Why do gun extremists think that the 30-round assault rifle magazine size is no different than 5-round rifles or even shotguns?
The video below shows a shooter at a college with a shotgun who killed one person, wounded two others and stopped the reload. As he reloaded, a young man pepper sprayed him and tackled him
If he had a 30-round AR-15, would that other man have the chance to make the tackle? Of course not.
http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/06/15 … dlewis.cnn
That is my thought, but I have to step lightly as gun right advocates would vehemently deny this.
You mean ".................................of course not ", like you were actually there to know ? You don't know anything obviously about the gun, the magazine, or the reaction time and sequence of a hero !
Did you even watch the video? Apparently not.
Yes , I watched the video , I say Pepper spray can't save America from stupidity , the stupidity is "safe zone " . That video , if not actually staged , shows a one in a million chance of a lifetime . He's a hero - yet you think a magazine size is going to change the world ? Can you spell naïve?
Continually trying to steer the narrative in favor of gun restrictions simply won't change the minds of people. In the 1970's we brought guns to school and everyone was familiar with them and gun safety was taught - but when politics became involved in a knee jerk reaction, things changed and guns became the "enemy" - but guns are guns, they don't kill people. People who want to kill other people will continue to do so. Your argument is only a segue into additional restrictions - "see if only we had smaller magazines, fewer people would have been shot" - it doesn't address the real problem. If you get smaller magazines, then you'll go after another issue and then another.
I agree a hundred percent , in the sixties and seventies , we brought our guns to school and left them in the "office "closet or in our vehicles unlocked , I remember seeing them standing in the office corner by the trophy case ! Now what HAS changed ? The thug mentality , gang mentality , inner city punk culture , stupid parenting , a decent and moral society all began at home THEN , and what we're living today begins in what USED to be called home and is NOW but a sad shadow of what used to be !
RJ, I'm not trying to steer the narrative toward gun restrictions. I'm trying to steer it toward limiting access to assault rifles for children, convicted felons and mentally unstable people.
Do you agree or not?
The gun rights folks are of the mindset that if you give an inch, those that ask for moderate amounts of control will be asking for a mile later. So, a toddler can go buy a handgun if he or she wants to.
Credence, you are quite right. I have asked that same question many times, and not one of them has agreed to such a small and reasonable limit.
I have seen you post this question before promisem. Since it is already illegal for "children, [those under 18], convicted felons and, [documented] mentally unstable people" to buy guns, any guns, then the focus turns on what you mean by "access?"
Children are able to own guns legally in 30 states.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won … r-shotgun/
Virginia Tech and other authorities knew that Seung-Hui Cho was mentally ill with extremely violent fantasies, and yet he bought legally.
"Federal law prohibits felons from purchasing or receiving guns unless their rights have been formally restored. However, felons can get around this obstacle by buying guns from sellers who do not require criminal background checks." - Politifact
Since 20% of all firearm sales are private, then plenty of convicted felons can buy guns legally.
I think I will have to flip a coin to decide if I am a victim of an assumption, or of having the game changed on me in the middle of play.
I have been responding relative to the purchase of a gun, but it appears your point also includes ownership or possession of a gun.
Looking back to see if I had fallen for a "gotcha" I did find this;
"...I'm trying to steer it toward limiting access to assault rifles for children, convicted felons and mentally unstable people."
It was my error to assume you were talking about buying a gun, when it appears your view is directed at possession.
In switching gears to consider your "limit access" point, I find even more to disagree with. Owning or possessing a gun is much different from buying a gun. A 12-year old kid can't walk into Western Auto, (there's one that dates me), and buy a gun, but he can own or possess a gun his dad gives him, (or buys for him). Is making it illegal for someone under 18 to have a gun in their hands, under any circumstances, a direction you see as a solution?
Regarding felons, and excepting those whose rights have been restored, it is still illegal for a felon to own a gun, so even if they get one through a private sale - it is still an illegal firearm. Is your solution a proposal to force background checks on family members? If I want to sell my brother an old hunting rifle would I have to get a background check on him?
For mental illness, what thoughts did you have to supplement the existing threshold that requires medical documentation? Considering that at least an appearance of some type of due process should be involved in denying a right.
GA, as I'm sure you know, gun control is a complex issue. As well, there have been hundreds of posts in response to this original post and others. It is impossible to cover many nuance in a single thread or reply. But I will try harder to limit the scope of my replies.
That being said, I agree I should not have responded with a statistic about ownership to a comment about purchase. Either way, both ownership and purchase are issues.
So let's try to see if we can get some facts straight.
1. A felon can buy a gun via a private sale from non-licensed dealers at a gun show or elsewhere because non-licensed dealers don't have to do a background check. So yes, it is illegal for the felon to buy a gun, but nothing in the law requires the dealer to do a background check and stop the purchase.
2. "Unlicensed persons may sell, deliver, or otherwise transfer a long gun (including high capacity weapons) or long gun ammunition to a person of any age." 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1), (c)(1) Again, children have legal access.
3. "Federal law provides exceptions for the temporary transfer and possession of handguns and handgun ammunition (to children) for specified activities, including employment, ranching, farming, target practice and hunting." 18 U.S.C. § 922(x)(3)
The same background check problem applies to the mentally ill. Federal law does not require checks for mentally ill people who have been flagged for past or potentially violent behavior. That responsibility falls on the states, many of which don't act.
Do I have an answer for every conceivable situation? Certainly not. That's why we have hundreds of thousands of laws in this country. But why not at least close the private sale loophole?
The loopholes are in FACT the lack of prosecution of criminals and specifically of felons ! Why in the world would you think that a law will change a culture of illegal activity ? How totally naïve to assume that a written law on paper will affect those who always ignore laws?
I think there is credibility in that idea. Who can trust this Congress to do anything correctly when their votes are suspicious at best? There has been very few laws repealed when a right has been taken away. Prohibition was repealed because no one wanted to abide by it and the cost was too much to enforce. With three hundred million guns out there how will we enforce a ban on even a fraction of them when the bad guys already have them?
"...if you give an inch, those that ask for moderate amounts of control will be asking for a mile later. "
Would it be safe to say that is the same as the often mentioned slippery slope argument?
In your long life of experience, have you not seen this occur? In trying to come up with suitable examples the EPA came to mind. Would not acceptance of the original powers of the EPA vs. the powers of today's EPA be a "slippery slope" example? How about our court's decisions regarding government's powers of Eminent Domain? What first was intended as a power to advance the public good in the realm of public buildings and public projects has now grown to encompass the good of a larger tax base, or a nicer appearance. Would that be an example of a "slippery slope" decision?
ps. isn't your toddler example the reverse of what you were saying? My impression is that most anti-gun control advocates are not asking for a rollback of the core regulations that have been enacted.
I hear you and understand your point about 'slippery slope'. But we need to be cogent and balance that circumstance with the alternative of letting problems fester, being terrified to the point of not instituting changes where they are needed.
In your example of the EPA, their powers have been expanded because they needed to be given the scope of environmental degradation in our society. That is sloping in the correct direction.
But I can find sympathy about the concept of "eminant domain' getting out of hand as a way large and powerful interests can take private property without any real justification.
Have you spoke with Wilderness? He will tell you that registrations and background checks are contrary to his understanding of the Second Amendment.
Registrations and background checks - They may be contrary to an absolute and strict interpretation of the amendment. They are also a valuable tool in controlling the actions of those that would use that tool for illegal purposes. As such I support them as much as I support driver's licenses and refusing to give one to someone with a known propensity for driving drunk.
But they, too, are a slippery slope. Consider the recent calls for anyone on a secret government list, made up by secret people that cannot be challenged and forbidding specific individuals from exercising their rights. That's far down that slippery slope, IMHO.
And of course there is always the question of "need". The liberal finds a "need" to eliminate all guns possible from the citizenry, but that's a "need" that will, and does, only satisfy their need for control of others. In reality and practice it accomplishes nothing else but changing the label for a homicide from "gun death" to something else and does nothing whatsoever to stop the carnage. Of course it may also (temporarily) quell the fears of gun haters and buy some votes, but does that really qualify as a "need"?
I think your point about the EPA is a debatable one, but I do understand, given your Eminent Domain comment, that relative to "give an inch... take a mile" you want your cake and eat it too.
I guess what one can considered 'over the top' can also depend on one's ideological bent.
I am not sure I understand your comment. My point had nothing to do with any "over the top" positions. It was only in support of the belief of many gun advocates that more bans or gun ownership restrictions would only amount to stepping stones to more drastic restrictions.
There have been a ton of gun control threads, and I don't mean to start another rehash here, but... in my opinion, advocates for further gun ownership restrictions will not be satisfied short of a total ban. So yes, I am in the "give them an inch and they will take a mile" camp. I think our government's history shows I am right.
While I would not dare propose banning these weapons. But, I disagree with the idea that common sense precautions as spoken of by 'Promisem' would lead to a total gun ban.
What are the "common sense precautions" you and he speak of? His three-part question about children, felons, and the mentally ill has already been answered by laws on the books - with the exception of the gun show loop holes that most of us "conservatives" support closing.
How about registration and background checks, if you used those you could weed out minors and felons. As to the mentally ill, who has the authority to certify them as such and impose such a restriction upon them?
But remember, GA, you are purple, would your "red' associates be as reasonable?
Why should guns be registered? It obviously won't stop any killing, so why do it? The obvious answer is so that Big Daddy knows where to go to confiscate them, but that's about all.
You are playing with me aren't you? Background checks are already required* and they do weed out the minors and felons. What would registration accomplish? I know I recall seeing you speak against "Minority Report" type restrictions, so now documented mental illness restrictions aren't enough? How in the world do you think we can defend against the sane today, nuts tomorrow individual?
*I agree that the gun show loop hole needs to be closed, and I think as many sources cite a 90% voter approval of such a measure, apparently many "red" conservatives support that also.
My memory may be as bad, but I thought that conservatives were against background checks? Do they not identify the purchaser as registration would. OK, no registration, but I want background checks and is there anyone among you that would say other than aye?
Let me clarify, I question whether a background check can reveal certified mental illness, like it could identify records of felony or reveal one as not a member of the majority.
Background checks are fine...within limitations. Proposals are to forbid guns to anyone with a felony background - will you also want to ban them from a forger? A counterfeiter? Someone with a DUI?
There are a great many felonies not related to any form of intentional violence - what could be the reason to deny those people a gun? This is the kind of thing just glossed over by the liberal gun hater that just wants guns out of the country...or maybe it is quite intentional?
As I noted, I have come across several sources that cite a 90% rate of approval for background checks among all voters. Which would seem to probably include a majority of conservative voters.
Background checks do not identify guns purchased, only that someone is asking for approval to purchase a gun. It does not include information as to whether a gun was actually purchased.
As for background checks identifying certified mental illness... here is what I found; "The mental health records are being entered into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), the primary database used by the FBI in its firearm background checks"
Children can legally own guns in 30 states. Background checks are not required in private sales. Mentally ill people can and do buy guns because of weak laws on reporting potentially violent behavior.
Hmmm - your question to start this discussion makes no mention of any of those issues. I think convicted felons are already off the gun-buying list. The columbine shooters had 10 round magazines and shotguns. Most other shootings are done with handguns. Why the hangup on assault weapons? Anyone wanting to inflict mass casualties could just as easily take several pistols and get the same results.
You are well aware of why I am focused on assault rifles because you have seen my other posts and responded to them.
Felons are not off the gun buying list. If their record is expunged, they can buy.
No background check is required for private purchases, which make up 20% of all firearm sales. So once again, convicted felons can legally buy guns.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/politics/ … explainer/
Your final sentence flies in the face of reality. Do you seriously think someone with handguns can kill 49 people and wound 52 others in a matter of minutes?
I seem to have more facts about guns and gun ownership than the people who are battling me on these boards.
I'll just leave this here. Your argument is invalid.
Yes the naivety runs deep in these forums. Facts always seem to ruin the political narrative of liberals. Here's some more facts.
Gun extremism runs deep in these forums. Extremists refuse to answer a simple question:
Should children, violent felons and mentally ill people have easy access to high-capacity weapons like assault rifles?
Do you have the courage to answer this question when other do not?
While we're at it, how about answering the original point?
My argument is invalid? Really? Someone with a shotgun can kill 49 people and wound 52 others in a few minutes time?
No, but the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. You could wait for the police to come, (as did the people in Orlando) or you can be smart and come to the realization that this country's moronic leadership is allowing tens of thousands of people who hold to an insane religious ideology which requires them to hurt and kill infidels to come into this country unchecked, and figure out a way to protect yourself and your family.
So we can choose to arm ourselves against these criminals, or we can come up with ineffective laws that disarm law abiding citizens. One thing you can be sure of is that the bad guys will get whatever guns they want because they don't care about breaking laws. (which is why they always choose to go on their rampages in gun free zones).
That's a classic NRA statement. If it's so easy to stop these people with a gun, why can't we do it in the most heavily armed nation on the planet?
If you are concerned about stopping criminals, why does the NRA oppose background checks for unlicensed dealers at gun shows?
A convicted murderer can leave prison after 10 years, go to a gun show, buy an assault rifle from an unlicensed dealer and kill anyone who made him mad.
Is that right ot wrong?
A little off topic, but why harp on "assault rifles"? They are used in only a tiny percentage of murders - there are more murders committed with hands and feet than with "assault rifles" - so why all the commotion about them?
Because of a scary name? Because of a scary paint job? Because they look military (even though they're not) and are thus scary? It is one of the least used murder weapons, so why concentrate so much vitriol over them?
Do you think there would be fewer murders if people didn't have hands and feet?
I appreciate the first paragraph, but I have to say that the second paragraph is rather condescending.
I oppose easy access to assault rifles and other high-capacity weapons because of their ability to kill large numbers of people in a matter of minutes.
I am not opposed to gun ownership. I am opposed to laws that allow easy access to mass murder weapons.
It was intended to be rather condescending; the term "assault rifle", along with the current political meanings, is but a scare tactic to ban a small subset of long guns that do very little damage to society. It is all about fear, not fact, and is ridiculous in the extreme.
Do you know that an "assault weapon" need not have a large magazine (or a removable magazine at all)? That it need not be a semi-automatic (or automatic) weapon? That such things as the presence of a hand grip, barrel shroud or folding stock are what makes the determination?
These things have exactly nothing to with it's capabilities, just appearance. But they do make the weapon look scary and that is the only thing those wishing to ban them have to use. So they do; they invent a false and misleading name, spread fear, and do their best to limit the 2nd amendment thereby.
Is there a person out there that thinks if we ban them we will save a single life? That actually believes, after reasoning it through, that an "assault weapon" killed more in Orlando than a pair of semi-automatic .45 handguns with a few extra magazines (which the shooter carried) would have? Should "assault rifles" be banned we will possibly (possibly) cut down on the number of deaths committed with that scary looking "assault rifle"...while raising the death toll from other weapons far more deadly and easy to use. Matches, perhaps: mass murder via arson has gone up considerably (as has the number killed in mass murders as well as the number of mass murders) after Australia took their people's guns away.
Wilderness, I have to correct that statement, it's grossly misleading.
When people die following a bushfire caused by someone lighting a fire, the person responsible is charged with murder. That does NOT mean the person is a mass murdered who would've used a gun if it was available - they are "fire bugs" who have a psychological fixation with fire. They have no desire to kill people in any other way.
So you can't say deaths from fire have increased BECAUSE guns have been taken away. Those statistics have risen because Australia has had some very hot years and therefore bushfires have caused far more deaths than usual. Please do not cheapen and insult those who died by using their deaths to create distorted statistics.
If you have other stats on other kinds of murders then I'm happy to discuss them but that is the lowest of the low.
You may be right, but how can we tell? I didn't say it was BECAUSE guns were taken, only that one followed the other in time - there is no knowledge that one was causal for the other.
But you're trying to put it all on brush fires and that was not the impression I got from reading the reports. Most of it was from building fires; I don't recall seeing any reports of mass murder via brush fire. They could have been there, but I doubt that authorities would have collected such data into the "murder" file. I also question that Australia has had a bad drought for the last two decades.
This is much like the total murder rate in Australia; proponents of taking guns tout it as a success, and indeed the murder rate fell after the buy-back. What they don't mention is that the rate of decrease remained unchanged; that rate had been falling for years and continued to do so with no change. Yet it is claimed as a victory; that taking guns was causal in maintaining the same rate of decline.
Nonsense; what the data shows is that killers kill, with or without the guns. And I see no reason to think that the increase in mass murder via arson (building fires) was not a result of taking those guns. Killers kill, and guns are not necessary for them to do so. The general murder rate in Australia, before and after the program, shows that to be all too true.
I am an Australian and have lived through the last two decades in the country. I did not say "brush fires" I said "bush fires" which I think you call wild fires. Wild fires in Australia have been getting worse - we've had to introduce a new category of "catastrophic" which we never had to deal with before.
I am not going to argue with you about gun control. I am merely pointing out that people who start bush fires/wild fires do it for the rush of seeing the fire, not because they don't have any other way to murder people. To suggest otherwise when you have no understanding or knowledge of Australia, just to win an argument, is crass.
From my perspective, the issue of gun control is not about the rate of murders anyway. People will always murder people, usually people they know, and if a gun is not available then they'll use something else.
It's the rate of MASS murder that's the astonishing thing about the US. Leaving aside Islamic terrorist attacks, which are worldwide, the difference in statistics on mass murder between the US and every other civilised nation is staggering - because other countries don't allow assault weapons.
Brush/bush - I understand you. I live in high desert country with both forest fires and bush fires where trees don't grow. And yes, I understand that some people get their jollies starting fires and that people die in them. We have the same problem here.
The difference in murder, whether mass or not, between the US and the rest of the civilized world is astounding. Just astounding, though, is that we pretend that taking a cosmetic gun, made up to look military but a far cry from that, will change the murder rates. Not a single country in the world has been able to make that claim, not a single place can show that taking guns has improved the death toll. There is no correlation at all between the number of guns and the number of murders, yet we waste our time and resources fighting to limit gun ownership. It's astounding, and a tribute to the ignorance and fear of a population.
I repeat, I have no interest in debating the correlation between the number of guns and the number of murders.
I am interested in the correlation between the number of MASS murders and the number of guns. You're very carefully avoiding that argument. In the civilised world, we do not allow our citizens to hold assault weapons and mass murders rarely happen, other than Islamic terrorist attacks. That correlation is absolutely and incontrovertibly clear.
One huge mistake that the left makes constantly is in comparing other countries to ours , statistics in these countries and crimes of the same ! As if the comparing between all countries , their medias and government statistics ARE ACTUALLY FAIRLY comparable . ......... Not!
They are, of course, not very comparable, just as you say. But I don't see the enormous difference in numbers as being simply due to different rules for what is murder as making up a significant portion in the difference between the US and other countries. We have a propensity for killing each other that other civilized nations do not.
I'm sorry, Marissa, but it is not clear at all. Mass murders are a problem in dealing with statistics for two reasons: one is that there are few mass murders anywhere but the US and the other is that the term is defined differently everywhere in the world. Add in what is possibly the most important - that no one talks of mass murders, but of mass shootings and comparisons become almost impossible.
Do you have any hard data - firm statistics - that the rate (per 100,000 population for instance) of mass murders correlates with the number of guns in a society? Does Sweden, with a high gun ownership rate and low murder rate, have a higher mass murder (again, mass murder, not mass shooting) rate than France for instance? Or are you basing a statement of mathematical correlation on a single data point, the US?
I did the work to look at murder rates (and found no correlation at all with the number of guns in the country), but did not look at mass murders. If you have compiled that data, or know where it can be found for each country, I would be very interested. Even more interesting would be mass murder rates before and after confiscation of the "assault weapons" you mention, but in a single country. Australia saw the rate grow (for whatever reason) after taking guns; what has been the experience in other countries?
I'm disappointed that someone with your reasoning abilities feels the need to mock people for their beliefs.
It seems to be a pattern with the gun gang on HubPages. They all resort to mocking people who think differently than them. They also evade simple questions.
I asked you guys repeatedly if we should limit access to assault rifles for criminals and mentally ill people. NONE of you answered the question.
I asked you guys if someone with a shotgun can kill 49 people and would 52 others. None of you answered the question.
Instead of mocking me, why don't you respond to the original post? Can you kill 49 and would 52 in a matter of minutes with a shotgun?
But I did answer you. http://hubpages.com/politics/forum/1367 … ost2823361
Yes. In a crowded room one could kill more people with a shotgun than an ordinary rifle (your "assault gun"). Or with a handgun, for that matter. And in a shorter time period. Now if you want to talk about fully automatic weapons (true assault rifles) it might be another story.
One can also kill far more people with a bomb. Or matches. Or an airplane. So would you rather have a rifle throwing one bullet per trigger pull or a T/L of diesel and fertilizer? Because if you take away a killers preferred tool he WILL find another tool to use - to think otherwise is madness.
I am well aware of that post. Saying the question is wrong is not an answer. It's an evasion.
Go back and read it again, then. When you find a reasonable method of denying guns to mentally unstable people, then I'll agree to do so. When you quit denying guns to a forger, then I'll agree with your felons not having them (to a point - should it be the rest of their lives?). When you define what a "child" is, maybe I'll agree with your suggestion that children should not have a gun.
It's all in that post if you care to read it. You asked an open ended question, allowing you to later change the meanings from what a reader understands them to be. You refuse to consider the requirements of them, expecting others to make them up, whereupon you can again change them later. So, bad questions. You want to discuss the mentally ill problem, let's do so with something more than a pie-in-the-sky suggestion that we shouldn't let them have guns and anyone that thinks different is crazy.
"You ask the wrong questions." That's in the first paragraph of your reply.
No moral, caring human being is possibly in the wrong for asking why cirminals and the mentally ill can legally buy assault rifles or any other gun.
You obviously are trying to redirect the discussion, which seems to be the standard tactic by the gun folks on HP.
Since you refuse to answer, I can only assume you are just fine with criminals and the mentally ill buying guns legally.
But you didn't ask why they can buy guns. You asked if I thought they should be able to - a much different thing. And the reply given was that until we find a method to prevent mentally unstable people from buying then they should be able to (which also answers the "why").. I also pointed out that while violent felons cannot (your suggestion), neither can nonviolent felons - clearly a violation of the constitution but one you want to ignore. You went on to ask if I thought children should have access to guns, but have steadfastly refused to define what a "child" is, making the question a very bad one. "Child", after all, refers to anyone between birth and 21 years of age and while I don't see a 2 year old having a gun I have no problem with someone 18 or 20 having one. Or even 13 or 14, if properly trained and supervised.
I've also asked if you wished to discuss the mentally ill problem, but you refuse to do so, simply sticking to the original, emotional, question without any discussion of how to accomplish it. Pie in the sky, I said, and stand behind that until you can propose some reasonable method of accomplishing the act.
The onus is and has been on you - either define your terms and propose solutions to accomplish your goals or drop them. Don't put it on ME to find the "how" to your impossible questions.
But you didn't ask why mentally people can buy guns - you asked if I thought they should be able to. A very different thing, but one I answered by indicating that I don't know of any way to stop them. You asked if I thought violent felons should be able to purchase, with the response that they can't, along with nonviolent felongs - a clear violation of their rights. You asked if I though that children should be able to have a gun, with the reply that I would need a definition of "child" before answering as the range goes from birth to 21 years of age and I think some should and some should not, coupled with specific provisions for some children but not for others. A 14 year old can hunt, for instance, after thorough training and with supervision, but a 20 year old needs neither and a 2 year old should never touch a weapon.
So the onus is on you, not me. I've answered 3 times now, requesting further discussion or definition, but you have to provide anything but the original, flawed, questions and insinuations. I'd love to discuss how to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, but you won't answer.
Because you just want to take guns? Because you don't have an answer either? Why won't you discuss these things?
When you say 'extremist' you mean 'anyone who disagrees with me' - so you set yourself up as a fool. And there you are.
I have defined the gun extremist above and on other posts as someone who thinks children, violent felons and mentally ill people should have easy access to assault rifles.
Do you think they should? If you do, you are an extremist and a bigger fool than me. You also are a danger to society. If you do not, then you are not an extremist.
I have concluded that liberals simply don't understand how to prevent anything from happening , Laws ? Lets talk about the Clinton Bans, worked super good huh ? Not! , Maybe we should talk illegal immigration , Those laws work really well right ? How about manslaughter , that law works extremely well too right , No ?, Maybe laws banning drinking while driving ? .......That's what I thought . I know , liberals are always saying they are more intellectual right ? What about the epidemic of campus rapes at Harvard and all the other ivory towers ? How's that rape law working ? .
How is it that liberals are forever willing to sacrifice the other guys liberties ? That's what I'd like to know ? But then hey , no liberal will answer this when they can skip right over the question like most other realities !
Liberals instinctively want a society protected in bubblewrap* , a new legislation is the answer to all our cultural ills ! 'Assault weapons ' terminology has now morphed to "weapons of war " THAT is the manifest destiny of the left . So no ......I , for one , won't give another inch .
You guys seem lost as to the equality of Constitutional liberties ! And that misunderstanding is equality and your niavete first , The government [federal ] cannot keep lists , we as law abiding gun owners , buyers , taders are allowed the same liberties as you . Can they keep lists of liberal professors ? Of Socialist union activists ? Of Marxist political organizers ? .......No.? So why in the hell should a grouse hunter from Nebraska have to be placed on a federal list of gun owner , buyer , or trader lists ?
If I were a liberal in America , I would bone up on my education , Bone up on constitutional law . The second amendment , the second oldest amendment in America , not only was it designed to protect the patriots of soldierhood , they protected you ! Was it designed for Islam ? . Was it designed for Marxists ? Was it designed for BLM ? Who the hell thinks tha you can change the very livelyhood or meaning , of our constitution .........?
Exactly ! But then why would liberals ever read fact when a good nursery rhyme will do every time .
Crime has dropped in almost all violent crime categories for thirty years or more , except liberally run inner cities like Chicago Detroit , L.A. , all the major liber enclaves ...........Get rid of liberal courts , liberal legislators , liberal mayors , liberal lawyers . restore punishment , prosecution ......no more plea-ing it all down to liberal sh*t cases.
By the way , I am one of those NRA guys that had O interest in an AR 15 rifle until all of the unfair liberal hysteria and anti- constitution government intervention . I just ordered mine for my collection and plan to keep it just to see what all the hype is about . Thank you anti's !
Thank you for the 130 % increase a year since Obama took office , my friendly gun store owner is thanking you too!.
If any one would like to get real and stop hyperventilating about guns , perhaps pull yourselves together about the big bad wolf AR 15 ,or its little 10 -20 - 30 round magazines Call me , I'll take you out so you can try one out , you might like it ! I also promise you that no gun will ever rise from it's stationary position and bother you while we ride , you see it's an inanimate object , capable of injuring anyone or anything without the help of the human mind ............really !
I will not take you though if you're spazzing out !
Because they probably own an assault rifle and/or think it's a piece of beauty. It's obvious that an assault rifle is more dangerous, but they are in denial. They are afraid we ll take away their toys and they won't feel as powerful. Who will be there to protect them from their shadows of their childhood?
Why would we want to take away their power??? Well apparently because we don't want to see our kids dead in school one day to some crazy idiot who bought an 30-round rifle.
Yeah yeah, it's rare. I don't care if it's rare. Dieing in a car crash is rare too, but I always wear a seatbelt and drive carefully.
What most people fail to realize is that the odds of an accident are not the sole factor one must consider; we need to take into account the magnitude of the accident as well. To me, 1/100,000 chance to lose my daughter to a bullet is much worse than 1/100 to break my leg. See? 1/100,000 is smaller than 1/100 but it's still much worse. (i used random numbers, but my point still stands)
"Yeah yeah, it's rare. I don't care if it's rare. Dieing in a car crash is rare too, but I always wear a seatbelt and drive carefully. "
But you still drive. And you still allow nearly anyone else to drive, too, up to the point that they have proven beyond any doubt they are unable to do so. And if you (a careful driver) are in an accident and die from it, the fault likely lies with someone else's driving. So the difference lies...where? How does it make sense to allow children to drive a car but not own a gun, knowing that more will die from cars (along with other innocent people) than from guns?
But you want to talk odds - the odds of dying from a gun, if you are not a gang member, is tiny indeed with lots of zeros. And the odds of dying from an "assault gun" are so minuscule as to be nearly non-existent. Somebody posted the stats of that on the forum lately.
The difference is that driving a car is necessary. Owning an automatic rifle with 20+ rounds is not. It's a .. "hobby".
I can't eliminate the danger of a traffic accident. The risk of an assault rifle can be eliminated though.
What would happen if all automatic rifles are banned? (excluding voters' displeasure). Please name all the negative effects of banning heavy weapons.
Everything you just stated is a lie , You can eliminate the danger of an accident , eliminate cars or passengers , eliminate stupidity ! Where does it say in the constitution that you have a right to cars ? Or that dumb assed drivers should have one ? I'm shaking my head at the state of wonder about reasoning ,however there is none with anti- second amendment advocates!
Oh is that so.
How can you eliminate the risk of a drunk driver losing control of his vehicle and smashing his car into yours?
So I guess your not getting my point ! ........." A gun is a hobby a car a necessity "........what difference do it make . I have a constitutional right to own a gun or assault rifle for whatever my reasons , and that's not subject to your reasoning ! I say you don't need the right to free speech and this is where You say free speech never killed anyone , or I say that YOU shouldn't have the right to an attorney at my cost .........are any of my rights beginning to make sense to you ? Because the ignorance of anti-gun people is so astounding !
Just how is it that you believe that you can change MY constitutional rights because of YOUR wishes ?
Your constitutional rights are not being violated if you aren't allowed to carry a grenade or an automatic rifle. You can pretty well defend yourself even with a handgun, unless of course you live in Iraq.
Bringing up the second amendment is just an excuse to maintain the status quo.
Maria, when you step into this hornet's nest, prepare to be mocked, browbeaten and called a liar by the gun extremists.
Take some comfort in knowing that you have the moral high ground and that you are not alone.
Thank you for stepping up and taking part.
I don't mind being attacked for speaking up.
I guess that makes 2 of us
Hello Maria, I hope you don't mind me jumping in, but...
I don't think anyone gets attacked here just for speaking up. I think it is the content of someone's "speaking-up" that may draw criticism. The moral high-ground can be a lofty place, but it can also be a dangerous place if that high ground has no foundation or validation beyond the holder's say-so.
We are all certainly entitled to our opinions, but if we toss those opinions into a public discussion, and they cannot be validated beyond emotional support, or even worse, they can be easily proven wrong, then the resulting criticism is not out of line. And it is an attack of the opinion, not the person.
ps. All groups of people have their share of knotheads, these forums are no different. So of course you will find exceptions to what I described above. ;-)
GA, you normally show more restraint than others. But with due respect, I don't agree.
Certain people quote laws, provide statistics, reference credible sources of information and still get attacked including being called a liar and other names. Those aren't attacks on opinions.
For example, someone says there are laws in place to stop children, violent criminals and mentally ill people from obtaining guns. Someone else provides links to credible sources proving otherwise.
Is that second person lacking validation?
And I hardly call opposing assault rifles in the hands of the above three groups lacking in moral high ground.
I certainly agree with the first part, (that's why I included the "knotheads" caveat in my previous post), but your example is a good illustration of my point.
Hopefully you read my response admitting I misunderstood your point. I was talking laws and reality relative to the purchase of a gun, only to discover that you were talking about possession. Since the thread is about some aspect of gun control, (magazine size), with the expanded perspective of who should have guns, (your children, felons, and mentally ill question), hopefully my blunder is understandable.
I see that you were challenged to put a little meat on the bones of your primary question, (the one supporting your moral high ground), but I haven't seen your response.
With that foundation, this discussion can't go much further until more information is provided.
I argue that minors already cannot purchase guns legally. You counter that 30 states allow kids as young as 12 to own or possess guns. You see, apples and oranges. Are you against a rural father giving his very responsible 14-year old son, (who has been hunting with his dad for 5 years), a deer rifle? I would suspect not. So what age are the children in your question?
Felons were easier. Federal law not only prohibits their firearm purchases, but also their possession. So if a felon has a gun, (even if he bought it through a loophole), it is still an illegal gun. You want to close the gun show loophole, as do 89% of Americans polled, (that includes Conservatives), but how much further to do you want to take that to keep felons from legally purchasing a gun?
If documented mental illness is not enough for you, then what do you suggest is an acceptable threshold to deny someone a Right?
As you can see, I do not agree that your frustration in feeling that your irrefutable facts and sources are being dismissed is justified. I think that your high ground is built on a very shaky foundation. Sure you feel the way you do, but you have not proven that the way you feel is the right way - the Moral high ground.
I'll let my post to your other comment serve as a response to most of what you said here.
With regard to higher moral ground, any attempt to improve laws to control a thing designed to kill has the higher moral ground. The right to life exceeds all other rights.
Do you own a gun?
Take away the privilege (as opposed to guaranteed right) of driving. Which we do...after the person as exhibited a propensity for drunk driving. But constitutional rights - those we take away from everyone because someone else - a minute portion of the population - will use them as a tool for murder.
Make good sense?
No constitutional rights are being taken away. A handgun is more than enough to defend yourself.
And here is an example of my above point to you. If it is your opinion that a handgun is enough for self-defense, how do you support that? Is it just you that thinks so? Is there proof out there to back you up?
For instance; If I saw a couple guys running at me with handguns, and they were out of handgun range, I would certainly wish I had a long gun instead of waiting for them to get close enough to shoot me with a handgun.
OK, GA, then let me ask you, why ban fully automatic weapons? Why is not the NRA up in arms about that? Where is the fine line between military ordinance and firearms that are available to the public and what is the basis of that delineation and who makes it?
Hmm... because you are banning capabilities, not cosmetic appearances? Perhaps the NRA isn't too nuts to see the sense in banning fully automatic war weapons?
That fine line you mention is pretty wide and bold - full auto vs. semi-auto, as legislated by our elected representatives.
Ok, so the issue is that weapons with large clips are ok as long as you have to pull the trigger each time to fire a round. But someone has decided that 'tommy guns' crosses the line and no one needs this additional firepower for self defense? I believe that a weapon that has large clips are intimidating regardless of their appearance. Doesn't bother me, it just seems that these 2nd amendment people should be going for the 'full monte' and pursue autos as part of their rights. The NRA has not shown any sign of restraint, why not go for it all?
Beyond the couple of seconds required to change magazines, what is the real difference between a 20 round clip and two 10 round clips? Beyond the obvious that it is bulkier and makes the weapon slightly more difficult to handle, that is?
It seems that all mass murderers using semi-automatic weapons are carrying multiple clips regardless of their size. So what difference does size make anyway?
Or, just as you say, why not go whole hog and ban all forms of guns, from water pistols (might be loaded with acid) to "tommy" guns to mortars? If compromise isn't to be considered, as you say, just go all the way?
OK, fine. As long as the 'libs' don't bother the gun people about these semiautos, the NRA would not seek to move 'gun rights' to full autos?
Can't speak for the nation, but will point out that I've never seen anyone, anyone at all, campaigning to allow fully automatic weapons any more than they are now. On the other hand, I have seen more than a few liberals, and some liberal cities, trying hard for a complete confiscation of all guns.
Will liberals just be quiet and take what they have? Or will they continue to chip away until guns are gone as many have made clear is the ultimate goal?
What's the likelihood of a situation similar to the one in your second paragraph happening in real life? Sounds more like a movie to me. You are asserting it's a likely scenario though, so could you back it up?
In real life, you will either be attacked outside your house from a close distance or inside your house (close quarters again). Do you honestly believe that a 30 round rifle would be better than a handgun and a shotgun respectively?
No I will not bother backing up every single claim I make, just like you didn't back up your assertion that the scenario you described is probable.
You are right, my scenario is probably very unlikely, but it was only mentioned to illustrate a point. The point that "a handgun is all you need for self-defense" is just speculation and opinion. Not exactly good grounds to deny or restrict a Right.
And further, I am not even claiming that you said it was. I am only pointing out that in a conversation about gun control and the 2nd Amendment, an opinion like that is a likely target for opposing views.
You put out that opinion, and it was criticized. But you were not attacked or browbeaten, or accused of lying. Of course these things scale. So the more strident a contrary opinion is, the more strident the criticism.
Whether you feel the need to back-up any, or just certain, claims you make is entirely up to you. Many times I decide that I am comfortable with what I say, and if someone doesn't believe it... too bad.
Other times I will nit-pick an assertion to death, or smother a claim with truckloads of documented proof because BS is BS no matter what perspective it comes from.
ps. I did not claim "my scenario" was probable or likely. That was your perception. Seeing what you expected, even if it wasn't there.
Butting in to say it doesn't really matter to most gun advocates whether or not any scenario is "likely." They do not base their gun advocacy on statistics or probabilities, but on their belief that gun ownership is a right granted by the second amendment.
Hence, it doesn't matter to them, for example, that having a gun in the house with children statistically increases their chance of injury or death. They will swear they are protecting their family by having a gun in the house, when the reality is they are putting their family at greater risk. They believe they are responsible gun owners and the accidents won't happen to them, even though data shows otherwise It is not logical or rational; it is emotional.
They will say that our desire to regulate certain types of weapons is irrational, and their point is valid to the extent that very few studies exist to verify or debunk whether or not certain laws are effective for preventing gun deaths in general or mass shootings in particular. For every study that statistically supports a particular type of regulation, you can find another that doesn't. That said, if one terrorist can be stopped by a stricter regulation that still allows responsible gun owners to own their rapid fire killing machines, why oppose it? What is wrong with requesting responsible gun owners to jump through a few more hoops? Their inconvenience takes priority? If they can still get the gun they want, no one is denying them their beloved second amendment. It seems pretty whiny to me, but then, I'm just a pointy-headed liberal who owns a few guns and wouldn't bat an eye if I had to pass a written test, a skill test, an eye test, register my guns with the state every few years (like we do cars), and document when and who I sell them to (just like we do cars).
Your comments make a lot of sense if you just judge them on the basis of, "It's just common-sense." As you noted there are pro and con resources available to address both sides of the question, but, common-sense is not only becoming scarce, it is also subjective.
It just seems to makes sense that if you ban a weapon then it won't be used to kill. But that "common-sense" has been proven to be not as sure as it sounds. So now there are cries to ban a weapon because of how it looks. Otherwise, the cry would be for every semi-auto weapon to be banned.
I know I am taking your "hoops" example to the extreme, but it sounds like you are saying you would be willing to add more restrictions to everyone in our nation in order to force even one terrorist to go to the black market to get their weapons.
I don't think that has been proven to work. Beyond the base group of our original gun laws, I would say that every further law, regulation, or restriction has been the result of some public outcry over a tragedy. This included a ten year ban on "assault rifles." Yet here we are again crying for more. Offering more hoops from the same lot that has failed us so far, (in the view of some), doesn't sound like a workable plan.
Yeah, I know, we can't prove in advance that anything will help save even a few lives so let's just keep on keepin' on with the way things are. After all, the status quo is at least predictable.
As we already have 100's of gun control laws that are not, as you point out, saving any lives perhaps we really should look at something else that might stand a chance of reducing our rate of violence.
Ban violent video games
Ban violent movies
Ban violent sports
Pour a few billion into the PR of non-violence
Starting with elementary school, teach non-violence rather than just kicking them out of school.
Require morality and ethics classes through school years
Promote (advertise) Buddhist concepts
Reduce competition in school sports, instead promoting cooperation
There are lots of things that might help (I'm no psychologist so don't ask for a definitive list) but instead we keep pounding the one thing we already know doesn't work. It hasn't worked here, it hasn't worked anywhere in the world - isn't it time to try something different? As in perhaps addressing the penchant for violence that permeates our culture?
I didn't say current gun laws are not saving any lives.
Sorry, I took "After all, the status quo is at least predictable." to mean that you understand gun laws do not save lives. That in terms of saving lives, more gun laws is just status quo.
But if you don't, you might want to research the question a bit, with emphasis on decreasing homicide rates vs reducing gun homicide rates. You will find the results eye opening - there is absolutely no correlation between the number of guns in a country and their homicide rate. More guns does not equal more homicides...which says that killers will kill with or without guns.
So why don't we switch tactics a bit and try to find why we are a nation of killers and then actually do something about it instead of repeating failed programs over and over?
I was being sarcastic. The status quo is about one mass shooting per day in the U.S.
Let's just go with that, since we can't prove that anything will help.
That's exactly what we'll do, too. Because we won't consider things that might help - just those things that experience has already shown us won't help. What's that saying about doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results?
That's not true. Some things have never been tried, yet the 2nd Amendment crowd opposes pretty much any new gun regulations.
Now you'll probably ask me to list things that have been proposed that have not been tried. I'm sick of the gun debate.
So, hey, status quo. I'm in.
Yes, a whole lot of things haven't been tried. But limiting gun ownership, whether "assault guns", handguns, rifles or any other isn't one of them. It has been tried world wide, over and over, and has failed to produce any lowering of the homicide rate anywhere.
So we'll do it again, with the same results, and then say we'll have to do it yet again. Never will we try and find an actual cause for the mayhem, let alone a solution to reduce it. Just take guns away - that's all we can ever do. And you're right - sick and tired of the debate because that's all that is ever offered as a solution - limit gun ownership. And it doesn't work, it hasn't worked and it won't work in the future but we'll do it anyway.
Actually a user above did said "Everything you just stated is a lie"; I was called a liar.
As for your unlikely scenario, could you provide one (more plausible) to illustrate your point? Also, please do state how probable you would consider the latter.
"...user above did said "Everything you just stated is a lie"; I was called a liar. "
Every group is a mixed bag of personalities. I did not call you a liar. Hence, all opposing views aren't accusing you of lying.
I don't think any more, more likely, scenarios are needed. My point wasn't to prove a handgun won't cover all self-defense needs, it was only to point out that a subjective judgement of "need" has no place in discussions of restricting our 2nd Amendment Right.
Except there is nothing in the constitution about self defense; just the right to keep and bear arms.
And several cities already ban handguns. At least semi-reasonable (if you think killers will only kill with a gun) as handguns are used to commit far, far more murders than any long gun, "assault" or not.
Which makes one wonder just why you pick on "heavy weapons", "automatic weapons" (already banned) or "assault weapons" when all of those combined are used in a small fraction of the murders hand guns are. Can you explain the reasoning here?
So do I have the right to bear grenades or biological weapons? Or is there a reasonable limit to the right to bear arms?
Maybe handguns are used to commit far more murders as you suggest, but this is not because assault rifles are less dangerous, it's because handguns are easier to get and carry.
Also you need to separate the gang related murders involving guns, and then we can be sure you are right on your assumptions. After that I can explain my reasoning.
Unfortunately, (legally) owning an automatic weapon is very difficult and quite rare in the US. It is very much against the laws in every state.
But an "assault rifle", by current laws, is NOT an automatic weapon. Instead, the term "assault rifle" is being, very misleadingly, defined as any rifle with a folding stock, hand grip, barrel shroud or a few other items. All inconsequential, all quite silly, and all designed solely to confuse J Q Public into thinking they are military type guns. They aren't.
As far as a car being necessary, thousands upon thousands of US citizens do quite will without one. Not that "need" is ever mentioned in the amendment guaranteeing the right to own and bare arms.
I suggest this in comparison to second amendment gun laws , Why don't people have to get a permit to use the first amendment , the exercising of free speech has caused at least as much harm as the second amendment has . You know , if you have want to use the reckless and endangering free speech that , for instance , Black lives Matters does , you should have to go through an application for exercising free and dangerous , inflammatory speech !
A gun purchaser has to fill out an app for ATF or FBI background checks , wait in line for a return call or verification that he has no criminal record . Before he can use a firearm , why not the idiots who get people killed in Chicago , Detroit , DC. or Ferguson , .
Lesson number one for those who have no constitutional law expertise and continually sell out the constitutional protections of "others " by blasting forth with your free speech rights ------The FBI cannot compile lists of people who have broken no laws and has to be damned careful with even the conviction lists that they do maintain ! For instance , I have owned guns my entire life , I have no felonies , no civil violations , no mental health problems , no legal problems at all in fact ,
ALL THE ATF-FBI CAN DO IS CHECK FOR LAW VIOLATIONS , MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES OR OTHER DAMNING LEGAL RECORDS THAT I MIGHT HAVE AND THEN PUT A "HOLD" or A "DENIED "ON MY PURCHASE ! If I have no record -------they can then keep no record !
So to all of the drivel of anti- second amendment , anti- gun crowd , Tough Cookies !
Proof that Magazine size matters ?
If that matters then so would prosecuting perpetrators of existing gun law violations ,
So would incarcerating criminals for more than the holding time for attaining bail .
So would the two thousand existing gun laws that go ignored during violent crime arrests .
So would the dropped charges for a majority of domestic violence charges .
So would the unaccountability of illegal immigration .
So would the uncontrolled amount of plea bargaining .
So would the major curse of liberalism of this justice system .
But I understand , one more gun law will cure us all of violence ..........................?
by HuntersWhitt4 years ago
With all of the uproar over gun laws lately, I'm curious to see what HubPages thinks. So here's the question:A) What guns, if any, should be allowed?B) Do "gun laws" actually accomplish anything?
by My Esoteric14 months ago
Even though the system, as currently configured, worked in the case of the Orlando Terrorist, if one of the more popular gun regulations had not been stopped by the NRA & friends, how many people, now dead, would...
by Stacie L5 years ago
WASHINGTON -- As Wisconsin's concealed carry law goes into effect, the state's Catholic bishops are urging parishioners to keep their weapons out of church."The Catholic Church has a long tradition of sanctuary,...
by Scott Bateman14 months ago
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 … ouseholds/
by Don Bobbitt19 months ago
It has become so tiresome seeing all of the radicals on both sides of the Gun Control issue, eacn proposing some "master plan" to control the sale of guns in America. Why can't we do this in "baby...
by JaxsonRaine4 years ago
Feinstein doesn't know what the things she is trying to ban actually are. When you ask her, she can't answer. For example, she thinks a barrel shroud is a 'shoulder thing that goes up'. Clearly, her desire to ban those...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.