round magazine does not confer any type of advantage whatsoever, why ban it?

[The guy from the Vale]

The question is not if a 33 round magazine confers an advantage over a 5 round magazine. The question is "what advantage?" And the main advantage of a larger magazine is the ability to kill around 7 times as many people with the same gun. As few people intend to kill 7 armed intruders outright (as they'd be in a massive disadvantage regardless) all a 33 round magazine really helps at is shooting lots of unarmed people. I.e., a 33 round magazine is advantageous for amok runs, but not for many other situations.

[Free Northman Reborn]

The question is not if a 33 round magazine confers an advantage over a 5 round magazine. The question is "what advantage?" And the main advantage of a larger magazine is the ability to kill around 7 times as many people with the same gun. As few people intend to kill 7 armed intruders outright (as they'd be in a massive disadvantage regardless) all a 33 round magazine really helps at is shooting lots of unarmed people. I.e., a 33 round magazine is advantageous for amok runs, but not for many other situations.

Right, and I guess that is a professional assessment of the pro's and con's of a large capacity magazine that you just delivered there?

Of course, it is not.

Firstly, there are indeed many situations where extended magazines do not present an advantage, and in fact present a disadvantage to the gun owner. In close quarters engagements an assailant may grab onto the protruding part of the magazine, thus hampering the usability of the gun.

And for concealed carry they obviously are wholly unsuitable.

But, as with most items of equipment, there are scenarios where they do provide an advantage.

The myth that 6 shots are enough is an old one, but it is a flawed one. You can in fact never have too much ammo, but you can have too little.

A 9mm round is not a deathray. In fact, there are cases of people with a dozen or more direct hits who are still able to engage their adversaries. Furthermore, a handgun is very difficult to shoot accurately compared to a rifle, and exponentially so in a life and death situation where adrenalin is pumping, lighting is poor and everything happens in a split second.

And lastly for the purposes of my current point, the above need for ammunition multiplies when there are multiple attackers involved.

Then you have a hypothetical scenario where there is a breakdown in law and order, and you may be dealing with large groups of hostile individuals, over extended periods of time.

In any case, I don't walk around every day with a 33 round mag in my pocket (I don't want to appear to be a sexual pervert after all), but I certainly want the right to own a couple, for if and when the need arises.

There is no reason why I should do without that right just because there might be another person who will abuse this right. That is just a basic principle that I don't agree with.

[JonSnow4President]

So if the 33 round magazine does not confer any type of advantage whatsoever, why ban it?

I did not say it does not provide any advantage.  It allows for longer periods of time shooting between reloads.  A couple seconds is at most a minor inconvenience target shooting.  Any civilian legal application for firearms doesn't need 33 rounds (outside of the aforementioned conceivable competitive shooting), including any realistically feasible self-defense scenario.  

The benefits for a mass shooter are obvious.  A couple second reload in that situation is a major inconvenience at worst, and an opportunity for someone else to stop a shooter, take cover, etc.

 

[The guy from the Vale]

I didn't say there were no disadvantages or other advantages to a bigger magazine. I did break it down to why a larger magazine is at best a minor advantage in most situations you might want a gun for (including self defence, even in case of no laws; again, many smaller magazines woud do the trick in that case, too, most of the time) but a massive advantage to a spree or amok shooter.

[Free Northman Reborn]

I didn't say there were no disadvantages or other advantages to a bigger magazine. I did break it down to why a larger magazine is at best a minor advantage in most situations you might want a gun for (including self defence, even in case of no laws; again, many smaller magazines woud do the trick in that case, too, most of the time) but a massive advantage to a spree or amok shooter.

I accept that you have made your point clearly. I respect it. I just fundamentally disagree that legal gun owners should give up some of their rights in order to make it slightly more difficult for spree shooters to carry out their insane acts.

If reducing the ease of spree shootings was an overriding goal, then gun owners should be willing to give up a lot of their rights in aid of achieving that goal, including, let me see, off the top of my head:

Giving up the right to own semi-automatic rifles

Giving up the right to own high capacity magazines

Heck, give up the right to own handguns period

Give up the right to own pump actions shotguns

Agree to strict registration requirements to own any type of firearm whatsoever

Agree to a limit to the number of firearms they can own.

As you can see, all of the above will make it more difficult for a spree shooter to achieve his sick fantasies. But that presumes that limiting the abilities of spree shooters is more important to gun owners than the above rights that they would be asked to give up.

And it is simply not.

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

 

 

I'm starting to get the impression that you don't really have a meaningful defence of that position. 

Also, it is absolutely laughable that in the same post you can 

1. Argue that a larger magazine is really not that helpful in combat to a potential mass shooter, and might actually help them stop you

2. Argue that a larger magazine is necessary in combat when one is defending themselves against multiple people

 

 

I did not argue that. You misread my post.

Regarding the rights of government to infringe on your rights where it is in the interests of others, well, exactly where to draw that line is the point this entire argument is about, is it not? And gun owners thank their lucky stars for the 2nd Amendment, which allows them to draw that line further back than a liberal led government would like it to be.

[JonSnow4President]

I accept that you have made your point clearly. I respect it. I just fundamentally disagree that legal gun owners should give up some of their rights in order to make it slightly more difficult for spree shooters to carry out their insane acts.

If reducing the ease of spree shootings was an overriding goal, then gun owners should be willing to give up a lot of their rights in aid of achieving that goal, including, let me see, off the top of my head:

Giving up the right to own semi-automatic rifles

Except there is a valid reason for owning semi-automatic rifles...

Giving up the right to own high capacity magazines

And guess what I'm fine with?  ... and independent of high capacity magazines, semi-automatic rifles are not a large enough of a public threat to ban trying to balance protection of gun owners rights and governmental action to protect people's right to life.

Heck, give up the right to own handguns period

I am not 100% opposed to this (although somewhere in the 90 range).  I think banning them at this point is merely taking them out of responsible gunowners hands and will not have any real effect on criminal usage as a result of their proliferation.  But once again, independent of high capacity magazines, I don't think they are sufficiently dangerous to swing the right vs protection of a right.

Give up the right to own pump actions shotguns

??? There are millions of valid reasons to own a shotgun.  They're these little tasty animals called squirrel, rabbit, duck, pheasant, etc.  They're these fun little things to shoot called clay pigeons.  I'm also a little confused over calling out pump action?  They're less prone to jam than a semi-auto, but they're not particularly lethal compare to other shotguns.

Agree to strict registration requirements to own any type of firearm whatsoever

Depends on what you call strict, but I favor some (licensing/training) after seeing all the idiotic and the ignorant do insanely stupid things with them .  I favor background checks at ALL purchases (which already happen at the big retailers).  

Agree to a limit to the number of firearms they can own.

How does this benefit public safety to tip the scale of right v right?  Sure, someone can strap on several pistols and go on a spree without having to reload, but given we have the invention of magazines, there isn't a substantial public interest in someone only owning 2 instead of owning 200.

As you can see, all of the above will make it more difficult for a spree shooter to achieve his sick fantasies. But that presumes that limiting the abilities of spree shooters is more important to gun owners than the above rights that they would be asked to give up.

And it is simply not.

 

[The guy from the Vale]

As for why you should give up some rights (or rather, not give them up but have them marginally reduced) is because that marginal reduction will save lives and preserve the pursuit of happiness for millions of people, and arguably their liberty, too. Yes, you may be inconvenienced a little, but your founding fathers wanted a government that gave its people the right to life and said pursuit, and a minor inconvenience is, in my opinion, a more than fair price to pay for hundreds of lives.