What Guns, If Any, Should People Be Allowed To Own?
- HuntersWhittposted 10 years ago
0With 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?A) Basically, and without considering every possible gun, anything up to a fully automatic weapon. Fully automatic guns available with special permits and conditions, just as they are now. Pretty much whatever is currently available, then.
I could also support a magazine limit of 5 or 6 rounds on anything larger or more powerful than a .22 caliber "plinking" gun. It won't do much good, but is a sop to the anti-gun crowd that I could live with.
B) Yes. Mostly they make a large number of jobs available for more government employees and cost gun purchasers more money. They make it easier to stick someone back in jail for parole violations. They hurt internet business by making internet sales of guns much more irritating and pushing possible buyers to local stores..
In addition, though, there might be a small benefit in making it just a little more difficult for the mentally ill and criminally inclined to get guns. Not impossible and not even particularly difficult, but if we can keep guns from those people for even a week it is possible that their "need" to kill may pass. Or maybe a rival gang member will shoot his opponent that is looking for a gun before he finds one.Did you know that you can now use a 3D printer to make your own 30-round magazine for an AR15 at home?
Banning them won't keep them out of the hands of people who want to use them to harm others.
Limiting magazines to 5 or 6 rounds will serve to cause good people to die who shouldn't. For instance, the mother who recently defender herself and two children from an invader... she shot the guy 5 times, with 6 bullets. He was still moving. What would she have done if she was attacked by two people?That's a common experience is it? I don't think so. Nor do I think the current technology of 3D printers is up to making a magazine even if a killer owns one - easier to buy that magazine on the black market.
Everything we do is a compromise. A compromise with money, a compromise with time, and compromise with freedoms or with differing opinions.
That's one I'm willing to make to placate the gun haters.No, it's a new technology.
The current technology is up to making it. That's my point. It's been done, and the plans are available for download on the internet. It will only become more common(FYI, 3D printing is going to be as important of a technological advancement as, well pretty much anything).
Much much easier to make one in secret, on your own, for $5 worth of materials. The point is, it is now impossible to keep magazines out of the hands of bad guys(always was, but now they can just make them at home).Jaxon, just curious--do you masturbate to Internet gun sites? :-)
How old are you Ralph? That's the only thing you can think to say when I show a flaw with your argument?
I didn't make any argument on this thread, flawed, or valid. I was referring to your apparent "getting off" on all kinds of arcane details about guns.
Excellent points, Wilderness.
Gun bans are as ridiculous as banning cars. If someone really wants to go crazy, they can drive their car into a crowd. One would do better to do the impossible and ban insanity.
But seriously, we need to stop "reacting" to knee-jerk stimuli. Legislation created in this fashion is ruining America. Like HR 347, where it is now a felony to protest what the government is doing. Or NDAA 2012, where the military could lock your butt up without charges, an attorney or a phone call -- and do it indefinitely. Or watch out for Obama's "Kill List." Maybe you won't end up on it, but just the fact that it exists, with American citizens listed on it, is a sad day for America. No more habeas corpus. No more posse comitatus.
Get rid of the 2nd Amendment and the tyrants will breathe a sigh of relief before nailing the coffin shut.
I just wish Ben Franklin was here to remind us that giving up liberty for the perception of "security" is lunacy and that we will end up deserving neither.
According to the 2A, any that the military has access to.
Fear over 'assault rifles' is ridiculous, as they are less damaging to a human than hunting rifles or shotguns. Shall not be infringed, however, means no infringement.If that's the case, then would you support private citizens being able to buy advanced military hardware (i.e. helicopters, jets, missiles, etc.)?
I think an argument can be made that you can't 'bear' any of those, so they would't constitute those kinds of arms they were talking about.
That being said, private citizens did own much of the advanced military hardware back then, and they didn't have a problem with it.True, but back then a musket and a horse were considered "advanced military hardware".
No, back then, advanced military hardware included things like
Canons
Ships full of canons
Rifles capable of firing up to 20 shots in 5 seconds with one trigger pull
'Semi-automatic' air rifles
Revolving canons
Doesn't matter, the principle is that what the military can have, the citizens can have. The reason? The founders had just won their freedom by fighting a government. They never wanted us to lose it.True, but what about the argument that the National Guard fulfills the "well regulated militia" provision of the 2nd Amendment? Should private citizens still be allowed unrestricted access?
There are two individual clauses in the 2A. It doesn't say "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms'. It says 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms'.
The founders knew the danger of a standing army. If you don't know the danger, look at Rome. The militia was, quite literally, the people. Regulated refers to 'regulars'. Being well-regulated meant well-trained. The founders wanted citizens to grow up with arms, to be trained with them, so they would make a well-regulated militia.Just as a side note for anyone who may be following along with this discussion, here is the actual text of the 2nd Amendment:
So then, does the ability for people to own any type of weapon they choose fulfill the "well regulated militia" requirement? If not, shouldn't training also be required along with the purchase of said weapons?Training is important, but it's by no means laid out as a requirement.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."
I don't know, that seems like a requirement to me.Our militia doesn't seem very well regulated to me.
The state National Guards are actually some of the hardest working members of the military.
That's not saying that it's a requirement for people to train. It's simply saying that it's necessary for a free state.
Think of it as a statement of fact, followed by a statement of declaration. We need regulated militias, so citizens can have guns.But does having guns automatically constitute a "regulated militia"?
No. You're trying to extrapolate the 2A into things that it doesn't even say. It says 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms'. Not 'the people must keep, bear, and train with arms'. Not 'if the people have arms they will automatically be well-regulated'.
All it says, in plain, modern English, is 'to protect freedom, citizens have the right to arms'.Actually, what it really says, in plain modern English is: To guard against the tyranny of the Federal Government, a well regulated private militia is required, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The founders were terrified of the Federal Government becoming a new de facto monarchy, that's why the whole premise of the constitution is checks and balances. It's why the Executive branch is the least powerful, and why they gave Congress control of the money.You're preaching to the choir. I was simplifying it, because you were getting a lot out of it that it doesn't say.
I honestly have no idea what point you're trying to make, you just keep asking weird questions.Lol sorry, I was an economics major, it's force of habit
My original point was, should there be a restriction on what guns people are allowed to own, and if so, what should those restrictions be?That's a fair question. My answer is basically the same as the law recently signed by NY governor Cuomo--shot guns and rifles of the kind used for hunting and target or skeet shooting. Magazines limited to 6? bullets. No armor piercing ammunition. No body armor.
No AR-14s or Bushmasters. Strict registration requirements. (from memory)
Here's a link to new NY law:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-2 … arms-.htmlWhy not three which is what duck hunters are allowed in their pump guns?
1 - "Shall not be infringed"
2 - Because 3 could very easily be insufficient for self-defense purposes.
3 - Because that negates the most important reason for the 2A.I think that everyone can agree that people have the right to a weapon to protect themselves against intruders....
However, what would happen if you were to ever use a gun to protect yourself from a government official?
There is a good chance you will be spending your life in prison.Say a federal official is attacking my family...
I will happily spend my life in prison to protect them. So what? There are a million what-if scenarios that have bad endings. There are a million what-if scenarios with good endings.It would depend on the circumstances, but I can't imagine a scenario where someone would ever have a legitimate need to "protect themselves" from a Government official.
Might as well just go back to single shot, bolt action. Or hell, go back to muzzle-loaders. Even just throwing rocks.
A) What guns, if any, should be allowed?
***Considering that what is allowed in the hands of JQ Public & surface military ops is behind in technology by about 20 yrs. (that's pretty much everything, not just guns), then considering that the majority of humans who utilize available high-tech weaponry are in the security business of both 'legal' & 'illegal' realms, make very good money, and are well-trained & well-conditioned. For the few morons who indulge themselves as such, We should be seeing Stupidity being sorted out, yes? Let whomever have whatever & deal with them as they arise stupidly.
B) Do "gun laws" actually accomplish anything?
***Hmmm...If 'laws' worked, why the need to build more prisons? If laws accomplished, We would not need such security...the fears would not be...See? So, yes...gun laws will accomplish just as any of them.
Your questions are fun...thanks.Although we cannot stop guns from being sold on the black market, there should be some type of ID system formed to make detection of stolen guns easier. Also, in order to won a gun you should have to go through a psychological evaluation.
As far as the ID system, maybe there needs to be something invented like a little sticker with a fingerprint tab on it, if the fingerprint doesn't match, the gun will not shoot....??? Just a though:)Perhaps it's my overly pragmatic nature coming through, but if I were the one in charge of the decision, I wouldn't bother with regulating firearms; anyone can have whatever they want.
However, I would ban 99% of the ammunition on the market, require the remaining varieties to be purchased from a Law Enforcement agency, ban all ammunition sales via the internet, and make the illegal purchase/possession/distribution a felony.
Yes, the 2nd amendment protects a persons right to bear arms, however it doesn't say anything about ammunition.I agree that anyone should be able to have whatever they want, if they register it and they're not crazy. People who are medically tested and deemed to be of a mental health status should not be able to carry firearms because having certain mental health issues proves that they are unable to make sound decisions. That is not fair to anyone else. Maybe they could own beanbag guns, that would not be fatal. But as far as a true firearm, we must regulate somehow.
I have to ask; why the requirement for registration? Of what value is that registration to society - why, in your opinion, should guns be registered?
Just curious.Well there would have to be some sort of paperwork stating that the person who owns the gun is mentally stable enough to do so. It doesn't necessarily have to be the same type of "registration" that we have nowadays but something that shows law enforcement that the gun is not in the hands of someone mentally incapable of using it properly.
Hmm. So govt. has no need to know who owns guns, just that those that do are mentally capable.
Should the gun owner then have to carry that certificate of mental health on them whenever the gun is? To show any cop that asks? If so, how often should it be renewed - monthly, yearly, bi-yearly? What happens when they fail the next scheduled test (or just forget about it and fail to show up)? Who should pay for the tests - society, that is protecting itself from the mentally ill or the gun owner that would never hurt a fly and is totally innocent of any wrongdoing?
Mind you I don't necessarily disagree - I think mental illness and guns is an area that desperately needs some work. I'm just not sure you've thought it through.Just like a car, it would be a good idea for firearm owners to register their firearms (guns manufactured after 1894 and ammo is easy to come by - doen't pertain to replica muzzleloaders) every year ($15-$20 each) and prove they are mentally stable of owning them. Oh yeah, and that's Constitutional.
Well of course a name should be attached to the gun so that the govt can follow it. Or, along with the serial number, as they are now, it will contain the owner's information and some type of code as to the owner's mental capacity. Although that wouldn't be necessarily needed because if they have a gun they should've been deemed NOT mentally handicapped. So, if a mentally handicapped person is found with a gun and the cops run the serial number, the person holding the gun must show some type of ID, maybe a persons drivers license should have a code attached to the gun ownership so there is no way to fraud the ownership.....I'm not a professional, I cannot explain all elements and legalities of this I just want people to have guns, and the rest of the country to actually be comfortable with it. If we make it much harder for certain people to have guns (like mentally ill or felons, etc) the citizens of this country could breathe a sigh of relief for a change. And like I said, if a gun could have some type of ID system attached to it so it won't shoot, there will be far less public/school/business shootings around the world.
Just my humble opinion. As I said, I'm no professional, just a citizen who wants guns and my safety too:)Why should the govt "follow the gun" - until a crime is committed with it it's none of their business who owns it.
Problem with mental illness; the person healthy today isn't tomorrow (disregarding temporary - I mean really ill). How could we ever handle that? A drivers license note might be a possibility, but testing I don't see a reasonable answer for. Shoot, I don't see a reasonable answer to mental illness at all, which is why I asked. A problem with no solution, and yet we have to come up with one.
There actually are ID systems wherein the gun won't fire if it's not being held by the owner, and most of the objections have been worked out of them. It wouldn't take much to implement that in all new guns, though old ones would remain a problem for a hundred years. I think that's encouraging, but wouldn't help much for decades to come.Well of course the guns that are already out there would be out of the loop because the criminals are not going to turn them in to get ID'd with this new "fingerprint system", but it may not be necessarily the govt that tracks the gun but some type of agency that is connected with the fingerprint (the Sheriff, police, etc). So once this fingerprint ID is in place, every single gun that is manufactured from that point on must have the ID system in place. The first person who buys the gun must register it with the govt or whatever agency assigned to do so, using their fingerprint. From then on, whenever a gun is sold it must be re-fingerprinted at the police station by the owner and so on and so forth. If the ID fingerprint doesn't match the fingerprint of the person touching the gun, it will not shoot. Now I understand there may be issues with people who let their friends and family use their guns at times but then those people and fingerprints would have to be registered with the gun as "users". If not, too bad, buy your own gun....
Like I said, I don't have technicalities, I'm just a young mom in Minnesota, I just want the country to feel safe.Something like that might work, but I think we can do better. I've seen proposals for an implanted chip in the owner (that I don't like) or a bracelet or ring the owners wears while shooting. Even a resettable fingerprint - have the tool that came with the gun and you can reset it yourself.
Any or all of these, however, will most accomplish making people feel safer (just as you say) while accomplishing little. Country wide, stolen guns aren't the problem - crime (gangs and such), and mental illness is. A gang member wants a gun, he doesn't have to find and steal one - just buy a smuggled gun on the black market. An ID system might (might!) have prevented the Newtown massacre and it would almost certainly help stop kids shooting each other by accident but on the whole it won't do much for the thousands of killings we have each year.Of course we cannot stop all evil unfortunately. Murder has been happening since the dawn of time, we just have a much larger population and better technology to carry it out. it's sad, of course, but true. I just hope somebody, someday comes up with something either to end the war on drugs/crime because both of those things are highly attached to each other. Maybe if we can figure out how to keep drugs off the street, many of these issues would naturally diminish but until then we're stuck with what we have I suppose:(
Or let the war on at least marijuana go. Historically, we had a huge spike in murders during prohibition and another began about the time the war on drugs did. We've relaxed both the laws and enforcement of those laws on marijuana just as the murder rate has fallen.
Are they connected? I don't know, but it seems to me that we ought to be looking real hard at legalizing marijuana at least. Crack down on a mind altering drug (alcohol) and the murder rate shoots up until we let the people have what they demand, whereupon it falls. Same thing with marijuana - as we let people have more of it the murder rate has fallen. It's worthy of examination.
"There actually are ID systems wherein the gun won't fire if it's not being held by the owner, and most of the objections have been worked out of them. It wouldn't take much to implement that in all new guns, though old ones would remain a problem for a hundred years"
That is interesting! How do you feel about that if it is actually possible to do?.
I think if the government can sell F-15 fighters to the Muslim brotherhood, I should at least get an AR-15 without any questions asked.
Anyone can buy a F-15 without ordinance. But we don't have a problem with people committing mass murder with F-15s, do we?
You think the Muslim brotherhood won't commit mass murders with F-15s? LOL!
"But we don't have a problem with people committing mass murder with F-15s, do we?"
Wow.
Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion of the Heller case, that we have the basic right to a handgun in the home.
You can't have a grenade, machine gun, sawed-off, tank, nuke...
As far as assault rifles? Pie-in-the-sky - it would be nice either A. if we could restrict them to use at a gun range; or B. if they only had 3-round magazines, they would just be ugly and ineffective.
Of course then we get to argue about what makes a gun an assault rifle? Could we even get rid of them if we wanted to?
They all get grandfathered in regardless of any ban... but at least it would begin to slow the proliferation.
A better solution is a campaign similar to Mothers Against Drunk Driving. And domestic violence. And smoking...You can have a machine gun or short-barreled rifle/shotgun.
I know about the DD $200 transfer fee. That's not the point.
I was gonna say "water," but this works too.
Don't leave out the trusty old 'spud' gun too...
bubble guns are apparently a no-no though
Don't kid yourself, those bubble guns are dangerous. Haven't you ever had a bubble pop, and the soap gets in your eyes? That HURTS!!
There are only three arguments one can make here:
1. Nobody in the entire world should own a weapon (or a type/size of weapon/clip).
2. A select group of people should be allowed to own a weapon, and others should not.
3. Everybody in the world should be allowed to own a weapon.
The first is consistent, but impractical, and most importantly a violation of property rights. Then one has to justify the necessary distinction one makes by asserting it. If you're not in favour of complete gun control, why are you making a distinction between assault weapons and other types of guns? Guns and knives? Or baseball bats? Why is it that only guns used in school shootings must be banned? Are the other deaths by guns not as bad?
Many cite that items that's sole purpose is to kill must be banned. But this is unenforceable. For example, assault weapons may have any number of uses depending on the individual, including hunting, target practice or hammering in nails. Then the prohibitionist might argue against banning an object that's primary purpose is to kill. Again, how does one define 'primary usage'? Is it by the percentage of how much it is used? Most assault rifle owners have used their weapons for other purposes, and may never have to kill anyone with it in their life. The only way to apply this consistently would be to argue for banning items that are most used to kill, effectively banning cooking, driving and baseball in the process.
Thus we know it is unenforceable, for the primary or 'sole' use of an object is decided by the individual.
The second is morally inconsistent, and the grounds for allowing a select group, for example, the government or the military, to own any weapon it likes are arbitrary. Many people like to argue for 'properly trained and background checked' individuals to own weapons ahead of untrained people. However, this is not in and of itself grounds for discrimination. For what is the difference between the trained and the untrained individual that justifies the violation of the property rights of the latter? If it really is true that the aim is to prevent the deaths of civilians, then the measure of 'properly trained and background checked' is completely arbitrary. As evidenced by the countless civilian deaths in the middle-east each and every day, there is little to suggest that 'properly trained and background checks' make the individual any less likely to kill a civilian. In fact, statistically, it is the elite band of 'trained and background checked' individuals, in the form of the military, who are most responsible for civilian death in the world.
Therefore, we have to conclude that the judge of the individual's responsibility with a weapon must surely lie, not from their experience or training, but within their moral compass, which the government has no domain in.
That leaves us with the third option. The individual must be allowed to own any item that the government can. Yes, this include nukes and tanks (but of course, only governments want to use nukes. They are too dangerous and basically useless for individual self-defense, too expensive for the average moron, and too damaging to public image for corporations). This does not grant the individual the right to kill others, only to hold the weapon.Very interesting....sooo maybe we should make the assualt rifles ridiculously expensive. Taxing seems to be the idea too limit the rights of smokers...I am pretty sure cigarettes are legal, but frowned upon because they are "unhealthy"...So, maybe, some believe assault weapons are "unhealthy," so let's tax them properly
None of the proposals that I've seen infringe rights under the 2nd Amendment nor do they interfere with the rights of any hunter or target shooter or the right to self protection. Bushmasters or Glocks with big magazines aren't necessary for hunting, target shooting or self protection.
Just how many bullets are needed for self-protection?
If 3 guys break into a single mom's house, does she need the same number of bullets as if 1 or 2 guys come in?If she knows how to use the gun properly, 3 for 3 perps, etc. I have never heard a story of an entire group of people breaking into or robbing someone, doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but I haven't ever heard...
It actually happens all the time. Whether a burglary, mugging, or other violent crime, people often commit them in groups. Heck, there was an instance last summer I believe where 4 men with body armor broke into a guy's house. He managed to kill one, and wound two, with something like 10 shots, which is really amazing shot placement in that situation.
Your statement 3 for 3 perps shows a lack of understanding of how guns work. It's not like the movies. Much of the time people don't even know they've been shot until later. The only way to stop someone with 1 bullet is to hit their heart, spine, or brain, and that doesn't even always bring them down instantly.If someone broke into my house I would shoot them in the head, and I am a good shot...I'm pretty sure it would slow them down. As far as these gangs of intruders, you should be able to take care of business with a 10 round clip shouldn't you? I mean everyone is saying how quickly they can change clips, see I really don't understand the animosity towards these common sense measures being made, most police officers back these measures, that should say something.
Headshots on a moving target are not that easy. Why do you think every single military and law-enforcement group teaches to aim center-of-mass?
10 rounds might be enough. It might not be. If I have to grab something real quick for defense, I might not have time to grab extra magazines, or even anywhere to put them.
Changing magazines when you are being attacked is far different from changing magazines when you are slaughtering unarmed people.
Most police? I don't know about that. Regardless, police don't have a legal responsibility to protect a citizen, and if they do show up they almost never can show up on time to make a difference, so their opinion isn't really that important when it comes to self-defense.Yes a moving target is not an easy shot, that's why you practice moving targets, many times intruders will run away when being fired upon as well...But I have also taken many safety measures in my home, not only being armed, and this part is being left out of the self defense equation....I am hearing of loads of gun sells but not a spike in home defense sells?
I don't have the link at the moment, But I have read many articles of the police forces petitioning for gun control measures...Police "public safety" have no responsibility to protect citizens? That's not true, and yes they most certainly have proven helpful in these as well as many such situations. Domestic violence is a huge problem, and without police interventions there would be many more deaths...No, they have no legal responsibility to you, unless they have established a relationship with you already. You can't sue the police for taking 15 minutes to show up.
Your safety is up to you, not the police. That's why I don't care what they say(but I know plenty of LEO are on the gun-rights side).http://www.theiacp.org/PoliceServices/P … fault.aspx
"Police officers take risks and suffer inconveniences to protect the lives, defend civil liberties, secure the safety of fellow citizens, and they endure such risks and tolerate such inconveniences on behalf of strangers. Consequently, police work is one of the more noble and selfless occupations in society. Making a difference in the quality of life is an opportunity that policing provides, and few other professions can offer"
I would venture to guess that being a police officer being such a dangerous job, that would be the reason they support the measures being proposed.There is no 'they' as a group. Some support gun control, some don't. 'They' is a large group of individuals with a wide range of viewpoints.
My having a gun isn't going to make their job more dangerous. My not having a gun could make my life much more dangerous. Unlike the DHS, I don't think confronting a gunman with scissors is a good idea.Yes "they" is vague, I should have said a large group, maybe even a majority of police officers, but I can not find my link and do not like to say things I can't prove with evidence, so I said they, as in "many officers".....
Criminals having access to larger capacity magazines and an abandonement of the universal background checks, would most assuredly make the lives of police officers more dangerous, and yours.
Common sense dictates strict background checks at the very least, and this in no way infringes on your rights or makes your life more dangerous...http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01 … sures?lite
Major Cities Chiefs Association - Pro AWB
Major County Sheriffs Association - Against AWB
International Association of Chiefs of Police - Pro AWB
Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association - Against AWB
Not that it really matters, as I've said. The police are not legally responsible if they fail to save me. They probably won't show up for 5-15 minutes. So, it's up to me, and what they say doesn't really matter. If they decide they want to give up their guns, they can do so.Odd, nobody said anything about giving up their weapons, that's BS and you know that because you are an intelligent human being. You are not one of the many buying into the nonsense the NRA is trying to sell, you made no comments to the fact that home defense sells haven't spiked, only guns...you say it does not matter what police officers believe, how about military officers, do you care what they think...I mean these would be the people to listen too, those whose jobs and lives depend on using weapons...
The Assault Weapon Ban would make it illegal for me to go buy an AR-15, that's taking guns away.
I didn't comment on 'home defense sells' because I don't know what that's supposed to be... it doesn't make any sense.
I don't care what anybody says. Nobody is going to be there to protect myself and my family, except for me. No military member will come crashing through the window to keep me from being shot by a criminal. But, if you want to talk about military, do you want to see the 1,000+ green berets who are against new gun-control laws?Sure, show me that link, I am interested in all perspectives...you do not understand what home defense means? Safe rooms, key pad locks, reinforced doors, hidden bunkers, security systems, etc...I mean if we are talking self defense in our homes, is this not relevant?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … n-control/
I understand what those are, I didn't understand what you meant when you said 'home defense sells', because it's not a correct phrase.
Of course it is relevant, but why would you expect a demand spike in general home security products? The demand for guns has gone up on fear that they won't be available much longer, there is no such fear for locks, doors, security systems, etc...
Ralph, I haven't seen anything unconstitutional or unordinary about the proposed securities.
Both pro and anti gun memes.
http://now.msn.com/pro-gun-memesMiltary and law enforcement firearms and accesories need to be only in military and law enforsement hands. If Billy Bob wants to shoot a machine gun, enlist. You don't need a military assault weapon to defend your trailer, I mean home.
If the manufacturers of those weapons are perfectly willing to sell them to individuals not in the military, what grounds is there for preventing individuals from buying them? What grounds is there to force individuals into military service in order to defend themselves?
You haven't presented any evidence to suggest that one doesn't need a military assault weapon to defend one's home. But, one has to ask, is it any of your business? Only the individual has the ability to ascertain one's own 'need'. Is it the government's business to prohibit items on the basis that nobody 'needs' them?But nobody needs junk food either, and we are one fat and diabetic country...OOOHHH, but I forgot, those big corporations own the McDonald's, etc, just like they own the weaponry....
what's next - I have to call the local electric company to see if I can make coffee?
the government eliminated physical activity in school so the teachers do not have heart attacks.
the parents created the fat and diabetic country.
now, I must adapt to the governments requirements again so they can claim that they saved me from myself.
I can see the loss of great individual freedoms here.
but that is just what tyrants want - more control and less individual freedomDid the parents create fast food? oh and I love my coffee but it's bad for me too...I also use to be a frowned upon smoker...Actually Michelle Obama created an entire agenda for healthier children and our schools still insist upon a PA class...is that wrong? Should our children be less indoctrinated, should we stop forcing them to go to school and learn and exercise, is this an infringment on their rights...oh, I forgot, they have no rights until they are of voting age...that must be why the lives of the 20 children is not as important as your rights to assault rifles, now I understand.
Freedoms are eroded over time. If I knew that I could give up guns similar to the AR-15 in order to protect gun rights in perpetuity, I would do so. The problem is that Washington doesn't see it that way. If you give an inch, they want to take a mile. That's why I support no additional gun banning. Enforce current laws, and leave our gun rights in place. Fix our judicial system, help mentally ill people, put security in schools, realize that much of our problem originates with parenting or a lack there of, and leave our gun rights in place.
Why are you so afraid of gun laws? Why are you so concerned about losing your gun rights? I get that many people here are big pro-gun advocates, but what is scaring you so much? Is it the government take over thing?
Ever heard of a corrupt police department? Corrupt government? Do think that humans in power tend to crave more power? Is there at least any historical precedent of that, even if only once or twice in the course of human history?
But police are trained professionals, they can be trusted!
Hans Walters Murder-Suicide: Las Vegas Police Officer Allegedly Shot Family, Burned Home, Killed Self
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/2 … d%3D260881Stop with the making sense, Shades. You know how that just annoys me.
And how will your guns protect you? If the government took over they would only need to shut down our infrastructure, banks, etc...So, how will our weapons fix this...or is it more likely that we would all panic and shoot one another for the last loaf of bread? I mean just look how well we all get along...Are we suddenly going to become united and enlightened and join together as some perfect military movement? I have never heard the rest of the arguement and I am curious as to how this works after the suppossed tyrranical take- over...
Today, we lose gun rights. Tomorrow, we lose freedom of speech. Then, what's next. It's not just that I'm worried about losing gun rights; I'm worried about losing additional rights too.
It's not that we WILL lose our other rights, it's that we wouldn't be able to defend them(besides, we have been losing our other rights already) if we didn't have the right to bear arms.
You mean we are losing our rights e.g., a woman's right to choose?
That's a straw man. It's not the woman's right to choose to kill human cells that aren't her own.
Our right to privacy, due process, and life have all been threatened by our government.
among others.
I find it ironic that the same administration that brought us Fast and Furious wants to have gun control. Seriously?
We should have put up a sign saying "No Guns Allowed" in Benghazi. That would have helped. I'm certain of that.
This is the 2nd time I have seen this photo posted in a gun related thread. Does every pro-gunnie have this same photo already downloaded to their computer for fast and easy usage?
The photo is kind of funny to be honest, a criminal pointing a rifle at you, then what? You say "hold on" let me get my gun tough guy'!Does every anti-constitutionalist think I am unarmed?
A chance is better than no chance. Surprisingly, people are able to draw on someone who is already aiming a gun at them(untrained, average Joes) and save their lives.
Most of the time though, it doesn't come down to that, a gun is used to stop a threat before it gets to the point of 'he's pointing a gun at my head'.the assumption that one would be unarmed is a false perception.
As one who carries 24/7 - I do not expect any problems from an activity like this.
And, when I do take action, innocent children and other adults will be protected and saved.
But, if we allow the government to remove guns from the innocent citizens, only the criminals will have guns.How does that work, I mean everything already owned would be grandfathered in and the limit of new manufacturing would only be a limited number of rifles...so how is it only criminals will have guns?
Only in the US is where the obsession with guns has gone beyond rediculous. People are more conserned over their gun rights than the rights they actually lost over the Patriot Act. What's wrong with this picture?
Shocking ignorance. You think the Government Inc would allow you to own an assault rifle it that was actually any threat to their drones? Smokescreen that is swallowed by the Christian Right every time.
"Here, have a gun, then the Government is no threat to you."
Oh - look at at them lovely profits.......You managed to get Christianity into the post, you do have a special talent.
Just telling the truth. Not good for you? Isn't that the political party you represent?
I think your obsession with Christianity is hilarious, please by all means obsess on.
Sorry if the truth bothers you.I can see why that would not gel with your morality. Odd how I know you are a Christian I guess.
But hey! Great job on attacking me personally instead of addressing my point.
I don't think mentioning your obsession is a personal attack very sorry if you feel that way. Nothing you write bothers me at all, laughter is good for the soul, and you do make me laugh.
Good oh. Obsession with guns you mean? Once again - great job on the distraction.
Are you developing an obsession with guns now or just trying to combine Christianity and guns? I mean its ok, just wondering. My obsession is my Constitutional rights, whether its freedom of speech or the right not to incriminate myself, right now its my second amendment right that is under assault so I guess I'm focused on that.
Would you rather me just let them take whatever right they don't think I should have? Gee Mark, that doesn't sound like you, you're a scrapper, I thought you could understand freedom.Once again - fantastic misdirection. Freedom? Wow - they really got you hook, line and full metal jacket didn't they?
Your point that Christians are so stupid that they believe that guns will keep them safe, I'm sorry. Yeah, well I guess Christians are the only ones who have guns? Since that is laughable its not really a point at all.
Not quite the point I made no, but - considering there are 270,000,000 guns in the USA and one of the highest murder rates in the developed world, I would hazard a guess that guns do not actually keep people safe.
But - you keep the faith, and let me know how you get on against that Government drone.Lol, both sides are going to use crap 'statistics' for the rest of eternity.
How so? Are you saying that there is not a high proportion of guns in the USA and not a high murder rate?
Very few guns and a low murder rate compared to say the UK?I'm saying the conclusion you want to draw from that data is erroneous.
Yes, there are countries, like the US, with high gun ownership rates and high murder rates.
Yes, there are countries, like the UK, with low gun ownership rates and low murder rates.
There are also countries with high gun ownership rates and low murder rates.
There are also countries with low gun ownership rates and high murder rates.
Correlation does not equal causation, and when you look at all the data rather than just picking two countries to suit your needs, you find that there isn't actually any correlation to begin with.
There are well documented cases involving guns keeping people safe. Unarmed people are surely not safe when the bad guys are armed.
Keep spreading the untruth.There are also well documented cases of guns keeping people dead. More guns is the answer? you have 270,000,000 guns and the highest murder rate in the developed world. Why are people not keeping themselves safe with the guns they already have? Isn't the bulk of the population already armed? Yet you are not safe - are you?
Because the ones being murdered don't have guns? I'm sure that most homicides involving guns are perpetrated against the unarmed. I suspect that there are far more than 270,000,000 guns in the U.S. not that it makes any difference.
I feel very safe because I am armed.So - how can you argue that more guns are needed? If that many people are getting murdered with that many guns already in circulation - obviously having guns available does not help. Maybe the "bad guys," are far more likely to arm themselves than the "good guys."?
I can use a number of weapons, but - they take time to learn how to use properly. Maybe you shoud be arguing for mandatory military training instead?
I don't know the statistics on how many murdered people were armed - do you?I'm not arguing that more guns are needed I'm arguing that my right to own one should not be infringed. I would say that if every good guy was armed the bad guys would be less inclined to act out on their badness.
Who is suggesting your right to own a gun is infringed? I think more armed good guys with no idea how to use a gun would be far more dangerous myself.
Why do you assume they would not be trained? You have to show proficiency in order to get a Conceal carry permit. Most people who have not used guns before are less likely to purchase them. Who is suggesting that my right be infringed? Our President is suggesting it a lot of our media is suggesting it, most liberals in this country are suggesting it.
One reason is that a very large portion of our murders are gang-related. Those people, on both sides, are armed. Usually illegally.
Another reason is that many law-abiding citizens aren't allowed to use their guns to defend themselves.
Another reason is that we simply have a more violent society. It's not just guns, it's violence. Gang activity, huge poor urban centers, and a war on drugs makes for really bad times.So - how does having more guns fix the problem exactly? More violent society? Well - I can't argue that - clearly your society is more violent than many developed country's - why do you think that is the case then?
Not necessarily more guns, being able to use the guns we have would certainly help. Too many people aren't allowed to.
It helps because, if someone breaks into your house to attack you, you have a better chance of defending yourself with a gun than with a kitchen knife. If someone attacks you on the street, you have a better chance of defending yourself with a gun than with your fists.
I went to your hubpage expecting to find something you have written about the Patriot Act since it concerns you so much, didn't find anything. Must not concern you.
Actually, the fact that we can't seem to keep our government from taking our rights away is exactly why our gun rights are so important.
But Jax, you did not feel that way during the election when R/R wanted to take away women's rights? Or is it because you only mind if it concerns you personally?
- JaxsonRaineposted 10 years ago0
Mark, do you know how often citizens use guns to protect themselves in the US?
No - I don't know how often citizens claim they used a gun to protect themselves in the US.
Uh oh....here it comes! I think of the Movie theater shooting and imagine a room full of gun toting "good guys" accidentally shooting even more innocent victims. Yeah a good ol shootem up like the wild west days, EXACTLY what we need more of!
Recently in San Antonio Texas just that very thing happened, an armed citizen took out the bad guy.
Except for the fact that your hypothetical is both irrational and contrary to reality...
People manage to defend themselves, and others, all the time. Private citizens have a MUCH higher hit rate than the police.
1.5-4.5 million times a year. You can look at the data yourself, both private studies(highly praised, even by anti-gun researchers), and government studies agree.
Interesting - so - there would be another 1.5 - 4.5 million murders a year? Or is that entire families that would have been killed? Shocking. Say as many as 20 million extra murders that were prevented? Well - you have certainly convinced me there are too many guns available - thanks. That is really shocking. Why is your society so violent do you think?
There are other crimes committed by people using guns that aren't murder you know? Car jackings,robberies.
I know - there is a lot of gun crime that is not murdering people. Do you think the easy availability of guns has anything to do with that?
I think the lack of morals and values of people have much more to do with it. I think the coddling of criminals and trying to understand what makes them tick instead of a lengthy prison sentence has a lot more to do with it.
So - easy access to guns has no effect on gun crime, it is all about lack of morals and values and coddling of criminals. OK - interesting perspective. What do you base this opinion on?
Yeah as a matter of fact it has more to do with crime than the availability of guns. There is also more crime done where guns are not involved!
What say you?I guess that makes sense. No one needs a gun to steal a roll of toilet paper from their employer, or shoplift - do they?
Or burglarize a home or business. They are not needed for sexual assaults,drug crimes,car theft all crimes which are committed more often than murder!
That's all you got, So what?
You wonder why our society is more violent, Jaxon has given you reasons I have given you reasons and none of it has anything to do with the availability of guns. I sit less than 5 feet from an AK-47, It has not occurred to me to go kill somebody, the availability of guns does not have anything to do with crime!Ah - so guns being available does not make it easier to commit a gun crime, and stealing toilet paper from your employer is the same as sicking up a drug store with a gun?
I will ask you the same question I posed to "Jaxon"
Wouldn't you rather eradicate poverty and illegal guns? As that is the real problem?If you are bound and determined to commit a "gun crime" then I suppose being able to get a gun would be helpful towards that end.
What does that have to do with my second amendment right to own a gun?So - you agree that readily available guns makes it easier to commit a crime that needs a gun - yes?
Sure, a readily available gun would make it easier to commit a gun crime. But the gun is not what is causing the crime to occur.
How would you stick up a drug store without a gun? How would you do a drive by shooting without a gun? Gun crimes necessarily need a gun. Yes?
The only crime that needs a gun is a gun crime. The same type of crime can be committed without a gun. Gun homicide vs homicide, for example.
Yes - there are a few exceptions, but - how do you manage a drive by shooting without a gun?
Did you read what I said? Why won't you answer my questions?
You can't commit a GUN CRIME(such as 'drive by shooting') without a gun. That's what I said, you need guns to commit gun crimes. You can still do the same thing without a gun, it's just not called a gun crime.Right - so you would eradicate gun crimes then? Which means maty crimes would vanish - such as a drive by shooting - yes?
It doesn't matter if gun homicides are replaced by knife homicides, and any laws we pass in regards to guns won't eliminate guns anyway, so it's a useless discussion.
Of course it matters. Maybe you should invest in a decent law enforcement program than if the one you have is so ineffective.
Would you then expect that making guns easier to get and carry around would make violence worse?
I would expect it to make gun violence worse - wouldn't you?
Nope. Would you be surprised if I showed you crime rates of states over time, where you can compare before and after laws are changed, and the crime rates went down instead of up?
Ah - statistics. Tell you what - why don't you answer the question I posed instead of selectively cherry picking a few statistics huh?
Australia proved other wise,I did answer the question you posed. Can you read?
Picking Australia is an example of cherry-picking. Do you want to keep being hypocritical? I just offered to show you that more guns doesn't mean more crime. If it did, then every case of a state allowing more guns should have increased crime, right?No - you did not answer the question I posed.
Wouldn't you rather eradicate poverty and illegal guns? As that is the real problem?
More guns means less crime? Wow - 270,000,000 guns and the highest murder rate in the developed world - how bad would it really be? Without the guns I mean.Which question?
Mark: Wouldn't you rather eradicate poverty and remove the illegal guns then?
Jaxson: I would love to eradicate poverty, and removing illegal guns would be awesome too.
Mark: I would expect it to make gun violence worse - wouldn't you?
Jaxson: Nope.
Or, are you talking about a different question? Because I've answered them all.Please stop lying at me - you never answered those first 2 questions. Why the need to lie?
But - as you have now answered them - how do we go about doing that? Do you think removing guns from society would help?I'm not lying, I have answered them. Can you read? Will it help if I quote and link?
I would love to eradicate poverty - http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/108723? … ost2314442
Nope - http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/108723? … ost2314439
There, can you now admit that I answered them? Click the links, the words are right there for you to read. If you can't admit that, then I"m done talking to you, because that means you're either a troll(intentionally lying), or your reading comprehension is too poor to have a meaningful conversation.Ah - OK - sorry - missed that.
So - do you think removing guns from society would help cut down the illegal guns?You know Mark I read your comments in the religion forums and laugh, I love how you drive some of those people crazy. But in this thread you just look bad.
Apologizing because I made a mistake makes me look bad - how so?
Did you apologize to me? If you did I missed it. What makes you look bad is the need to call people liars to begin with. You have no game.
Your accusatory attitude makes you look bad. It doesn't matter if you apologize after or not. The look bad part is that you would quickly call someone a dishonest liar with no morals or values.
Well - I call it as I see it. I made a mistake and apologized. If that is not enough, - too bad.
You should be sorry, calling me a liar, dishonest, and saying I have no morals or values. Pathetic behavior, if you would actually read what I post instead of trying to jump around from topic to topic and accuse me of stuff, it wouldn't happen.
As I said before, what do you mean by 'removing guns from society'. That's not a how. That's like asking - do you think removing violence from society would help cut down on violence? Give me a how and I'll tell you if I think it would cut down on illegal guns.Oh - sorry - what don't you understand - how to go about removing guns from society? Make them illegal and enforce the law. Australia is a great example of how that could work. The UK almost as good, but not quite.
It's not about me understanding. You keep providing a GOAL(a what), rather than an ACTION(a how).
We already have laws that make guns illegal, and we try to enforce those laws, but we still have those illegal guns. Why do we still have them if they're illegal?
Comparing the US to Australia is pointless.You have them because it is easy to get a gun illegally because there are so many legal guns. Australia made guns illegal.
So, where do criminals get their illegal guns? I'm assuming you've studied this and have some sources to provide?
You haven't addressed my points about how illegal things still exist in America. Drugs have been illegal for a long time, did that get rid of them? We made alcohol illegal, did that work?
Eradicating poverty and illegal guns?
Removing guns from society, you need to be more specific by what you mean. Would removing all guns remove all guns? Yes, but 'removing all guns' isn't a 'how'.
The best way to eradicate poverty is to reform welfare, our tax code, and education systems.So - removing guns would help? Not sure I understood the rest? Increased welfare payments for poor people and increased unemployment benefits plus increased spending on education - yes?
You asked for a HOW, then you provided a WHAT. HOW would you remove guns from society?
No, not increasing payments or spending. Welfare needs to become a 'hand-up' program, plan and action-driven. We don't need to spend more on education, we keep spending more and more, and don't get better results because of it. Some of our best states, and many better countries than us, spend less per capita than our worst-performing schools.I already answered that question. Who spends less per capita and gets a better education? Maybe you could bring them in to help you with your system?
The only thing you've said in 'answer' is that we should make guns illegal and enforce the laws. That's not really a plan, that's still a goal. Did you know that we made murder illegal a long time ago, but it still happens?
So HOW would you remove guns?
This chart shows countries by spending per student.
We're almost the most expensive. There are non-education reasons for that, such as costs of healthcare, but the American 'solution' has always been to throw more money at something and hope that fixes it. We need to reform our education system, not just spend more on it.Take the guns away. Simple really. Sorry - I can't see that little graph, nor do I know what the acronyms mean.
You're being rude, not responding to much of what I say.
HOW would you take the guns away? Once again, you are stating goals, not actions. Need some help?
Would you ask citizens to turn in all their guns, then have the police search door-to-door? Or would you go about it differently?I would follow the Australian model. Ask first, offer an amnesty, seize later as appropriate. Use the police to do it. Or are you saying that your law enforcement system is a bad as your education system?
What about our rights Mark? Does the constitution matter?
So - you agree that illegal guns are the problem, agree that you (collective you) did not exercise your responsibility that came with your right and keep the legal guns out of the hands of the bad guys and - now you are whining?
Or do you not have responsibilities as well as rights?Since you wont answer questions but rather ask them I am forced to do the same. What is an illegal gun? The second amendment requires no responsibilities, so why ask about that?
Mark, nobody is saying that illegal guns aren't a problem.
There is no punishment of the collective for the actions of the individual. That is unconstitutional. Our rights are only taken away through due process of law.Mark isn't concerned about individual rights and he probably own guns.
Punishment? I am not talking about a punishment.
Doesn't the collective have some collective responsibility? Would you give up your guns if you thought it would help eradicate illegal guns?Interesting. So - no illegal guns would be no gun crime, yet it is more important to you that you keep your guns than eradicating gun crime. Despite the fact that you wouldn't need your AK47 if there were no gun crimes. Please explain.
What is an illegal gun?
Still fear my own Government!
Zero game!Let me know how you get on against that drone.
Ya think they would let you have that AK47 it it was actually doing you any good. Oh wait - we are back to the point I first made. Round and round we go.
Gotta go - ciao.You never made a point, I'm not too concerned about the drone, I won't know until I'm in heaven. I snuck some Christianity in.
Mark, I have enough evidence to say this now.
You are classless. Your arguments are insulting, your behavior is rude, and you are hypocritical.And often hit the report button on the way out!
I wouldn't be surprised if I got another timeout from that. Heck, I've gotten a time-out for quoting someone admitting that they were lying, and calling them a liar, lol.I notice that happens a lot around here. I was banned for something never knew what though.
Never hit the report button myself. Please stop lying about me - thanks.
I didn't lie about you. You have, however, lied about me.
I did read the quote from Ralph, and noticed he never really addressed it.
It's hilarious, it's happened maybe 6 times now.
Ralph "I've never said that"
Me "Yeah you have, I can quote you"
Ralph "Go ahead"
Me - [QUOTE]
...
...
Crickets "Here we go again"
No, this is a country of individual freedom, individual punishment, and individual responsibility.
At least, that was how it was founded, it does move more to the socialist side as time goes on, unfortunately.
You are talking about a punishment. You are talking about removing existing rights, that's a punishment.
If I thought that we could pass laws that would remove all guns from the country, then I would support them. I honestly would. But, LAWS won't remove ILLEGAL guns. They are already illegal!
I would love to hear you address the points I have made multiple times. How would laws against guns be any different than our laws against drugs and laws against alcohol?OK - you do not have a law enforcement system that is capable of doing anything about the ILLEGAL gun situation that only exists because there are so many LEGAL guns lying around.
Odd you ignore that point huh?Like I said, you're getting very rude. You're ignoring almost 100% of what I'm saying. Please answer my questions.
I challenged you earlier to provide data about where illegal guns come from, still waiting.
Do the drugs that illegally exist in this country only exist because there are so many LEGAL drugs lying around?
Did the illegal alcohol during prohibition only exist because there was so much LEGAL alcohol lying around?The illegal guns started out as legal guns. Sorry - I thought I said that already.
Gotta go. Ciao.
Ok, some people turn them in. Our criminals won't, they already have their guns illegally. Why would making them 'more illegal' change that?
How would you seize guns? We have rights, you need a warrant. Or, would you support illegal searches and seizures to get rid of guns?
What about new guns that cross our borders? There would be a huge black market for them, how would you prevent those guns from coming in?
What about 3D printers? You can make guns and magazines at home now, how would you remove those guns?So - you do not have an effective law enforcement system? And your military is incapable of defending your borders?
Sounds like you have more problems that you let on.
What happened to the American "Can Do" attitude?Effective at some things. Some things just aren't enforceable.
We are more than capable of defending our borders, but we can't stop illegal goods coming in. I f you think that's possible, then you're living in something other than reality.
It's starting to sound like you just want to bash on America, you're getting even more disrespectful as time goes on.(except for your tiny apology earlier).
They are both run by the same incompetent entity!
You are happy to live with a rotten education system, poverty and rotten law enforcement system, but you whine about not having a gun?
Explain.
As my sixteen year old would say, Mark, you got tore up from the floor up!
Once again, you are trying to cherry-pick data that supports your point, while ignoring data that doesn't. Crime is a factor of culture, not weapons.
Also, to clarify, when I talk about 'more guns' or 'less guns', I'm not referring to illegal guns. There's not much we can do about illegal guns(except make more legal guns illegal). I'm referring to legal guns. More legal gun ownership, more people carrying guns, etc... That's what I'm referring to.
So when you say 'how bad would it be without the guns', I'm not going to talk about how things would be with absolutely no guns, because that's just not going to happen. With no legal gun ownership, things would be very bad. More places would be like Detroit and Chicago.
Just take a look at all the guns that make USA their home! I know I know, people will kill people with knives and bombs if we take their guns away. Heard it all before!
Those aren't all murders. They are murders, rapes, muggings, burlaries, etc.
Why would the fact that more people defend themselves with guns than bad people kill people with guns convince you that they are a bad thing?
I already explained much of why our society is so violent. You didn't respond.No you didn't. You said this:
And I asked you why your society is more violent. You didn't answer.
Why the need to lie?I answered your question.
Why the fear of responding?I didn't lie. Read the part in bold. Poverty tends to lead to violence. Outlawing goods leads to black market activity, and therefore violence. Gangs are largely a result of the previous two, poverty and illegal goods.
That was not in response to my question - I asked the question after you posted that.
So poor people and illegal guns are the problem? Wouldn't you rather eradicate poverty and remove the illegal guns then?If I say X, and then you ask me about X, it's perfectly fine for me to say I've already addressed that.
Poverty and DRUGS(which is what I was referring to), are a huge problem. People in poor urban centers are 8-9 times more likely to commit crimes or murder.
I would love to eradicate poverty, and removing illegal guns would be awesome too. If you want to talk about that, I'm happy to, but those are different topics than removing legal guns.
- JaxsonRaineposted 10 years ago0
The internet makes me sad. I truly wish I could find a place, somewhere, anywhere, where there are more than a couple people capable of having a real discussion.
- ahorsebackposted 10 years ago0
A mental health Test to own a gun ? Idiotic !.......Who would perform the actual tests , the same ones who do the regulating now ? Law enforcement ? Judges who are soft on crime , with an agenda ? The health care system that operates and removes the wrong leg ? You ? Who hates guns anyway ? ........what this culture needs is to fix itself first....yes ?.......
.Some qustions on the test :
- Do you ever feel the need to shoot someone or at least near them ?
-Do you hate your father or mother?
-What does this image make you think of ?
-Do you masturbate to pictures of AR-15s ?
-Have you ever shot your own toe off ?
-Anyone elses?
The more of these threads I read the more I shake my head .......hey I know
-Do you know what your kids are doing right now ? Biden says you should own a shotgun over an assault rifle.
- ahorsebackposted 10 years ago0
Biden is so stupid he couldn't hit a target with a rifle , he needs buckshot!
Justice Department Statistics
Gun homicides per year-------------30,000
Justifiable gun homicides per year---200
These numbers would seem to indicate that the NRA greatly exaggerates the number of incidents in which guns have been used for self-protection.No, they would indicate that citizens don't justifiably kill people very often with their guns. Nobody is going around saying citizens kill tens of thousands of bad guys a year.
Also, your number is low. FBI has its limited reporting(only catches some 3/4ths of events) at 278.
- ahorsebackposted 10 years ago0
Ralph , you seem an expert at picking and choosing your statistics and so your to need to your cause , what about all of the thwarphed attempts repelled by a homeowner with a gun ...The ones you don't even hear about ,happens alot around here anyway ? Listen ......don't worry when the shyte hits the fan in America , you can run to my house for protection ! If your consciience bothers you so that you cant hold a weapon you can reload for me !....lol
Do you have better figures? I read about various kinds of Detroit area shootings in the morning paper every day--drive by shootings, drug shootings, accidental shootings, the I96 highway shooter, murders and so forth. I only see a few a year on justified shootings or incidents where guns prevented a crime. There are a few but not many. I don't think there are any reliable statistics on cases where guns prevented a crime or protected someone. The gun killing statistics strike me as pretty accurate.
Here are some more to add to the few you know about.
According to Dr. Gary Kleck, criminologist at Florida State University in Tallahassee and author of "Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America," a book used by many in the gun debate, 800,000-2,500,000 crimes are stopped by guns each year. The numbers are from different studies.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_crim … gun_ownersKleck has been discredited. He's not an objective researcher on guns. From what I've read he starts with his conclusions and tailors his "research" to support them.
Criticism
"A study of gun use in the 1990s, by David Hemenway at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, claimed that criminal use of guns is far more common than self-defense use of guns.[14] Kleck claims that Hemenway's own surveys confirmed Kleck's conclusion that defensive gun use numbers at least in the hundreds of thousands each year, and that a far larger number of surveys (at least 20) have shown that defensive uses outnumbered criminal uses;[15] however, the Hemenway study just cited gives no such figure and says in its conclusion, "We might expect that unlawful 'self-defense' gun uses will outnumber the legitimate and socially beneficial ones." Critics, including Hemenway, respond that these estimates are difficult to reconcile with comparable crime statistics, are subject to a high degree of sampling error, and that "because of differences in coverage and potential response errors, what exactly these surveys measure remains uncertain; mere repetition does not eliminate bias".[16] In another article, Hemenway notes that Kleck has armed women preventing 40% of all sexual assaults, a percentage he considers unlikely because few women go armed. In the same article, Hemenway notes that Kleck's survey shows armed citizens wounding or killing attackers 207,000 times in one year, contrasted against the total of around 100,000 Americans wounded or killed, accidentally or intentionally, in a typical year.[17]
"Various studies have found that defensive gun uses occur at a dramatically lower magnitude than that found by Kleck. In the article "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms" by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, the authors quote the National Crime Victim Survey as finding 108,000 DGUs per year. One section of the article compares the U.S. crime rate to the number of DGUs reported by Kleck and Kleck-like studies and concludes that their estimate of the DGUs is improbably high.[18] An article published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics says, "In 1992 offenders armed with handguns committed a record 931,000 violent crimes ... On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a firearm to defend themselves or their property. Three-fourths of the victims who used a firearm for defense did so during a violent crime; a fourth, during a theft, household burglary, or motor vehicle theft."[19]"
[From Wikipedia.]. . .and Harvard is neutral and unbiased?
Still, I appreciate statistics rather than misplaced emotion over topics like this.Am I seriously reading this? People arguing over a topic when they're getting research from WIKIPEDIA? If you had any less sense in your head, you wouldn't have a head left! Where are you getting statistics from?
Are you blind to the fact that all largely-hyped statistics at any given time can be changed, whether or not they come from [fill in the blank].gov or wikipedia.org? I believe so. Any “statistics” you read are not solid fact when they're coming from the government.
Let me guess, you also watch Fox news and believe everything you see!
The link to this video is bound to have some people wishing they can go to school with this or chase that bad guy in the hood with this.
http://www.stupidvideos.com/video/all/F … ht/#423276Wow! can I buy one at my local WalMart? We heard a strange noise in our back yard the other night. I like the automatic light feature.
according to the FBI statistics, only .1% of all murders have occurred by use of rifles. But the government wants to eliminate them.
Why - to disarm the public?
Not a big fan of "rendering unto Caesar," then?
There is but one God - that I follow as the light.
He provides my strength and my righteousness.
2 Timothy 3 New International Version (NIV)
3 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.
6 They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 7 always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. 8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these teachers oppose the truth. They are men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. 9 But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone.
10 You, however, know all about my teaching, my way of life, my purpose, faith, patience, love, endurance, 11 persecutions, sufferings—what kinds of things happened to me in Antioch, Iconium and Lystra, the persecutions I endured. Yet the Lord rescued me from all of them. 12 In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, 13 while evildoers and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.You could have just said "no".
Did you not understand the question?it appears that you do not understand or accept my description of 'no'
so, it appears you need to seek further wisdom about the nature of honorable men.So - you didn't understand the question?
I am not claiming to be living the way Christ lived. Sorry you didn't understand. Not surprised though.
My question is valid though. How did you manage to turn this into a religion thread?
I know your forte is getting the religious stirred up and not speaking on guns so I can understand you turning the conversation that way but isn't it considered hijacking a thread? I will wait for something understandable to reply to.
No game, don't want to mix it up anymore I see. I understand your reluctance given your last performance. Have fun.
Not a man of your word I see. No morals that is your problem.
Sorry? I don't seem to recall giving you my word. If you would care to explain I will be around.
A: all guns that I can afford to purchase.
It is my responsibility to protect myself, my family, my neighbors, my community, and my nation.
B: no paperwork will ever protect the innocent victims because the criminals do not respect laws.Disgusting! "Selling a new generation on guns"
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/us/se … ns.html?hp
Oh my, how horrible. Do you think the 10,000 films or video games they will see and play will give them a better educations of firearms? There will always be guns Ralph, they are not going away.
If you have firearms in the house like many Americans do, then it might behoove you to teach firearms safety to your kids otherwise an accident might occur. It's just common sense to expose them to the weapons you might have in order to remove their curiosity and prevent accidents. I say take them out shooting until they are sick of it.
Good point Ralph,
Isn't it funny that our laws don't trust adolescents behind the wheel of a car. Insurance company raised their rates when adolescents become old enough to drive. Yet and still some of us encourage and want to put the power of death in those same hands.Can't own any type of gun before you are at least 18.
Goodbye."Can't own any type of gun before you are at least 18.
Goodbye."
While this may be true, kids kill eachother and themselves each day with their parents guns. That's really sad!
I guess you believe that children should simply be victims.
Maybe that will work in your utopia world, but in the real world, the criminals still have guns even when the law has been written and signed.
Criminals beware - my children and grandchildren know how to defend themselves.I believe a civilized society should not continue to perpetuate a barbaric society. When the only solution one can come up with as it pertains to dealing with disputes, issues is to develop the mentality of gunfighters, mobsters then we as a society, as adults as parents have failed.
Again you speak of utopia, not reality.
It would be nice if all parents would succeed in creating a moral society - but the real facts show that this will not occur in my lifetime.
I live in reality where criminals attack law abiding citizens.
In the real society, we must continually develop your so called "gunfighters" to protect those in society who cannot protect themselves from the real life criminals.
Many people fail to operate in the real world.
This creates more risk for society as the number of incapable innocent victims increases.
It is the increased lack of capability to protect oneself that has caused much of the growth in immoral criminal actvity.If I were to accept your perspective on the issue of how to deal with conflicts then I would have to conclude that the peacemakers such as Gandhi from India and or Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. approach was wrong when it came to making change in people's lives. I take from your suggestions and the like that both of these gentlemen should have had a bandolier of bullets hanging from their chest and the automatic firepower to make their point.
historical records concerning the 2 men you seem to idolize state that they were peacemakers who did not believe in carrying guns themselves.
furthermore, history indicates they were both assassinated by guns.
On January 30, 1948, Gandhi was shot while walking to prayer.
On April 4, 1968, King was shot while standing on a hotel balcony.
While you wish to talk about their demise as if their deaths justify anti-gun rhetoric.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
People who disarm law abiding citizens fail to recognize that assassins take no risk when confronting an unarmed individual.
Both Gandhi and King are proof of this point.
So are the unarmed innocent victims that were killed during 2012.
As a security specialist I can assure you had their been a law abiding armed guard on the scene of the 2012 activities, the evil results would have been much different than the reported happenings.
When confronting an evil person with a weapon, the only possible solution for the victim is an equal or better weapon.
While i would like all that evil to desist, I live in the real world where I know the drug lords, street gangs, terrorists, irrational deranged individuals, and other evil will exist regardless of my desire for it to cease.
Therefore, i will continue to carry enough fire power 24/7 to protect myself and many around me should a situation present itself.
However, I do not intend to indicate that you should do the same.
You should always be permitted your personal choice.
That is what is great about this nation.
You can choose to not carry, and I can choose to protect you or anyone else because I choose to carry.
If I can save one person by being responsible, then I have completed my chosen goal.Gandhi and Martin Luther King, as pacifists, were both naturally against gun-control.
I believe that as law abiding Americans, we should have the right to own any arms we chose. Owning guns is a right given to us by our forefathers. The government can take our guns away, and then we will not be able to protect our family, our property from those who get guns illegally. I am a nurse. I work in the inner city. I see crime almost daily and what gangs do with guns. I know at times innocent people are shot from guns in peoples homes. I get that kids sometimes get a hold of parents guns and the outcome is unthinkable. Those who commit crimes are NOT getting their guns legally. What they use for crimes are stolen, bought on the black market, etc. In Akron OH, the police just reported that on average, they are taking 2 illegal guns off the streets per day. What is it like in a bigger city? We should have the right to protect ourselves. Until the goverment eradicates criminals from having guns, I will keep mine.
- ahorsebackposted 10 years ago0
Truthfully there is soo much ignorance on the part of anti gun people ! Its soo obvious that all of you , not only know nothing about guns but that neither do you understand even the basics of human nature !.........How can you not look at the absolute "freakin mess " ,for lack of better words , that our criminal justice system alone , is In ! And stilll,! think that by elilminating "assault weapons" from our existance is going to stop such idiousy on the part of fruitcakes ! But then ........even some of you are fruitcakes !
That is just plain non-sense that only people like yourself would actually believe in! yes, us aniti gun people are fruitcakes, "if you say so" but we are not the only one with a problem, you live in this crazy world also.
The only thing is, seems as if your answer to every problem is......."DONT TAKE AWAY MY GUNS! Now that's a fricken fruitcake type of belief system if I ever heard one.
"Dangerous Gun Myths" NY Times Editorial
"... But there is a more fundamental problem with the idea that guns actually protect the hearth and home. Guns rarely get used that way. In the 1990s, a team headed by Arthur Kellermann of Emory University looked at all injuries involving guns kept in the home in Memphis, Seattle and Galveston, Tex. They found that these weapons were fired far more often in accidents, criminal assaults, homicides or suicide attempts than in self-defense. For every instance in which a gun in the home was shot in self-defense, there were seven criminal assaults or homicides, four accidental shootings, and 11 attempted or successful suicides.
"The cost-benefit balance of having a gun in the home is especially negative for women, according to a 2011 review by David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Far from making women safer, a gun in the home is “a particularly strong risk factor” for female homicides and the intimidation of women...."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opini … hs.html?hpHaving a gun outside the home can be costly also.
http://www.stupidvideos.com/video/Tonig … new#424073AMERICAN SNIPER AUTHOR SHOT TO DEATH AT TEXAS SHOOTING RANGE
"... Mr. Kyle, 38, author of the best-selling book “American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History,” was with a struggling former soldier on just such an outing on Saturday, hoping that a day at a shooting range would bring some relief, said a friend, Travis Cox.
"But the Texas authorities said Sunday that the troubled veteran turned on Mr. Kyle and a second man, Chad Littlefield, shooting and killing both before fleeing in a pickup truck.
“Chad and Chris had taken a veteran out to shoot to try to help him,” Mr. Cox said. “And they were killed.' "
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/us/ch … ed.html?hpRalph,
This is indeed tragic, it seems as though we can never get enough of killing.
I'm sure you're aware of that saying "guns don't kill people do." Well I have never heard of someone being killed by giving them the evil eye nor have I heard someone being killed simply by thinking about them being killed. It stands to reason that in order to kill someone one must have some sort of instrument be at their hands or the most popular weapon the gun.Guns are used in killing. There's no denying that. They are also used for sport and self defense. Taking guns away may or may not save lives; it may even result in more murders, as people might not have the weapons necessary to protect themselves. It will certainly mean that my rights have been eroded.
It is sad that this violent society which we live in did not happen on its own, we created this society and to compound the problem we feel our rights are more important than other people's lives.
NRA says more guns! A good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun! LMAO! Chris Kyle and his buddywere killed at a shooting range! So much for their retarded comment! Oh, I forgot, the NRA is all about guns sales since a good portion of their Board of Directors are tied to the gun industry! Screw those idiots.
good guys with guns die when they let their guard down - even the most decorated sniper.
you may wish to let your guard down - I do not.
America is on the brink of destruction, the world is at the same point it was prior to WWII - crazy leaders in major parts of the world.
like many who jump to emotional conclusions the current press on this situation leaps to spread irrational statements about gun violence.
PFCKF
- ahorsebackposted 10 years ago0
Here's one for you anti gun fools , eliminate every gun in the world and then sit down at the tv and watch a mass murderer use some other tool to accomplish his mission! And he will too , want the truth in statistics look at the shootings in Chicago last month alone ! They have gun ban laws in afeect ! While your at it check out L.A. s gang shooting death rates ! Even D.Cs . Is one style of gun , all the anti-gun people can focus on . "assualt weapons " in the gun world ---- is equal to mini skirts in the dress world ! Just one "look" of a dozen or more ! A lot of you here in this thread really need to muture UP- wards instead of down !
"eliminate every gun in the world and then sit down at the tv and watch a mass murderer use some other tool to accomplish his mission"
Yes, but remember that it's far, far easier to stop someone from killing with a sword or a bow-'n-arrow than it is to stop him from killing with a gun.your hypothesis is slightly flawed.
it is not far, far easier to stop someone from killing with a sword or a bow-'n-arrow. otherwise, all those who perished from those tools in the past would still be alive after the attack.
a weapon of any sort is more difficult to defend against if you do not have the same or better weapon.
the best defense is a good plan that provides real security.
besides, no criminal ever follows the law.Actually NO Zellkiiro, what about a Malotov cocktale ! A propane tank and a match , a pipe bomb ???
I think in America they are to far down the line and if you un-arm the population then it leaves the government in total control with all the guns, and as America work on two different laws and to be honest it is a country that is forced together through an alliance, it would be scary for a lot of people to give washington all the power.
let's see now - the last time a criminal followed the law was --------- never.
definition of statistics:
1) a branch of mathematics dealing with the collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of masses of numerical data
2) a collection of quantitative data
validity of statistics:
the degree that a concept, conclusion or measurement is properly supported and corresponds accurately to the real world.
DOJ crime information:
only includes reported crimes where investigations are concluded. any act that is not investigated is no currently included by the statisticians because they are not recorded as a ciminal investigation.
this means the real world information is not being used to report the safety provided by individuals who carry guns.
the best statistic is the one that means I will walk away in a safe condition when confronted by a criminal with a gun.I wonder what the citizens in Germany said when the Nazis started their campaign to register all weapons?
I'm routing for people should be allowed to own muzzle loaders:
1) It matches the founding father's understanding of "bearing arms".
2) They make a really satisfying bang when they go off.
3) You can only kill one person before you have to reload and someone has a chance to tackle you; it's more sporting.
4) Gun nuts are a really humorless bunch and a proposal like this will get them really lathered up and spouting all sorts of absurd cliches.1 - Congress had already ordered 100 rifles that could fire 8 bullets in 5 seconds with 1 trigger pull. Just FYI, automatic rifles were already there.
2 - So does a canon. I demand a canon!
3 - Well, how about a law where you have to give your gun to someone who attacks you, that would be even more sporting!
4 - Cliches don't kill people, People cliche people! Or something like that.
- ahorsebackposted 10 years ago0
My recomendation---- , All of you who don't see the need for guns in your home , Please run to your neighbors house ,who has one, for protection against , burgulars , tyranical governments , invading forces , and ask him to save one or two of his {proposed ] ten round magazine to protect you and your over -freedom entitled family!....Im sure he'll sacrifice his family for yours !
There are some people on this site seriously obssessed with their guns! Is gun obssession one of those mental illnesses that should be looked into?
Personally I think that all guns should be allowed. Honestly I could care less if my neighbor owns a highpowered fully auto assault rifle with a full combat load (7 30 round mags). Thats the way he wants to live his life, so be it. If I think he is a danger to me or my family A) move. B) buy my own gun, learn to shoot it, and shoot back if he goes on a rampage on my front lawn. The beauty about this country is that we have the ability to choose how we want to live, be it law abiding or law breaking. Because of that we must trust in our judicial system and law enforcement to take care of those that choose to break laws.
Gun laws will not accomplish one little thing. Prime example that not one person has a rebuttal for yet, is drug use. Drugs are illegal...period. Federal law prohibits the use of narcotics without a prescription and for a use that is not intended by a medical provider. But that does not stop drug dealers on the streets from selling cocaine, marijuana, heroin, meth, acid, shrooms, aderol, pcp...the list just goes on. Go to a poor neighborhood and I guarantee there will be multiple people that "got what chu need." The law still says its illegal, drugs still have the potential to kill people, and yet people still sell them, which means there are obviously buyers, and people that use them. Guns are really no different. Make a law that takes any type of gun away and the people that are law breakers will disregard and drive on. The law abiding citizens will do the right then and because of that could potentially be at a disadvantage if a law breaker pulls an illegal gun against them.
I know that in my house if someone breaks in I want them to know that I have an assault rifle that I am very well trained with, shoot well with and will open fire at will to protect my family and my land. To me gun laws are ridiculous and pointless. Period.Sounds like you've been watching old "All in the Family" videos!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLjNJI54GMM
- ahorsebackposted 10 years ago0
See the real problem is in the question ! -"what kinds of guns should our government allow us ?....."
The question should be "What more will the ' people' allow this government to control ?.....see what I mean , you people need to catch up !No, it's what kinds of weapons will our government prohibit, consistent with the 2nd Amendment, e.g., military style weapons, large magazines, .50 caliber rifles and armor piercing bullets, none of which have a use for anything but killing people. And how will the rules be enforced for a change.
Proponents of gun control are willing to seek a reasonable, practical middle ground. NRA and some gun nuts are opposed to any regulation.
- ahorsebackposted 10 years ago0
Ralph , As if that were the cure all ! It has not worked yet , Check crime stats in D.C. , Chicago , in New York too ! Massachussets , Californica , come on board the good ship reality, Ralph ......You will never regulate or legislate insanity by creating new law ! You know that too! But hey , may as well dodge the real important issues .....Thats the great liberal way !
Related Discussions
- 116
Proof that magazine size DOES matter
by promisem 6 years ago
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...
- 160
Should people be allowed to commit suicide?
by And Drewson 6 years ago
If someone is of sound mind, meaning they understand the consequences, should they be allowed to kill themselves?
- 126
Some Say:" Guns Don't Kill People do" But Aren't Guns Weapons Created To Kill?
by VC L Veasey 8 years ago
Some Say:" Guns Don't Kill People do" But Aren't Guns Weapons Created To Kill?
- 60
Gun Control: Should We Lose The Right To Bear Arms?
by Alem Belton 8 years ago
Okay so another guy dresses up like The Joker and kills people. I will resist the urge to state how bizarre and coincidental that is and stick to the question.The media is intent on showing Americans all the LEGAL gun killings they can while not informing us about the countless lives that are...
- 43
Should Woman be allowed in combat roles in the US military
by Credence2 9 years ago
Hi, folks, the link that I provide is from an article written by Patrick Buchanan, not one of my favorite guys. He is blunt in his opinion and I think just as wrong. http://news.yahoo.com/pentagons-surrend … 00599.html
- 15
Should people be allowed to view pornogrphy on local city library computers?
by India Arnold 11 years ago
Should people be allowed to view pornogrphy on local city library computers?We went to our local city library this past weekend. The place was bustling with old people, young people, and children. As we walked over to the non-fiction rows, we passed by the bank of library computers where several...