Two questions for gun control people

[missnu01]

And you retro fit those machines to make a less lethal form of ammunition or we bring back some outlawed non lethal weapons...But I mean no matter which side of the gun debate you are on it is easy to see that there are too many people with not enough sense and they are carrying too many guns that are capable of killing people.

 

[hemet dennis]

Why do they want to ban the guns that kill the least number of people and not the guns that kill the most number of people ?

 

[OldGuy43]

I normally don't post one immediately after another, but I thought this was important enough to violate my own rule;

Does anyone besides me remember what happened when "Saturday Night Specials" were banned in 1968? Instead of those inaccurate, poorly made, almost non-lethal (unless you got really lucky) .32 caliber handguns the police suddenly found themselves up against 9 mm's, 45 calibers and .357's. It's called the rule of unintended consequences.

Sidebar:
I owned several of them and sold them back to the government in a buy-back program. They paid me more for them than I'd paid new.

 

[Matthew3590]

That children should be allowed to grow up in innocence?  That individuals should feel safe in public places?  That violence shouldn't be the default option?

Yep.  Pretty horrible.

Embarrassing that you think guns ruin innocence. I was a sheltered child till middle school and the only thing that ruined my innocence was friends and the news.

 

[missnu01]

Puberty ruined my innocence...and just the natural progression of growing up...I don't think that it takes away kids innocence, but I can see that it would perhaps skew that child's view of the world in possibly an unhealthy, but more realistic manner.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

Apparently you can still find a gun or two for sell if you drive around enough.. Friend just came in with this. They had no ammo so I let her have some.

 

[Demosthine]

Does that include the right to send your children off to schools in the morning without the fear that they will be shot to pieces by an AR15?

How about the right to attend school without the fear of being bullied? A co-worker's daughter has been bullied by the same child since the start of the school year. The attention has be brought to the attention of the teachers, principal and district office nearly 20 times the last we discussed it. He has recently resorted to filing police reports with every incident. Additionally, the district has denied him a variance for his daughter to attend another school. There are many days where she is crying and begging not to go to school.

And yet, if the child fights back, she will be suspended or expelled. Her older brother came to her rescue twice that I am aware of. They ended up with a counselling session with the principal the first time and an in-school suspension the second time. Nobody wants to take responsibility for what is actually going on, on a daily basis. They only want to fix the extremes.

Hi, it's not guns, it's people. I appreciate having the right to anything a criminal has, gun wise.
I think the focus is on assult rifles because you can kill more people with a single pull than you can with a gun. The problem nowdays is kids with assult rifles in schools. Why is it schools and not airlines and public buildings? Are schools less important?

In the typical assault rifle that they are trying to ban, you can not kill any more people with a single pull of the trigger than a typical handgun. A single pull of the trigger fires a single round. A machine gun will fire three-round bursts or fire fully automatic with each pull of the trigger, but those are extremely expensive and extremely rare. I am not aware of a single mass-shooting on American soil with a machine gun, since the mafia era and their subsequent ban.

This highlights the huge misunderstanding of what an assault rifle really is and what they are trying to ban. Fully automatic machine guns are highly regulated. They require a Class III firearms license, registration of the weapon and a much more extensive background check. My understanding is that even in Arizona, where there are no waiting periods and a majority of people can walk in and walk out the same visit with a firearm, buyers still end up waiting days or weeks to complete their Class III purchases.

And it is public buildings, too. The theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado was public. The shooting at the mall in Clackamas, Oregan was public. The shooting at the Sikh Temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin was a public place. The four Officers killed in the cafe in Seattle, Washington was a public place. The politicians are focusing on schools because they are the most emotionally successful. "Save the children. Save the children. OH, SAVE THE CHILDREN."

If politicians really wanted a legitimate, honest conversation about firearms, Americans as a whole would be better informed. The gun control propaganda has been far reaching. And, as I've mentioned before, we have had a great loss of "gun culture" over the last several generations, so as a whole, Americans have a lack of understanding about what different firearms really are and what their capabilities are.

If a ridiculous argument is presented that is against restrictions on guns, I am quick to point it out. So, in the case where an argument that may be in favor of restrictions is put forward, I should be just as fast to object to that if it too is ridiculous. I must say that I do not think that tranquilizer guns are an answer. To make my position very clear, I am a strong advocate of gun ownership by individuals and a believer that the second amendment applies to individuals. That said, where I see most of the gun advocates going wrong in their arguments is their failure to recognize that it is obvious that the second amendment permits some restrictions on the right to own and use firearms. That was obvious back in colonial times where at the time of the writing of the constitution there were permitted restrictions on firearm ownership. That permitted type of restriction continued right up until very modern times when Justice Scalia (one of the most conservative Justices on the Court) said in his opinion in Heller vs. DC that "undoubtedly the second amendment permits some restrictions on firearms". So, all your screaming that the second amendment is the absolute word and can not be restricted in any way is just nonsense. The right to own and use firearms is not one of the inalienable rights granted by God, but was merely a right granted by the Constitution and despite some of your childish previous retorts to that premise, it is an absolute truth.

Why do they want to ban the guns that kill the least number of people and not the guns that kill the most number of people ?

Because it isn't truly about saving lives or reducing crime. It is about "feel-good measures" to get them re-elected. And Americans have fallen for it many times over. Again, I've mentioned it before, but if you calculate the firearm rates used in homicides since 2000 based on numbers from the F.B.I.'s UCRs, you will find that 4% of homicides were committed with a rifle. Not an "assault rifle," just a "rifle." In comparison, shotguns account for an average of 18%, with approximately 16% being unidentified. The remainder are handguns. It is about government control.

 

[chickened]

If a ridiculous argument is presented that is against restrictions on guns, I am quick to point it out. So, in the case where an argument that may be in favor of restrictions is put forward, I should be just as fast to object to that if it too is ridiculous. I must say that I do not think that tranquilizer guns are an answer. To make my position very clear, I am a strong advocate of gun ownership by individuals and a believer that the second amendment applies to individuals. That said, where I see most of the gun advocates going wrong in their arguments is their failure to recognize that it is obvious that the second amendment permits some restrictions on the right to own and use firearms. That was obvious back in colonial times where at the time of the writing of the constitution there were permitted restrictions on firearm ownership. That permitted type of restriction continued right up until very modern times when Justice Scalia (one of the most conservative Justices on the Court) said in his opinion in Heller vs. DC that "undoubtedly the second amendment permits some restrictions on firearms". So, all your screaming that the second amendment is the absolute word and can not be restricted in any way is just nonsense. The right to own and use firearms is not one of the inalienable rights granted by God, but was merely a right granted by the Constitution and despite some of your childish previous retorts to that premise, it is an absolute truth.

If and I say if you are correct than the 2nd amendment or an additional amendment is where those changes belong... not in executive orders or laws that curtail that right.

I am in no way obligated to explain why I want a certain weapon than Rosa Parks was obligated to tell why she wanted to sit where she wanted too. Nobody is obligated to explain or justify a right especially one you are given and guaranteed.

 

[chickened]

We are going from the sublime to the ridiculous....AND Edward, we all know that criminals do not obey the law. That is why they are called criminals. What I am prepared to do is make it harder for them to get their criminal hands on certain weapons. Will some of the more novel criminal still be able to get their hands on them anyway....YES, of course but that does not change the argument on iota. Get used to the FACT that it is permissible to enact certain restrictions on gun use and ownership and some of those restrictions are coming to your town despite the protestations of some ignorant sheriff who has as much meaning and clout as bad gas in a windstorm.

I will ask then how exactly will you accomplish said endeavor? and not infringe upon my right? or do it by not reducing my right to a mere privelage? And how will the gun cops collect said weapons without infringing on the 4th and possible other amendments? I really would like to hear your plan.

 

[chickened]

As far as I am concerned when the government comes along and convinces people through activism or however they manage to get someone to give up part or all of a right is no different than what happenned in Germany prior to WWll but instead of us burning books gladly we will be burning our guns gladly in piles in the middle of the streets.


I vaguely remember the government through activism having gun buyback programs that were miserable failures.

A man with a weapon is a citizen, and man without a weapon is a subject.

Free men do not need permission to bear arms.