Why I love the 2nd Amendment......

[A2SG]

That door swings both ways.

Our side gets to twist the same statistics that the anti's twist.

This isn't an us vs. them situation, my friend. It isn't guns vs. no guns: its about common sense, and a desire to keep gun violence down. Period.

"There are lies, damned lies, and.......statistics."

The statistics aren't in question. What is being questioned is what they mean, and how they relate. For example, you implied that a reduction in crime statistics was CAUSED by a larger number of guns. If you want to make that case, you're gonna need more that that one set of statistics to back up your theory.

I have advocated for years that the NRA publish an annual report on gun violence which would not contain a single statistic but only the actual case histories of these events. If such a report were sent to congress and the administration each year such a deafening silence about this issue would spread over the land that it would make the headlines;

"TRUTH ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE FINALLY ENDS DEBATE. GUN OWNERS REJOICING NATIONWIDE. ANTI'S IN UNPRECEDENTED RETREAT."

What about the rest of us? Do we have to live with gun violence because you "won" this supposed fight?

What about those caught in the middle, like the children at Sandy Hook Elementary? Are they just collateral damage?

-- A2SG, sorry, but I can't see it that way....and I pity anyone who can....

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The statistics aren't in question. What is being questioned is what they mean, and how they relate.

To repeat,

I have advocated for years that the NRA (or some other agency) publish an annual report on gun violence which would not contain a single statistic but only the actual case histories of these events.

Until all violent crime events are actually understood nothing meaningful can happen. I have done this (reviewed nearly 600 actual case history briefs of gun homocides that occurred in a single week) and can tell you that there is no gun problem in America that will be solved by more gun control laws.

The rush to pass yet more ineffective laws is nothing more than the reactions of an out of control lynch mob that feels that they must hang someone, anyone, and it must be done right away (while emotions are strong, and certainly before a full investigation can take place).

 

[A2SG]

To repeat,

I have advocated for years that the NRA (or some other agency) publish an annual report on gun violence which would not contain a single statistic but only the actual case histories of these events.

Until all violent crime events are actually understood nothing meaningful can happen. I have done this (reviewed nearly 600 actual case history briefs of gun homocides that occurred in a single week) and can tell you that there is no gun problem in America that will be solved by more gun control laws.

Let me see if I understand you correctly: you reviewed 600 cases of gun homicides IN A SINGLE WEEK and you came away thinking there isn't a gun problem?????????????

Dude, I think your bias is coming through loud and clear.

But hey, I'll take this as a case of different perspectives and ask you this: if gun control laws won't help, what will?

And, specifically, HOW will they help more than simply making sure there are less guns, specifically guns that are deadlier than most (aka assault weapons)?

The rush to pass yet more ineffective laws is nothing more than the reactions of an out of control lynch mob that feels that they must hang someone, anyone, and it must be done right away (while emotions are strong, and certainly before a full investigation can take place).

There is no lynching here. You're overreacting.

-- A2SG, once again, we determined earlier in this thread that responsible gun owners do not NEED assault weapons, so what's the big deal?

 

[Crusader05]

Let me see if I understand you correctly: you reviewed 600 cases of gun homicides IN A SINGLE WEEK and you came away thinking there isn't a gun problem?????????????

Dude, I think your bias is coming through loud and clear.

But hey, I'll take this as a case of different perspectives and ask you this: if gun control laws won't help, what will?

And, specifically, HOW will they help more than simply making sure there are less guns, specifically guns that are deadlier than most (aka assault weapons)?



There is no lynching here. You're overreacting.

-- A2SG, once again, we determined earlier in this thread that responsible gun owners do not NEED assault weapons, so what's the big deal?

Here's my 2 cents. I am hearing all this talk about wanting to curtail "gun violence" as if guns are causing violence, as if they are magically floating around killing people. Gun grabbers are ignoring that there is a human being holding the gun and making the decision to take a life. More people will be stabbed to death this year than be be killed by rifles of any variety. Should we be talking about knife control?

We already have laws against murder, we already have laws against the violently mentally ill from having weapons. I say we expand and improve the background check system and enforce the current laws. We are actually experiencing a dramatic drop in crime, including murder, a 40 year low, so the sky isn't falling.

An assault weapons ban will only have the effect of removing rifles currently used by civilians for a variety of legal purposes. Furthermore, it is a dumb law targets firearms based on their "scary looking" features like pistol grips, flash suppressors and telescoping stocks. Please explain how these features make bullets more deadly or more likely to kill since you claim they are?

 

[Gath]

-- A2SG, once again, we determined earlier in this thread that responsible gun owners do not NEED assault weapons, so what's the big deal?

I would say the big deal is saying that something should be taken away merely because people don't NEED it. Similarly, an organization like the KKK is certainly bad for society, but so long as they aren't physically harming others they have first amendment rights. (In cases where they have hurt others, they have been prosecuted.) So no, gun owners don't need assault weapons, and these weapons are probably bad for society. However, I would say the second amendment protects them regardless.

 

[Mazock]

Here's the problem with banning new assault rifles or the transfer of existing assault rifles.

It turns 100 million gun owners into felons.

BUT...You say the existing firearms are granfathered in.

What happens when I die?

The government hunts down and kills and imprisons my kids, for being in possession of an assault rifle. Because they didn't turn in the rifle when I died.

100 million Americans wont stand for that. So there will eventually be an uprising.

 

[QR1]

Here's the problem with banning new assault rifles or the transfer of existing assault rifles.

It turns 100 million gun owners into felons.

BUT...You say the existing firearms are granfathered in.

What happens when I die?

The government hunts down and kills and imprisons my kids, for being in possession of an assault rifle. Because they didn't turn in the rifle when I died.

100 million Americans wont stand for that. So there will eventually be an uprising.

Won't ever get that far. The number of states abolishing racist based gun control laws has been on the rise for a while. There are already 100 million American voters ready to lay waste to the political careers of anyone who refuses to acknowledge which way the wind is blowing. The Feinsteins and the McCarthy's are expending the last shreds of credibility they had on a political fight they won't win. Just a pity there isn't an alternative party for people to vote for, since the Republicans quit running candidates over the last 12 years.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Let me see if I understand you correctly: you reviewed 600 cases of gun homicides IN A SINGLE WEEK and you came away thinking there isn't a gun problem?????????????

The year was 1987, when drug crime violence was peaking. Even so nearly 60 percent of the homocides were suicides. A dozen were accidents. Many were police killing crooks. A large number were crooks killing crooks. The next largest number besides suicides were family members killing other family members (largely men killing wives or girlfriends) and acquaintences. There were a few 'crimes of passion' as well, all committed by minorities. There were no mass murders that week.

Dude, I think your bias is coming through loud and clear.

My bias is away from more gun laws, based on the facts.

But hey, I'll take this as a case of different perspectives and ask you this: if gun control laws won't help, what will?

Longer jail terms for those who use guns in the commission of crime, expand and expedite the death penalty for 1st degree murder, restrict and streamline the appeals process, expand three strikes laws, victim restitution laws that have all offenders pay into a fund for victims, broaden firearm education especially for self defense and gun safety, reasonable mental health data base for gun dealers.

Secure the schools. Secure the border. Decriminalize pot.

And, specifically, HOW will they help more than simply making sure there are less guns, specifically guns that are deadlier than most (aka assault weapons)?

Gun ownership is increasing. "Making sure there are less guns" means confiscation, which isn't going to happen.

There is no lynching here. You're overreacting.

The AR15 and other scary looking guns are being lynched. Exit the AR15's, enter weapons just as deadly, gather the lynchmob again.

-- A2SG, once again, we determined earlier in this thread that responsible gun owners do not NEED assault weapons, so what's the big deal?

You've made our whole point; the vast majority of responsible gun owners aren't the problem.

 

[Mazock]

Here's what I don't get with this argument.

The government is focusing on the WRONG weapons.

I'm not going to use my "assault rifle" to engage a tyrannical government. "Assault rifles" have a maximum effective range of 300 yards.

Don't tell my senator, but when stuff gets ugly, the DEER RIFLE will be the weapon of choice. Why, because depending upon the deer rifle, it has a maximum effective range of 1000 yards.

I'm certainly not crazy enough to engage a heavily armed force at less than 300 yards.

That doesn't mean I don't like shooting my AK. Its a fun little gun. But, if push comes to shove, I'm more effective with a long rifle.

 

[Crusader05]

Don't tell my senator, but when stuff gets ugly, the DEER RIFLE will be the weapon of choice. Why, because depending upon the deer rifle, it has a maximum effective range of 1000 yards.

I'm certainly not crazy enough to engage a heavily armed force at less than 300 yards.

That doesn't mean I don't like shooting my AK. Its a fun little gun. But, if push comes to shove, I'm more effective with a long rifle.

Don't worry, those will soon be labeled "long-range sniper rifles" by the gun grabbers and targeted for bans next. There is essentially no difference between a bolt-action hunting rifle and a police/military sniper rifle, so what's the rationale for allowing civilians to own such dangerous "military grade" weapons?

All gun owners need to realize this is incremental, if we give in on so called "assault rifles" what is to stop them from coming after all semi-automatic firearms (like those used for hunting and self-defense) and eventually your hunting rifle or shotgun. Australia and Britain are their models, they want to do the exact same thing here.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Interesting warning from Bill Clinton.

Go ahead. Make my day.

Bill Clinton warns Democrats on gun control | United Liberty | Free Market - Individual Liberty - Limited Government

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Don't worry, those will soon be labeled "long-range sniper rifles" by the gun grabbers and targeted for bans next. There is essentially no difference between a bolt-action hunting rifle and a police/military sniper rifle, so what's the rationale for allowing civilians to own such dangerous "military grade" weapons?

Because they look scary.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Don't worry, those will soon be labeled "long-range sniper rifles" by the gun grabbers and targeted for bans next. There is essentially no difference between a bolt-action hunting rifle and a police/military sniper rifle, so what's the rationale for allowing civilians to own such dangerous "military grade" weapons?

All gun owners need to realize this is incremental, if we give in on so called "assault rifles" what is to stop them from coming after all semi-automatic firearms (like those used for hunting and self-defense) and eventually your hunting rifle or shotgun. Australia and Britain are their models, they want to do the exact same thing here.

Those bolt action hunting rifles are more powerful than police sniper rifles!!11one!11!

They need to be banned at once!

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Here's what I don't get with this argument.

The government is focusing on the WRONG weapons.

I'm not going to use my "assault rifle" to engage a tyrannical government. "Assault rifles" have a maximum effective range of 300 yards.

Don't tell my senator, but when stuff gets ugly, the DEER RIFLE will be the weapon of choice. Why, because depending upon the deer rifle, it has a maximum effective range of 1000 yards.

I'm certainly not crazy enough to engage a heavily armed force at less than 300 yards.

That doesn't mean I don't like shooting my AK. Its a fun little gun. But, if push comes to shove, I'm more effective with a long rifle.

Depends on your scenario. If you live in a castle at the top of a mountain, and your attackers approach you one at a time, a deer rifle might be optimal.

 

[Blackguard_]

Depends on your scenario. If you live in a castle at the top of a mountain, and your attackers approach you one at a time, a deer rifle might be optimal

maybe he's thinking of "voting from the rooftop"?

But he might also find out the hard way why Loius XIV had "Ultima Ratio Rex" cast into his cannons as tyrannical government artillery or air strikes are called down on his position beyond their force's assault rifle range.

 

[A2SG]

Here's my 2 cents. I am hearing all this talk about wanting to curtail "gun violence" as if guns are causing violence, as if they are magically floating around killing people. Gun grabbers are ignoring that there is a human being holding the gun and making the decision to take a life. More people will be stabbed to death this year than be be killed by rifles of any variety. Should we be talking about knife control?

Knives have other uses. Guns, specifically assault weapons, have no function other than to kill. That's it.

And second, few weapons are more efficient at killing than a gun. And assault weapons are more efficient than most kinds of guns, in that they can shoot more bullets in less time, making it easier to kill than just about any other form of weaponry short of bombs or nuclear weapons.

I sincerly wish Adam Lanza had had a knife that fateful day instead of an assault weapon, the body count he caused would have been a hell of a lot lower.

We already have laws against murder, we already have laws against the violently mentally ill from having weapons. I say we expand and improve the background check system and enforce the current laws. We are actually experiencing a dramatic drop in crime, including murder, a 40 year low, so the sky isn't falling.

No, but gun violence is still high, way too high to just say "oh well, nothing we can do, we'll just have to live with it."

An assault weapons ban will only have the effect of removing rifles currently used by civilians for a variety of legal purposes.

Such as? What legal purpose requires an assault weapon, and no other kind of gun?

Furthermore, it is a dumb law targets firearms based on their "scary looking" features like pistol grips, flash suppressors and telescoping stocks. Please explain how these features make bullets more deadly or more likely to kill since you claim they are?

Those are not the only criteria.

But, if you have a problem with the definition of assault weapons, I suggest you take it up with your elected representatives to use in creating legislation.

-- A2SG, seems to me, the deadlier a weapon the more we need to regulate it to make sure it doesn't fall into the wrong hands, i.e. someone like Adam Lanza.....

 

[A2SG]

I would say the big deal is saying that something should be taken away merely because people don't NEED it.

But it's not "merely" that. It's because they are highly deadly, and the potential for harm is incredibly high if they should fall into the wrong hands. The potential danger to public safety trumps gun owners desire to possess weapons they clearly have no overriding need for.

Basically, it's the same principle that prevents nuclear weapons from being sold at Wal-Mart as well.

Similarly, an organization like the KKK is certainly bad for society, but so long as they aren't physically harming others they have first amendment rights. (In cases where they have hurt others, they have been prosecuted.)

As your parenthetical notes, the right of free speech is not absolute, it has limits. Same for the right to bear arms.

So no, gun owners don't need assault weapons, and these weapons are probably bad for society. However, I would say the second amendment protects them regardless.

No more so than the first amendment protects you from slandering someone or committing assault.

The fact is, assault weapons have been banned before. The law was not overturned on constitutional grounds, nor was it voted down. It just lapsed.

-- A2SG, but if you want to offer a constitutional challenge to a similar law when its passed, feel free.....

 

[A2SG]

Here's the problem with banning new assault rifles or the transfer of existing assault rifles.

It turns 100 million gun owners into felons.

No more so than it did in 1994.

BUT...You say the existing firearms are granfathered in.

What happens when I die?

The government hunts down and kills and imprisons my kids, for being in possession of an assault rifle. Because they didn't turn in the rifle when I died.

Did that ever happen? The law was on the books for a decade between 1994 and 2004, surely a gun owner or two who owned an assault weapon must have died in that time. Out of curiosity, what happened?

100 million Americans wont stand for that. So there will eventually be an uprising.

What we need here is a little more common sense and a lot less paranoia, you ask me.

-- A2SG, was there an uprising during the decade from 1994 to 2004 that I missed?

 

[A2SG]

The year was 1987, when drug crime violence was peaking. Even so nearly 60 percent of the homocides were suicides. A dozen were accidents. Many were police killing crooks. A large number were crooks killing crooks. The next largest number besides suicides were family members killing other family members (largely men killing wives or girlfriends) and acquaintences. There were a few 'crimes of passion' as well, all committed by minorities. There were no mass murders that week.

So? Are you seriously trying to convince me that, had there been less guns, that number wouldn't have been lower?

If so, you'll have to try harder.

My bias is away from more gun laws, based on the facts.

Those same facts convince me that we, as a nation, need responsible gun legislation.

Funny how that works.

Longer jail terms for those who use guns in the commission of crime, expand and expedite the death penalty for 1st degree murder, restrict and streamline the appeals process, expand three strikes laws, victim restitution laws that have all offenders pay into a fund for victims, broaden firearm education especially for self defense and gun safety, reasonable mental health data base for gun dealers.

As I said before, those things may help in some cases, but they won't do a single thing in many other cases.

I'm all in favor of some of the things you outline, but I still can't see how banning assault weapons doesn't help, too.

Secure the schools. Secure the border. Decriminalize pot.

Um..... we going off on a tangent here?

Gun ownership is increasing. "Making sure there are less guns" means confiscation, which isn't going to happen.

I have no problem with responsible gun owners owning guns. I do have a problem with assault weapons being freely available, however.

The AR15 and other scary looking guns are being lynched. Exit the AR15's, enter weapons just as deadly, gather the lynchmob again.

Iv'e said it before, I'll say it again: the deadlier a weapon, the more we need to regulate its use and availability.

That's about as self-evident as it gets.

You've made our whole point; the vast majority of responsible gun owners aren't the problem.

Except, of course, when their guns get into the wrong hands.

-- A2SG, as far as we can tell, Adam Lanza's mom was a responsible gun owner....

 

[serge546]

QFT

My wife called me from inside our home once. she said the back door had been broken in, the house was trashed, and things were missing. I said GET OUT OF THE HOUSE. I work 25 miles away, but I immediately called 911 and told the dispatcher I was unsure if the intruders were still on site or not. I made it to my house 5 minutes before the police arrived. Fortunately, the burglars were gone, and my wife ran back out anyways and locked herself in her car until I arrived.

You drove home at 300 miles per hour?! I want you defending me instead of the cops.

Edit: Whoops, misread that! Thought you said you made it there in 5 minutes. Still impressive, though.