Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nuclear1 on June 27, 2008, 01:20:56 am
-
http://us.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a sweeping ban on handguns in the nation's capital violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The justices struck down the ban in a 5-4 decision, with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion for the majority.
Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty said he was disappointed in the ruling but will give the district's police department 21 days to implement a process for registering handguns. It still will be illegal to carry handguns outside the home, and all pistols must be registered with police.
Officials said a hot line would be set up to handle questions about the new regulations. [/quote[
-
In other (older) news, machine guns are now legal in Kansas (http://www.ktka.com/news/2008/apr/22/automatic_weapons_now_legal_kansas/).
Oh, and in b4 ****storm.
-
Okay, I'm not a gun expert but what recreational civilian usage are you going to find for a sawn-off shotgun? :wtf:
It has low accuracy so it's not target shooting. Its only legal usage seems to be for breaching or close confines SWAT-syle storming of buildings. Does that now count as a legitimate civilian usage?
-
Obliterating despised computer hardware?
Anyways, the really interesting thing about this case is that it's essentially the first time that the Supreme Court has made any sort of direct ruling on the application of the Second Amendment. It's not every day you see a 220-year-old clause finally clarified.
-
country boys use them to shoot at stop signs, an ancient and essential pass time for drunk 20 somethings. :D
-
Okay, I'm not a gun expert but what recreational civilian usage are you going to find for a sawn-off shotgun? :wtf:
It has low accuracy so it's not target shooting. Its only legal usage seems to be for breaching or close confines SWAT-syle storming of buildings. Does that now count as a legitimate civilian usage?
Forgive me, but here's the obvious question: Relevance? What the hell are you talking about?
It says handguns.
-
From the article Swantz posted
That's why he supports a new law signed by Governor Kathleen Sebelius allowing Kansans to legally own automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns, and silencers beginning on July 1st. Kaw Valley Gun Club Owner Kevin Ketter is thrilled just thinking about the money he'll make renting out those new weapons.
-
Okay, I'm not a gun expert but what recreational civilian usage are you going to find for a sawn-off shotgun? :wtf:
During a home invasion you'd love to have a weapon strong enough to stop someone with a single load of 00 buckshot, but small enough to easily maneuver through rooms and doorways (and a barrel a few inches shorter is a few inches better for CQB). Also any firearm is a nice 'surrender or get pwned' signal for the burgler.
A sawd off would also be easier to keep in your car if you think a .357 Colt Python doesn't look scary enough to solve a road rage incident with a really agressive opposition (let's say drunk and armed with a nice long baseball bat)
But I'm also not an expert. Any police officers here?
-
Okay, I'm not a gun expert but what recreational civilian usage are you going to find for a sawn-off shotgun? :wtf:
During a home invasion you'd love to have a weapon strong enough to stop someone with a single load of 00 buckshot, but small enough to easily maneuver through rooms and doorways (and a barrel a few inches shorter is a few inches better for CQB). Also any firearm is a nice 'surrender or get pwned' signal for the burgler.
A sawd off would also be easier to keep in your car if you think a .357 Colt Python doesn't look scary enough to solve a road rage incident with a really agressive opposition (let's say drunk and armed with a nice long baseball bat)
But I'm also not an expert. Any police officers here?
The fact that you think a firearm is a good way to resolve a road rage incident just scares the beejeezus out of me. For the record, no kind of firearm is a suitable way to solve any sort of road rage incident. The correct way is as follows: (1) drive away and (2) call the police. First off, there is no actual guarantee you're going to be able to get the weapon out of your car (and we're assuming here that you live in a jurisdiction in which that would be legal, which I would think is entirely moot to 90%+ of HLP anyway), and there is also no guarantee that they aren't going to be able to pull a firearm faster than you AND pull the trigger. Which is especially stupid over something like road rage. I've met lots of people who have handguns under their front seat in the States and without fail NONE of them could pull it out in any reasonable length of time (which is the time it takes for an adult to cross a distance of 25 feet to their window, or roughly 3 seconds from when said person starts running).
Onward...
The whole point in the ruling, kara, is to clarify that civilians may own firearms for personal defence outside of a militia role. Essentially, it clarifies the individual's right to bear arms for personal use without opening the floodgates to all kinds of ridiculous weapons and attempts to strike down existing controls on firearms.
Handguns and sawed-off shotguns exist entirely for personal defense. Granted, handguns can be used for target shooting too but there isn't much use for s short shotgun other than personal protection. Not something I'd think people would tote around in a vehicle by any stretch, but certainly a weapon suitable for carrying in tight spaces such as houses and requiring very little in the way of aim in order to be effective. It's not a recreational weapon. Hunting with one would be damn near impossible. To be fair, I suppose a sawed-off could be used for target shooting in a recreational setting if loaded with slugs instead of buckshot...
I'm not necessarily agreeing in principle with the ruling or the weapons use, just outlining possible ways in which they are.
-
The ruling in a nutshell (no pun intended :P)
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.
...
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56.
-
Okay, I'm not a gun expert but what recreational civilian usage are you going to find for a sawn-off shotgun? :wtf:
It has low accuracy so it's not target shooting. Its only legal usage seems to be for breaching or close confines SWAT-syle storming of buildings. Does that now count as a legitimate civilian usage?
As many have said, the main reason for a sawed off shotgun is for home protection. Most proponents of weapons in the US don't go with the "it's for hunting" or "it's for target shooting" approach, generally most of these legal guns are really used for home protection.
The whole argument is moot anyway - legal guns with proper ownership laws don't usually kill innocent people. Look at Canada - IIRC they have more guns per person than the US, yet they have way less gun-related murder incidents. Proper gun control laws and gun awareness programs help reduce the risk. It would help if the media didn't go crazy about violence too, then people would feel safer (and rightfully so).
-
The fact that you think a firearm is a good way to resolve a road rage incident just scares the beejeezus out of me. For the record, no kind of firearm is a suitable way to solve any sort of road rage incident. The correct way is as follows: (1) drive away and (2) call the police. First off, there is no actual guarantee you're going to be able to get the weapon out of your car (and we're assuming here that you live in a jurisdiction in which that would be legal, which I would think is entirely moot to 90%+ of HLP anyway), and there is also no guarantee that they aren't going to be able to pull a firearm faster than you AND pull the trigger. Which is especially stupid over something like road rage. I've met lots of people who have handguns under their front seat in the States and without fail NONE of them could pull it out in any reasonable length of time (which is the time it takes for an adult to cross a distance of 25 feet to their window, or roughly 3 seconds from when said person starts running).
Good point about keeping guns in places hard to reach. It eleminates the whole sens of having them. Same thing with proper training being necessary to have a gun, much like driving cars.
But:
1. There isn't always a way to drive off. You could be in a traffic jam, you could be blocked off and limited to reverse (which isn't the fastest gear, or the easiest one to drive safely at full throttle), you could have your car turned off by a crash sensor cutting the fuel to the engine if you collide with the agressor's car, and there's a few more such situations where you have to face the guy.
2. You don't need to kill anyone (hell, you musn't unless you're taking fire or the guy's charging with a knife even after you aim the gun at him and tell him to freeze), simply showing him the business end of a gun should be more than enough to get him calmed down. Then you can hold him at gunpoint till the nearest patrol car arrives. What I find scary is that when I write "gun" someone's instantly pulling it's trigger.
Oh and @Unknown Target- the Swiss require firearms in every house IIRC. Look at their murder rates.
-
Not in every house, only people who serve in the military have their guns at home.
Well, thats NEARLY every house though :>
However, they also have a military education, iirc dont keep ammunition and weapon together and youth have no access to those weapons.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland the ammunition is even sealed away.
Murdering someone with this ammo is quite pointless, as you know you will be caught.
I agree that the gun law isnt the only reason for gun based murders, or lethal gun accidents at home, which are afaik also quite common. But it is also one reason.
-
Oh and @Unknown Target- the Swiss require firearms in every house IIRC. Look at their murder rates.
Agreed. Look at their murder rates for non-firearm homicides. Oh guess what, that's lower than the American average. Same goes for Canada too.
Now I know that might seem to those who dabble with logic as if the Swiss and Canadians have less firearm murders because the Swiss and Canadians are less inclined to commit murders but that's just foolishness. :p
-
The justices struck down the ban in a 5-4 decision
Why don't they just say: The Independent guy took the decision to... After all, the republicians always vote against democratic decisions, and vice versa...
-
The Court doesn't follow "party" lines so much as its justices tend to have conservative/liberal leanings of interpreting the Constitution. And even then, there have been many cases in recent history when one or two of the justices have "swapped sides" on a particular case. The dynamics of the Court are funny like that, and there's been a hell of a lot written about them.
-
Why don't they just say: The Independent guy took the decision to... After all, the republicians always vote against democratic decisions, and vice versa...
Isn't voting against the other party the whole sens of being in the opposite one? :p
-
I find it difficult to believe there's any practical application for a sawed-off at all, personally, because their accuracy is marginal at best and their recoil disgusting; depending on how "sawed off" they are, like both stock and barrel in an effort to make the world's most powerful (dumbest) pistol, you could break your wrist pretty easily.
-
A sawn-off shotgun exists for one reason: concealment.
-
I just wonder why people aren't happy with leaving intruders incapacitated, rather than reducing them to chunky giblets.
-
The general idea is that someone will usually continue to fire even if they're injured, and the only sure way to stop them is by killing them as quickly as possible.
(i.e. the same reason .22 caliber pistols aren't all that effective)
Why they don't just buy a .357 is beyond me.
-
Understandable to a degree, but if trained law-enforcement officers thought like that, there'd be an outcry, they only use deadly force if there's no other choice, and are investigated thoroughly when they need to do so. It seems odd that the people have more freedom when handling a gun than the law do.
-
The general idea is that someone will usually continue to fire even if they're injured, and the only sure way to stop them is by killing them as quickly as possible.
(i.e. the same reason .22 caliber pistols aren't all that effective)
Why they don't just buy a .357 is beyond me.
Ever fired a .357?
If you're panicking over an intruder in your home in the middle of the night and grabbing a firearm to respond with, you should grab one you're capable of picking up, aiming, firing, and not missing with despite your mental state. Or at least repeatedly firing in the same general direction.
Sawed-off shotguns, 9mm pistols, .22 pistols, and .40 pistols all roughly fit this category. Point and squeeze the trigger. With most untrained people, your first shot with a .357 or anything larger will be over the subject's head, and the next 5 (if you make it that far) will be punching drainage holes in your roof. A shotgun or low calibre pistol in the best choice for anyone but those who are trained in and regularly practice the use of firearms.
Understandable to a degree, but if trained law-enforcement officers thought like that, there'd be an outcry, they only use deadly force if there's no other choice, and are investigated thoroughly when they need to do so. It seems odd that the people have more freedom when handling a gun than the law do.
People are assumed to be untrained. Not to mention, people are only allowed to use force required to stop someone in the defense of life. Someone breaks into your home without a weapon and you shoot them to stop them, fine. Someone breaks into your home unarmed, you shoot them to stop them and they aren't mortally wounded but you then walk over and fire more shots into them and you'll find yourself up on criminal charges.
-
Problem is, I think for some people, this just means 'get a gun that does the job with the first shot'.
-
Not to mention, people are only allowed to use force required to stop someone in the defense of life. Someone breaks into your home without a weapon and you shoot them to stop them, fine.
What if they don't stop?
-
1. There isn't always a way to drive off. You could be in a traffic jam, you could be blocked off and limited to reverse (which isn't the fastest gear, or the easiest one to drive safely at full throttle), you could have your car turned off by a crash sensor cutting the fuel to the engine if you collide with the agressor's car, and there's a few more such situations where you have to face the guy
And if you try reaching for a gun, what is to stop him from pulling is out and blowing your head off.
-
Understandable to a degree, but if trained law-enforcement officers thought like that, there'd be an outcry, they only use deadly force if there's no other choice, and are investigated thoroughly when they need to do so. It seems odd that the people have more freedom when handling a gun than the law do.
A guy alive can still harm you. If you fear your life is in danger, really the only circumstance you can discharge a firearm towards somebody in most states, you shoot to kill.. always. You dont shoot to wound, or shoot to incapacitate. Your life is in danger, that is why you are shooting at him to end the threat.
-
Law enforcement officers DO think like that. If they're shooting at you, they want you dead. Typically people shot by police have multiple gunshot wounds.
-
Problem is, I think for some people, this just means 'get a gun that does the job with the first shot'.
The unpredictability is part of the deterrence. You want to go into somebody's house and steal stuff? There's an unknown possibility that you might be facing someone with a gun whose instant assumption is that you're trying to steal stuff and kill them. So at that point your life is pretty much forfeit and at their mercy. And there's no reason for them to trust you if you say that you aren't going to injure them - you've already broken their trust by coming into their house.
But let's say the robber surrenders and the homeowner blows their head off anyway. The robber is dead and nothing's going to change that. Even if his death was despicably immoral and utterly unjustified, and the homeowner's choice was made based on wild irrational assumptions, the robber is still dead, and most people would not consider that risk to be worth robbing somebody's home.
Letting people own guns is not supposed to give them greater power than the police, because they are expected to be in fewer situations where use of those guns could possibly be justified. The assumption is that it's an emergency matter in case the cops cannot get there in time.
-
Understandable to a degree, but if trained law-enforcement officers thought like that, there'd be an outcry, they only use deadly force if there's no other choice, and are investigated thoroughly when they need to do so. It seems odd that the people have more freedom when handling a gun than the law do.
Though Kazan doesn't believe it, the cops are trained in the use of restraint, not force. They rarely actually have cause to pull their weapons and are taught to do so only as a last resort; the appearance of the gun escalates the situation. People who don't come quietly are something of a rarity; people who actively resist instead of running off, rarer yet. Most of the time the police will try to talk the situation down or use alternate means like tazers and pepper spray for those departments so equipped; failing that, the classic tackle works well.
But the point is if an officer draws his weapon against an unarmed man something has gone seriously wrong and there will probably be some informal but still serious inquiries about his state of mind and reasoning. Having a gun in hand when going into an unknown situation is self-preservation and acceptable; pointing it at someone who is unarmed is not; firing at someone who does not constitute a clear, immediate danger to life and limb of the officer or others is cause for dismissal and criminal charges.
However, once it comes to the point where shots are being fired, the basic reasoning runs thusly: This person has commited some form of crime to come to the attention of the police, they are in the process of commiting another and have demonstrated a complete disregard for the safety of other people as they represent an imminent danger to said people, and they must be stopped. There is no middle ground in this situation and there is rarely time to do anything fancy; thus when it comes to gunfire police are trained to shoot to kill and shoot multiple times.
You're actually much more likely to survive being shot by a civilian because they lack they might lack the training to shoot well, and probably won't fire more than two or three times.
-
vyper, you act like sawed-off shotguns are all the same size. They're not. First you have the different basic configurations of single barrel, double barrel side by side, double barrel over and under... Sawed-off shotguns are a category of weapon mod, and plenty of the mods fall into the category of what an old family friend of mine called a "hall sweeper", with only a medium size chunk sawed off to make the weapon easier to maneuver in close quarters. That said, with the advent of weapons like the H&K MP5, the FN P90, and still other small automatic rifles and Personal Defense Weapons, or PDWs, a shotgun for close quarters combat is becoming less necessary.
-
if you use a .22 on someone they'll still be standing and capable of slapping you silly/ beating you to death. with a .22 they MIGHT die within a couple days if you hit them in a vital organ.
-
if you use a .22 on someone they'll still be standing and capable of slapping you silly/ beating you to death. with a .22 they MIGHT die within a couple days if you hit them in a vital organ.
Common misconception but absolutely false. A .22 calibre weapon is just as lethal as any other in the right hands. They merely lack the stopping power of a larger weapon. However, a .22 bullet has much greater penetration than many other calibres, especially in the LR variant. What they lack in overall mass and force of impact they more than make up for in penetration and ease of use (in civilian use, .22 revolvers are the most consistently accurate of any pistol, whether wielded by novice or expert).
If you didn't know, the venerable 5.56mm NATO round is based on a .22 calibre bullet (To be very specific, a .223). The cartridge is considerably longer (packing in more powder and thus it has a greater muzzle velocity) and the bullets are typically a conical FMJ rather than a rounded soft-nosed lead, but the basic principle is the same. If anything, the 5.56mm round has less true stopping power as its penetration is so great that it frequently passes right through targets instead of transferring energy at the point of impact.