The Gun Debate

[TragicMonkey]

There is no handgun in existence without metal parts. Its an impossibility.

They said that about flying machines, too.

Why would it be impossible to use substitute materials? I'm not really good with physical sciences, but I'd imagine that something could be done with a combination of plastic, rubber, industrial ceramics, and some kind of carbon composite substance. You might not wind up with a gun that functions or looks exactly like a metal one, but you could conceivably develop a handheld weapon that operates on the same principle.

 

[Ed]

They said that about flying machines, too.

Why would it be impossible to use substitute materials? I'm not really good with physical sciences, but I'd imagine that something could be done with a combination of plastic, rubber, industrial ceramics, and some kind of carbon composite substance. You might not wind up with a gun that functions or looks exactly like a metal one, but you could conceivably develop a handheld weapon that operates on the same principle.

With current technology it would be difficult/impossible. The point is that a "firearm" is one thing, something that can cause damage at a distance can be another.

 

[Earthborn]

There is no handgun in existence without metal parts. Its an impossibility.

Depends on how you define 'gun'. According to the definition Merphie used in another thread, these count as guns:

And here is a news article about a plastic gun that was considered so dangerous that it had to be confiscated by customs before someone was allowed to board a plane.

 

[Jon_in_london]

The only problem would be to get a sufficently dense non-metallic projectile.

 

[Jon_in_london]

I guess you could use diamonds though....

 

[Ed]

The only problem would be to get a sufficently dense non-metallic projectile.

Why dense? That guy on the TV show about Butch and Sundance was killed by the wadding from a blank.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Why dense? That guy on the TV show about Butch and Sundance was killed by the wadding from a blank.

So was the guy on seventies TV show "Covergirl". (I only remember because my mother tells that story when she explains why she named my sister after Jennifer O'Neal.)

Those rubber bullets can do damage. If you make the end sharp, I'm sure at those speeds it could get inside the body. Hard plastic bullets? Globs of gelatinous acid?

This would make one heck of a science fair project, but it would alarm the teachers.

 

[Jon_in_london]

Why dense? That guy on the TV show about Butch and Sundance was killed by the wadding from a blank.

I have noticed that happens a lot in movies...... except The A Team!

 

[merphie]

Strawman alert. YOU said in the title of this thread that this is a debate. There is at least a debate on what the framers intended by that phrase - some say militia, some say all citizens should have access to any weapon that exists, e.g., particle beam weapons, photon torpedos, planetbusters, a big rock, bow-and-arrow, siege catapult, Howitzer, tank, ICBM, dirty bomb, smart bomb, flamethrower, ANYTHING. There is a lot of room in the middle, and that is why I say you are wrong and there IS a question about the meaning of the Second Amendment. There are potentially questions on ALL amendments at any given time.

Nice strawman about studying law, by the way.

Sure there is always debate. I was only looking at the strawman you created. I said nothing about schools or such. The fact is the only people who seem intend on saying the second amendment is a collective right are those who seem to want to ban all private ownership. I think it is taken out of context we someone says that the second must mean all weapon including nuclear. That is the biggest strawman that exists. With those people the 2nd amendment either means militia duty or all weapons of any kind.

The problem is there is current law that defines what the second amendment means. In current context it doesn't mean anything you have said. Debate on it's meaning it pointless because the law defines it.

What do you mean, "covered"? You said that "everyone who purchases a firearm must pass a NCIC background instant check." I gave several examples of how, in fact, everyone who purchases a firearm doesn't necessarily have to pass a check. Admit it, and move on.

There is nothing to admit. They acts are covered by law. If they were not covered they would be legal. I was speaking of legal purchasing. If you do something that is illegal then no amount of laws would stop you. You are simply creating strawmen that is outside the scope of the first post. The only mention I made was how criminals have obtained their guns.

Until you clean up your misleading and spun facts, why should I provide anything? Answer the question.

I don't need to clean up anything. Just because you refuse to look at the sources is not my problem. The answer is provided in the referenced material. I will not cater to your laziness. I would only be repeating myself. I understand if you can not find any facts for your position.

Your argument is SEVERELY flawed. If you make something legal, then if people do it they are law abiding by definition! Make necrophilia legal - then necrophiliacs are law-abiding citizens. That, my friend, is circular reasoning at it's finest. All gun-control laws do is make some guns illegal. If the citizens are law-abiding, they will then get rid of those guns. Right? They can still have dozens and dozens of other types of guns.

It's only flawed because you are trying to make some strawman here. Of course laws are restrictive. All gun control does is take guns away from law abiding citizens. This maybe a tough concept for you to grasp. When I say "gun control" or "Anti-Gun" I am speaking of those who would ban all guns privately held. It is a specific political agenda.

The 1994 ban is a perfect example. It bans some very cosmetic features that have no impact on the guns operation. It has been show that criminals do not use these type of guns. If that is true then the only people effected by 1994 ban was law abiding people. These people would not buy a weapon against the law. There is no reason to ban the weapon except for a gun grab. There is no other reason for the law.

Strawman. Three times. First, he said "gun", not firearm. Second, he said "an x-ray machine", not a metal detector. Third, I said a non-metallic gun was theoretically possible - and it is. What's wrong with having a forward-looking law for once?

I mean, come on. Untwist your straw-filled "firearm through a magnetometer", and you will see that it's about a gun through an x-ray machine.

Forward looking? Does your tea leaves tell you this? Give me an example of a gun that would fall under this law. Phasers don't count. Besides the fact the law only covers the manufactur of such a gun. I could import them if they existed.

you are right an X-Ray is not a metal detector. Different materials absorb x-ray at different rates. So to not be detected you would need a material that doesn't absorb any x-rays. What material does this? Skin shows on an X-Ray.

You keep claiming strawman, but you are the one doing the act.

Strawmannery! It also says "freedom of speech", so you're wrong.

So the media is only allowed to speak. According to you, I can make up any definition I want. The fact is that some people don't want guns and dont' think people should have them. Since it doesn't effect them they can do without it. On the other hand, I make on comment that you don't have the right to free speech and you defend it! Which side of the fence are you sitting on?

This definition only has to be as clear as that of "indecency", that of "obscenity" or that of "arms".

Bedbug bite

Not even close. According to the 1994 assault weapons ban, an assault weapon has a collapsible stock, flash supressor, and a bayonet mount.

My example actually meant

You are wrong
Bed fly munch

I used words that had the same number of letters.

 

[merphie]

There is some bad info in this thread right now. I apologize if I have mistaken a quote from a source other than the board for a statement made by a board member.

Merphie said;

“The National Firearms Act of 1934 bans all automatic weapons. This was later repealed and replaced by The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA).”

This is wrong, the NFA act did not ban automatic weapons, it strictly controlled them. The NFA is still in effect.

You are right. I was trying to keep it simple so I wouldn't have to defend every little word. Which happened anyway.

It's actually a tax law. You have to have a Federal Firearms license with a GCA stamp on it. It will set you back about $800.00 to obtain it.

 

[merphie]

http://www.geocities.com/timessquare/alley/7931/ceramicguns.html

In theory, that is.

In theory nothing. There is no evidence to support it. I do not believe for an instance that the materials claimed would support the pressure.

They don't give any details on it's constructions or even a test fire. That's probably a scam to get people to pay money for something that doesn't exist.

 

[merphie]

Its a matter of degree.

Its not legistlation to ban ALL guns. One can be pro gun ownership and still be against certain type of firearms.

Its like being pro choice. That doesnt mean that you ahev to be OK with 3rd term abortions. If you sign soem anti-3rd term abortion bill does that make you anti-abortion??

Agree. However they have already made it clear what their agenda is.

Kerry even held a gun he would have banned.

 

[merphie]

Depends on how you define 'gun'. According to the definition Merphie used in another thread, these count as guns:

And here is a news article about a plastic gun that was considered so dangerous that it had to be confiscated by customs before someone was allowed to board a plane.

Now you are only being cynical. You could take them, but what good would they do for a criminal?

 

[merphie]

I guess you could use diamonds though....

I have bullets that use an aluminum alloy. Any of these materials would still show on an X-ray. They would be detectible.

 

[Jon_in_london]

I have bullets that use an aluminum alloy. Any of these materials would still show on an X-ray. They would be detectible.

yes but diamonds arent metal!

 

[merphie]

yes but diamonds arent metal!

perhaps but the cost would be too high and they would damage the gun.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Debate on it's meaning it pointless because the law defines it.

What does that mean for the thread you started?

All gun control does is take guns away from law abiding citizens.

It's not a strawman! put anything in there for "All _______ control does is take __________ away from law abiding citizens" and it's the same argument. Drugs, prostitutes, or any other vice or desire. Cuban cigars!

The point is, if they are law abiding citizens, then they will obey the law and give up the banned weapons, no?

It has been show that criminals do not use these type of guns

Not by you. I am not saying you're wrong - I'm saying that anyone can introduce an argument with the phrase 'it has been shown' or the similar 'pretty much verified'.

If that is true then the only people effected by 1994 ban was law abiding people. These people would not buy a weapon against the law. There is no reason to ban the weapon except for a gun grab. There is no other reason for the law.

If they grandfathered gun owners in, there would be a massive purchase of weapons before the date of enactment, essentially defeating the purpose of the law.

So the media is only allowed to speak. According to you, I can make up any definition I want. The fact is that some people don't want guns and dont' think people should have them. Since it doesn't effect them they can do without it. On the other hand, I make on comment that you don't have the right to free speech and you defend it! Which side of the fence are you sitting on?

You are very confused on this. You said that a possible and logical interpretation of the First Amendment was that only the media was allowed free speech, because of the 'freedom of the press' phrase. I pointed out that there is a 'freedom of speech' phrase in the First Amendment as well, meaning that you were wrong and not only the media was allowed free speech.

Also, when have I ever said that you can make up any definition you want? Please quote that for me. I have, however, said that the definition of a word can be and is debated frequently. Look at three or four credible collegiate dictionaries by different companies and look up the same word in each. You won't find the same exact words being used to define most of them. That constitutes a different interpretation, no?

I mean, what the hell do you think the court system does all day long? It interprets the laws! Obviously laws can be unclear and subject to many interpretations - but not "any definition you want".

Furthermore, the word 'speech' has been thoroughly defined many times in many categories with different levels of protection. Why would the term 'arms' be any different? Does the Constitution specifically define what is meant by 'arms'? No? Well then, I guess it's subject to interpretation and definition, and reinterpretation and redefinition, etc. for the rest of US history just like the term 'speech' has been.

On non-metallic guns: Let's hope the security at airports don't think like you do. Otherwise, that odd-shaped metal thing on my keychain won't even be questioned, and later while on the plane, I can unpack my disassembled mostly non-metallic gun, assemble it with the part off my keychain, and presto, I'm armed.

 

[Ed]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray

It's not a strawman! put anything in there for "All _______ control does is take __________ away from law abiding citizens" and it's the same argument. Drugs, prostitutes, or any other vice or desire. Cuban cigars!

Strawman. Though one might argue (as is being done) that strict laws do in fact impact lawful users. Pain control for pot and sex therapy for sex for hire.

The point is, if they are law abiding citizens, then they will obey the law and give up the banned weapons, no?

Yes, but I was under the impression that the law was to reduce crime, not to make law abiding people proove that they were law abiding.

Not by you. I am not saying you're wrong - I'm saying that anyone can introduce an argument with the phrase 'it has been shown' or the similar 'pretty much verified'.

You are quite right. The law was put into place based on fear and political advantage. Since the data does not exist regarding the efficacy of the law (or the need for the law in the first place) any discussion of "showing" anything is misdirection.

If they grandfathered gun owners in, there would be a massive purchase of weapons before the date of enactment, essentially defeating the purpose of the law.

So what? This happened with a class of machine guns already. It happens with zoning all of the time. So what?


On non-metallic guns: Let's hope the security at airports don't think like you do. Otherwise, that odd-shaped metal thing on my keychain won't even be questioned, and later while on the plane, I can unpack my disassembled mostly non-metallic gun, assemble it with the part off my keychain, and presto, I'm armed.

There is no way to protect absolutely. The only way to make air traffic safe is if the airlines adopted my "Fly Naked(tm)" program. They have not been very interested to date.[/QUOTE]

 

[merphie]

What does that mean for the thread you started?

It means people are still arguing it over really stupid points that they can not show an ounce of fact for. So I decided to write a summary based on all the facts that I have collected over time.

It's not a strawman! put anything in there for "All _______ control does is take __________ away from law abiding citizens" and it's the same argument. Drugs, prostitutes, or any other vice or desire. Cuban cigars!

The point is, if they are law abiding citizens, then they will obey the law and give up the banned weapons, no?

Yes, strawman. You are right that the "law abiding" citizens give up the banned weapons. By saying "only effects law abiding citizens" I am saying the law had no effect on crime. This is going to take a really long time if you nickle and dime every little word.

Not by you. I am not saying you're wrong - I'm saying that anyone can introduce an argument with the phrase 'it has been shown' or the similar 'pretty much verified'.

Of course, that's why I provided links to the information my argument was based on. You may not say I am wrong, but you are contesting something were the facts were already given.

If they grandfathered gun owners in, there would be a massive purchase of weapons before the date of enactment, essentially defeating the purpose of the law.

Ok, are you saying the law was worthless?

You are very confused on this. You said that a possible and logical interpretation of the First Amendment was that only the media was allowed free speech, because of the 'freedom of the press' phrase. I pointed out that there is a 'freedom of speech' phrase in the First Amendment as well, meaning that you were wrong and not only the media was allowed free speech.

Also, when have I ever said that you can make up any definition you want? Please quote that for me. I have, however, said that the definition of a word can be and is debated frequently. Look at three or four credible collegiate dictionaries by different companies and look up the same word in each. You won't find the same exact words being used to define most of them. That constitutes a different interpretation, no?

I mean, what the hell do you think the court system does all day long? It interprets the laws! Obviously laws can be unclear and subject to many interpretations - but not "any definition you want".

Furthermore, the word 'speech' has been thoroughly defined many times in many categories with different levels of protection. Why would the term 'arms' be any different? Does the Constitution specifically define what is meant by 'arms'? No? Well then, I guess it's subject to interpretation and definition, and reinterpretation and redefinition, etc. for the rest of US history just like the term 'speech' has been.

No confusion. You are questioning a term that is not defined by anyone the same way twice. I was 100% correct when I said "Assault Weapons" doesn't describe any gun accurately. Because you could never be sure what kind of gun with what properties I am referring too.

I played with the "Freedom of Speech" part like you played with "Right to keep and bear arms" because it shows a simple idea I had stated many times. A person only seems to question what the second amendment means if it doesn't protect freedoms they enjoy and they want to get rid of it. To see this in practice you merely have to look at the previous post. The people arguing for more "gun control" are those who come from a country with more restrictive laws or those who wish the USA was like the countries with restrictive laws.

The debate on the meaning of the Second Amendment is pointless. There is plenty of laws (Some were referenced) that define what the amendment means in modern times. The 1994 ban was nothing but an attempt to ban private ownership of guns. (or steps leading to it) The 1994 gun ban was to gun owners what the Campaign Reform Act or the Patriot Act is to other citizens.

On non-metallic guns: Let's hope the security at airports don't think like you do. Otherwise, that odd-shaped metal thing on my keychain won't even be questioned, and later while on the plane, I can unpack my disassembled mostly non-metallic gun, assemble it with the part off my keychain, and presto, I'm armed.

You are still mixing concealed with undetected. You can conceal gun parts and reassemble on a plane. No doubt. It is not possible to make a gun that won't show up on X-Ray. You have not provided proof of you claim.

 

[Dorian Gray]

Since the data does not exist regarding the efficacy of the law (or the need for the law in the first place) any discussion of "showing" anything is misdirection.

Ironic statement of the year. Ed, "It has been show that criminals do not use these type of guns" was the argument used to justify letting the law LAPSE.

It means people are still arguing it over really stupid points that they can not show an ounce of fact for.

On both sides, no?

Ok, are you saying the law was worthless?

No, because I don't think it grandfathered current owners of the banned weapons in.

The 1994 ban was nothing but an attempt to ban private ownership of guns. (or steps leading to it)

This is just a pro-gun scare tactic. Most of the "recreational" drugs are banned, and by your argument that is just a step to banning all drugs. Yet for almost 70 years, whole other drugs get banned left and right, alcohol is still plenty legal, and so is nicotine. By your argument, banning gay marriage is just a step to banning all marriage. Yet, well, you know the rest.

You are still mixing concealed with undetected.

Not at all surprising, since they are synonymous.