What Level Of Gun Control Works For You?

[Guest HolyLlama]

Well I always thought Howard Dean had the most intelligent position on gun control that I've seen.

 

"When you say 'gun control' in New York, they think it's taking away Uzis on the street, he said. "When you say 'gun control' in Wyoming, it means they're going to take away the squirrel rifle that your grandfather gave you."

 

"I come from a rural state with a very low homicide state and no gun control other than the federal laws. I support those federal laws vigorously. Hunters don't need AK-47s to shoot deer and most hunters I know don't believe that it should be easier for criminals to get their hands on guns, but I know that states like California and New Jersey want more gun control than that. I believe that they should be allowed to pass what gun controls they think they need, but that it is unreasonable to apply laws that may be necessary in California to rural states like Montana or Vermont. The cross border issue has been resolved in one case: Virginia now limits the availability of gun purchases because so many Virginia guns were turning up in New York City illegally."

 

Honestly, I've never seen seen why people need an assault rifle, period. A shotgun would be more effective for home defense. People can't collect tanks or RPGs and they're arguably safer to collect because you can't drive over to Wal-Mart and buy ammo for them, well maybe the tank is dangerous. You can actually drive over cars and crush them, but so can most rednecks in their jacked up trucks.

[jt1]

I believe anyone who has a felony conviction or mental problems, should not be allowed to own a firearm. Otherwise, anybody should be able to own, carry, and use any firearm they see fit. The penalties for using a firearm illegally should be harsh.

 

So far as people who say we don't "need" assault weapons, think about this:

 

We don't "need" V8/turbo/nos/RB26 Z cars either!

 

All the arguments against assault weapons can also be used against high performance autos. You don't need a car that will go faster than the speed limit. You don't need a car that will accelerate quickly. You don't need a car that will pull 1 g in a turn. A car that will go faster is capable of killing more people than a slow car. Because a car with a spoiler "looks" like a high performance car, you don't need it.

 

This makes just as much sense as the assault weapons ban. Because a weapon "looks" deadly means it it and you should not be allowed to own it.

 

It's definitely a nose-of-the camel thing- once the safety nazis get done with guns, what to stop them from starting on cars? After all, "cars" kill a lot more people than "guns"!

 

John

[Pop N Wood]

IMO one of the more aggravating aspects of gun laws is people gravitate toward laws that “just seem to make sense†without bothering to see if they are at all founded in reality. Assault gun bans fall in this category (I noticed Subdermal conveniently ignored my statements about Patrick Purdy). Even Clinton’s own commission studying the issue stated categorically that the US does not have a problem with assault weapons. One of the most common round used in domestic shootings is a 25 auto. And yet anti gunners focus a lot of their energies on assault weapons. Why? Lack of understanding? Or is it just because they are trying to appeal to people’s emotions rather than logic? Maybe something else?

 

Subdermal, take the time to actually read what I wrote before you begin mentally formulating a response. The statistics I stated where not trying to justify anything but instead are an attempt to shed some light on the problem. IMO how can we begin to address the problem if we don’t understand the basic question? Look at the gun laws and statistics on the countries I cited. Why does the US have such a high death rate compared to other countries, some of which actually require homeowners to own fully automatic weapons as part of the national militia? The problem in the US runs deeper than just more laws. Also reread my statements regarding fully automatic weapons. Only 1 legally owned automatic weapon has ever been used in a crime. This means stolen or otherwise. Do a web search if you don’t trust the link I posted. The facts will support me on this. And yes, a 22 rifle in the hands of a crack addict is infinitely more dangerous than an MP5 in the hands of a SWAT team member. What is the point of banning one over the other?

 

As far as what is an acceptable risk? Well this will forever be a subject of disagreement. Like all other things, you have to weight the cost against the benefit. Probably the overwhelming majority of Americans have no contact with guns and thus see no positive benefit from them. People in rural areas generally have a different perspectives. It is too easy in America today to think we no longer need an armed populace. If you don't see any benefit, then any cost is too high. All I can say to that is pick up a newspaper and read about some of the atrocities that are occurring throughout the world today. Sift though the military history section of your local Barnes and Nobles. The world is not always a nice place.

 

But my single biggest complaint concerning attempted gun bans is people trying to pretend the second amendment does mean what it says. Licensing, safety courses, magazine limits, purchase limits, arduous paperwork requirements (sound familiar?). These are all just steps towards a defacto ban.

[Guest subdermal]

(I noticed Subdermal conveniently ignored my statements about Patrick Purdy).

I didn't ignore it out of convenience - there are certainly scenarios in which a shotgun may be more dangerous than an assault rifle. However, I believe those scenarios to be more limited than those where its the other way around. Is this due to my relative ignorance on the topic? Possibly But I'm learning, and this conversation is part of that. Besides, a ban on (or stricter regulation of) full auto weapons, which I am proposing is a good thing, would not have hindered his ability to get the SKS anyhow.

 

Even Clinton’s own commission studying the issue stated categorically that the US does not have a problem with assault weapons. One of the most common round used in domestic shootings is a 25 auto. And yet anti gunners focus a lot of their energies on assault weapons. Why? Lack of understanding? Or is it just because they are trying to appeal to people’s emotions rather than logic? Maybe something else?

I have no idea why 'anti-gunners' have chosen the arguments that they have. Please understand that I am not spouting the 'liberal bleeding heart anti-freedom party line' - I am just speaking from my own observations and making comments that seem obvious to me as an outsider to the ongoing argument but one who has experienced gun violence in the US in a very personal way.

 

Subdermal, take the time to actually read what I wrote before you begin mentally formulating a response. The statistics I stated where not trying to justify anything but instead are an attempt to shed some light on the problem.

point taken

 

IMO how can we begin to address the problem if we don’t understand the basic question? Look at the gun laws and statistics on the countries I cited. Why does the US have such a high death rate compared to other countries, some of which actually require homeowners to own fully automatic weapons as part of the national militia? The problem in the US runs deeper than just more laws.

Agreed 100% - but until the problems of poverty, poor education, and general desperation in some of our neghborhoods are solved, what do we do?

 

Only 1 legally owned automatic weapon has ever been used in a crime. This means stolen or otherwise.

Then I completely misunderstood the statistic. To me it appeared to say that only one legally owned AW had ever been used by the owner in a crime.

 

And yes, a 22 rifle in the hands of a crack addict is infinitely more dangerous than an MP5 in the hands of a SWAT team member. What is the point of banning one over the other?

I was afraid I might not have put that well. My point is that in the hands of a crack addict, the MP5 is more dangerous than a .22. In the hands of the SWAT member, the MP5 is still more dangerous. (And, as your own example shows, just beacuse someone is LE does not mean they won't snap and kill people too). The obvious solution is to remove the crack addict, but until we can reasonably deal with the problems leading to drug addiction, why shovel guns at him?

 

But my single biggest complaint concerning attempted gun bans is people trying to pretend the second amendment does mean what it says. Licensing, safety courses, magazine limits, purchase limits, arduous paperwork requirements (sound familiar?). These are all just steps towards a defacto ban.

So just to clarify, you're saying that there should be no limitations on weapons ownership? If I want to have week-long coke and LSD parties, invite the local anarchist collective over, hand a rocket launcher to every guest on their way in, and I happen to be your neighbor, you're ok with that?

 

Not trying to be an ass, but I am trying to understand your opinion better.

[grumpyvette]

the main fact SOME of you ignore is why we HAVE the second amendment it the first place!

the plain FACT is that the founding fathers KNEW from experiance that the only thing that keeps the government from taking away all your rights over time by constantly rewording and slicing away your freedoms , and TAXING and LEDGISLATING away those RIGHTS bit by bit, is that at some point the general population will rise up and demand justice!

WITHOUT THE ABILITY to FIGHT the STATE, (ARMS IN THE HANDS OF THE GENERAL POPULATION )the population is just a bunch of surfs/slaves to the will of the government

THE second ammendment has NOTHING to do with hunting!! its got everything to do with the populations ability to resist with FORCE if necessary an OPPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT that gets out of control of the people its DESIGNED to serve

ASSAULT WEAPONS are THE TYPE of WEAPON that should be the MOST PROTECTED ARMS.

IF YOU DOUBT THAT STATEMENT??

READ WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS SAID!

 

The Federalist Papers: In Modern Language and Indexed

Edited by: Mary E. Webster

 

 

 

Origins and Development of the Second Amendment

Edited by: David E. Young

 

http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/2amteach/sources.htm#TOC11

 

 

How did the 2nd amendment come to be?

 

When the U.S. Constitution was written, there was much debate over whether or not to include a specific bill of rights. Many people at the time believed that if the government made a list of protected rights, then all rights that were not on the list would be trampled. Others felt that it was necessary to include specific freedoms to keep them from being taken away by an overactive federal government. Still others felt that we needed to trust our government to lead us, and not shackle them with things they could and could not do.

 

Originally, the Constitution was approved without a Bill of Rights, then sent to the states for ratification. Many of the states, however, did not approve of a Constitution that did not guarantee the protection of certain rights and freedoms. So, in the process of ratification, many of the states voted for the constitution while specifically listing rights they felt should be included by amendment. Among these rights were freedom of religion, speech, and the right to keep and bear arms.

 

James Madison was largely in charge of drafting the original Bill of Rights. He looked over a very large list of proposed amendments which had been recommended by various states, then he narrowed them down. He submitted them to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, where they passed ten of them, and those ten became known as the Bill of Rights. This story is well told in Stephen P. Halbrooks book "That Every Man Be Armed."

 

According to the writings cited in "That Every Man Be Armed."

"Mr. Madison has introduced long-expected amendments…It contains a bill of rights…the right of the people to bear arms." -Trench Coxe (p. 76).

 

3. What was the intent of the Second Amendment?

 

The intent of these amendments was to protect individuals from government powers. They were meant as a guarantee to the individual state governments as well as the American citizens that the Federal government would not try to take away the freedoms which many of them had so recently fought for. Senator William Grayson wrote to Patrick Henry; "Last Monday, a string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respected personal liberty…" (p. 76).

 

"To preserve Liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, and member of the first Continental Congress, which passed the Bill of Rights)

 

4. Who should have the "right to keep and bear arms."

 

 

We believe that the Second Amendment right to self-protection and defense of liberty should be granted to all those eligible including everyone of legal age, and those who are not violent criminals.

[jt1]

As usual, Grumpy is right on the money and brings the tech to back it up.

 

My post merely points out that gun control is a slippery slope and does nothing to stop criminals, only removes the rights of law abiding citizens.

 

John

[A. G. Olphart]

So just to clarify, you're saying that there should be no limitations on weapons ownership? If I want to have week-long coke and LSD parties, invite the local anarchist collective over, hand a rocket launcher to every guest on their way in, and I happen to be your neighbor, you're ok with that?

 

Not trying to be an ass, but I am trying to understand your opinion better.

 

Sorry, but it kind of sounds like you are trying hard... The problem in your scenario is not the weapons, but the people, their chosen form of chemical recreation, and your lack of responsibility as a host.

 

If you really want to protect the neighbors from crazed partrygoers, please feel free to outlaw any vehicle that weighs over 150 pounds and can travel faster than a running man. Then should everyone leave the party to drive through the neighborhood mall, the shoppers will have an even chance.

H'mm, they could still hurt old people in walkers... maybe we should drop that maximum weight.

 

There is no way to remove all risks from the world: We can't crawl back into a nice, safe, womb.

No matter how hard we try and what laws are enacted, each of us will die from something.

 

The benefits of an armed populace outweigh the damage done by a few idiots. (I realize that this is cold comfort to anyone/family member who is harmed by your hypothetical party pals).

[Guest subdermal]

Sorry, but it kind of sounds like you are trying hard...

Oh without a doubt - I went out of my way to come up with a ludicrous situation that seemed to fit within your range of acceptable options, just to see what your reaction would be.

The problem in your scenario is not the weapons, but the people, their chosen form of chemical recreation, and your lack of responsibility as a host.

But all kinds of people exist, and you can't control that. All kinds of drugs exist, and control of that has been less than completely effective. And irresponsible people certainly exist. We can't crawl back into the womb, as you say. But that doesn't mean we should give grenades to children either. Somewhere in the middle is an acceptable mitigation of risk that still leaves people as free as possible.

 

The benefits of an armed populace outweigh the damage done by a few idiots. (I realize that this is cold comfort to anyone/family member who is harmed by your hypothetical party pals).

Indeed it would be.

[Pop N Wood]

OK, still not hearing me. Patrick Purdy did not have a fully auto weapon. You are proving my point concerning gun laws. Banning automatic weapons is a solution in search of a problem. Right now it is legal for a responsible American to buy and own a fully automatic weapon. The laws and licensing are very strict. The statistic I referenced show that this has not been a problem. And yet if you ask the average anti-gun person they will cry in disbelieve that they aren't totally illegal. Check out the prices of a fully auto weapon. Because of the existing laws a legal M16 sells for over $12,000. And yet somehow you want stricter laws. Why?

 

And yes, there is a reason cops carry shot guns and not assault rifles. There are few things more lethal in an urban environment. M16 rounds are not legal for hunting deer in most states, yet shotguns are. Why? Insufficient stopping power. Too great a chance of only wounding the animal instead of killing him (among other things). Assault weapons are actually designed to wound and not kill. Why? Because on a battlefield a wounded man takes on the average 10 support people to evacuate and treat. Dead men take care of themselves. Trying to ban one type of gun because it is “more dangerous†than another IMO shows and incredible degree of ignorance concerning the root of the problem.

 

One thing you have to understand. Most gun control groups lobbying congress are not after reasonable restrictions that do not infringe upon honest people’s rights. They are out to ban all guns. That is why people like me fight any and all new gun laws. They are a means to an end.

 

What is a reasonable level of restrictions? Good question. I would say something considerably less than we have today.

 

BTW, off topic but I came across this and found it rather humerous.

 

 

[/img]

 

Sorry. The text got lost. The caption says "Beacuse if you cooperate, they might not hurt you"

 

http://www.handguncontrolinc.org/

[JMortensen]

To be fair to the 911 victims, they had only history to go by, where hijackers would take a plane and try to get comrades released in exchange for passengers. I don't think we'll be seeing any other hijackings in the foreseeable future.

 

The one I love is the home alarm system commercials on TV. "Kids, get in the bedroom!" Mom yells, then the alarm company calls and tells her it's going to be all right. Makes me want to I don't think I'll trust my safety to a home alarm and a chair wedged under the doorknob, thanks.

 

M16 rounds are not legal for hunting deer in most states, yet shotguns are. Why? Insufficient stopping power. Too great a chance of only wounding the animal instead of killing him (among other things).

 

My buddy had a T/C Contender chambered for .223. Used to freak people out when I told them I shot M16 ammo in a handgun. They never believed me when I told them .44 mag kicked a hell of a lot worse than .223 in that same gun.

[zguy95135]

And yes, there is a reason cops carry shot guns and not assault rifles.

Actually, thats not true, now the police carry a shotgun, .40 USP, and an AR-15, in CA at least

 

Assault weapons are actually designed to wound and not kill.

I dont know about that, a bullet from an M-16 is much more lethal then a regular higher caliber rifle round. The small round enters the body and become round, jagged and ricochets off of bones (because of its low mass), slicing through organs, tissues ect. and will cause much more damage then a normal bullet.

[Sumo]

I came from a country where we have total gun control and the only people who have firearms are the cops and the military. Guess what? The bad guys ARE the military and the cops!!! The only ones who have guns in my country are the military the cops and rich influencial people who usually became rich they ARE the criminals. Id like to say this is just my 2 cents but it was stolen by the other guys because all i had was a butterfly knife against fully automatic machine gun pointed to my head.

[JMortensen]

And yes, there is a reason cops carry shot guns and not assault rifles.

 

Actually, thats not true, now the police carry a shotgun, .40 USP, and an AR-15, in CA at least

 

Yeah, they carry them in CA because of those jackasses in No Hollywood. I still can't believe that SWAT and 300 regular officers were held at bay for so long by 2 dudes with AKs and body armor. I coulda made that head shot from 300 yards with my .243 and I am no sniper, and as far as hitting something in the background, hell, it had to be less dangerous to the public than letting those idiots spray bullets randomly for 45 minutes.

 

That was a real travesty. I couldn't believe how inept those cops were. And then they go and give them AR 15s??? That's the last thing they needed at the time. What they needed was one of those SWAT guys to take 2 shots with the .308 Remington 700. 2 good shots and that whole thing could have been over in 5 minutes. Instead they spend our tax $$$ on friggin AR-15s for cops. LAME.

[zguy95135]

From what I understand, SWAT was stuck in traffic and got there as they were leaving the parking lot, and when another cop got back with store AR's it was over. The officers there were only armed with 9mm Berettas and shotguns. The 9mm slugs wouldnt penetrate the armor especially at the distance they were shooting, besides it would be hard to get a clean shot when you have two guys spraying bullets at you from drum magazines.

[JMortensen]

The SWAT van was there IIRC for at least 10 minutes (maybe I'm wrong, but I lived pretty close and it was on the news 24-7 for a while). That was a situation that called for head shots, but what did the cops do? They drove down to B&B gun store and got some AR-15s and came back. If they had 1/2 a brain they either would have gotten some seriously accurate weapons, like the bull barreled Remington 700s that the SWAT guys have, or they could have gone for something powerful enough to blow through the body armor, like a .300 Winchester Mag or a 7mm Remington Mag (hell I think even a .270 or a .30/06 would go through that armor). Like you said I think it was over by the time they came back. I distinctly remember the SWAT team being there, and I kept thinking, why haven't they shot these guys in the head??? I think it was SWAT that eventually got the one guy in the ankle to take him down, then he was shot in the head.

 

F'in retarded police. Seriously f'in stupid. Totally disregard the SWAT team for a second. You've got 300 policemen with 9mm Berettas, right? Shoot THOSE at the guys' heads. Those two took 100s of bullets to the body armor, you could see it plain as day in the video. They could have easily taken some shots to the head as well with the 9mms and it would have been over. Or the feet. But they didn't.

 

And again, to justify outfitting patrol cars with AR-15s with that BS is just insane. I couldn't believe all the "the cops were overpowered and outgunned" BS when they were saying it then, and it still doesn't make any sense now. I know it's not PC to bitch about the cops, especially when they were under fire, but that was really really really badly handled.

[Guest norm[T12SDSUD]]

It's simple ,ever since Austrailia and England virtually outlawed practically all gun ownership back in the mid 90's ,their crime statistics have SKYROCKETED!!

 

The last stat I read last year stated that crime was up 35% in those countries!!!

 

Whereas ,wherever gun laws were passed in the USA giving citizens the right to carry concealed guns,violent crime WENT DOWN !!

 

Last years Million Mom march had less than 10,000 people.

 

WHY???

 

Because it's been proven that guns in private citizen's hands SAVE LIVES!!!

 

When a mad man is breaking into your home, do you really want to wait 10 minutes for the cops to get there????

 

You'll be dead by then.

 

 

Later,Norm

[BQR280Z]

My idea of gun control is hitting what you aim at. I like my weapons and enjoy being VERY good with them. As for police only having guns, I have seen some absolutely terrible police shooters. I personally saw an officer empty his 9mm at an injured deer, 15 feet away, missing completely. Then go back to his squad for the shot gun. I was not filled with confidence in their ability to protect me or my family.

 

I firmly believe life is precious and truely a gift from our Creator, but as the line goes...I would rather stand before God on judgement day and explain why I did use deadly force to protect my family, than why I did not.

 

Bill

[Pop N Wood]

jmortensen

 

I thought the same thing as you! A 30-06 will penetrate most body armor. Even the cops buy into the misinformation concerning "assault weapons". But a 223 is still a good choice for making an accurate head shot from a safer distance. It is also a pretty easy gun to shoot accurately, so I don't fully agree with your comments about outfitting patrol cars with them.

 

Also I can't see being too critical of a bunch of cops who went toe to toe with those two maniacs like they did. Brave bunch of boys. And a head shot seems pretty easy at the range, but like you said I have never tried to shoot at a moving target that was shooting back at me.

[Heavy Z]

if you haven't seen this one yet, it brings a whole new meaning to 'gun control.'

 

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/negligence.mpg

[JMortensen]

WTF?!?! I'd love to hear the "explanation" on that one. Do you know what the reason given for that was Heavy?