|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
markinOhio 
Group: Members
Posts: 354
Joined: Feb. 2005
|
 |
Posted on: Jan. 12 2013, 12:31 pm |
|
   |
The 2nd Amendment aside, I think that everyone has a right to defend themselves and their family. A gun is the ultimate equalizer with regard to self-defense (90lb 90 year-old grandmother could defend herself and her grandchildren with a gun from a 6’9” 350lb maniac). I concede that there should be limits to the weapons available to individuals (granny really should not have a nuclear weapon). There needs to be a balance between the weapons available for an individual to adequately defend themselves, and the weapons potential to be use offensively. Denying law-abiding citizens access to a class of weapons to protect themselves should not be a trivial matter. It should not be a rushed decision based solely on emotion and fear. There should be some factual basis that a weapons potential to be used defensively is outweighed by the danger of it being used offensively.
Just because the President (or anyone else) calls a ban on assault weapons a common sense approach, does not automatically justify banning such weapons as a logical approach.
1) Where is the evidence that banning assault rifles would result in less mass shootings or limit the number of causalities?
2) Where is the evidence that the potential for these weapons to be used offensively outweighs their potential to be use defensively?
Some data:
Rifles in general (not just the scary looking assault rifles) account for a very small number of homicides. In 2011 there were 323 homicides committed by a rifle.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-u....table-8
Mass shootings are extremely rare. In 2011 there were 3 mass shootings.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice....bile=nc
Of those, only one involved a rifle.
Seal Beach = Handguns
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Seal_Beach_shooting
Ihop = Rifle & Handgun
http://www.ktvn.com/story/15622790/ihop-weapons-information-released
Tucson = Handgun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting
The FBI estimated a total of 1,203,564 violent crimes in that year.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-u....t-crime
So, in 2011:
Even assuming that an assault rifle ban was 100% effective, there was only a single incidence where the potential for casualties may have been decreased. However, since the individual hand multiple weapons, and was sophisticated enough to obtain a weapon that was modified to be fully automatic, I think that it is a stretch of logic to assume that a ban would have even had any significant impact on the outcome.
Is this one incidence of violence among 1,203,564 logically enough to justify banning a class of weapons that also have the potential to be used defensively?
Based on the FBI numbers, would a ban be a common sense solution, or knee jerk reaction based solely on emotions and fear, but devoid of any logic or reason?
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
gunslinger
Group: Members
Posts: 6024
Joined: Mar. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 12 2013, 12:41 pm |
|
 |
That's the world we live in. Legalize mind altering substances and ban firearms.
No political objections if you're stoned all the time, and no need to fight back. If you're not stoned, then take the guns and there is no way to fight back.
--------------
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
ScotH
Group: Members
Posts: 1693
Joined: Feb. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 12 2013, 12:51 pm |
|
|
Define a "gun nut". Would that be anyone who owns a firearm? I own four rifles and a shotgun each has a specific hunting purpose. From your perspective am I a gun nut?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
ScotH
Group: Members
Posts: 1693
Joined: Feb. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 12 2013, 1:08 pm |
|
|
I was just looking to have an understanding of the mind set of someone I may be involved in a conversation with.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
gunslinger
Group: Members
Posts: 6024
Joined: Mar. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 12 2013, 1:10 pm |
|
|
(HighGravity @ Jan. 12 2013, 12:56 pm)
QUOTE
(ScotH @ Jan. 12 2013, 12:51 pm)
QUOTE Define a "gun nut". Would that be anyone who owns a firearm? Of course not. It's someone who cringes at the idea of any measure of gun control, like Slinger.
I'm all for gun control. Keep practicing until you can hit your target. If you can't hit your target it's lack of gun control.
If you're talking about registering firearms I'm against that. Registration leads to confiscation.
If you're talking about banning autoloading semi-automatic rifles I'm opposed to that as it servers no purpose other than control. Same with magazines.
There are already restrictions on the adjudicated mentally ill. I suspect if you try to take the rights of people not adjudicated mentally ill the ACLU might not like that.
I don't own any firearms that would be affected by the ban. This isn't about guns it's about liberty.
I'm not a "gun nut", I'm a "liberty nut".
DON'T TREAD ON ME.
--------------
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
HighGravity
Group: Members
Posts: 2322
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 12 2013, 1:11 pm |
|
|
(gunslinger @ Jan. 12 2013, 1:10 pm)
QUOTE
(HighGravity @ Jan. 12 2013, 12:56 pm)
QUOTE
(ScotH @ Jan. 12 2013, 12:51 pm)
QUOTE Define a "gun nut". Would that be anyone who owns a firearm? Of course not. It's someone who cringes at the idea of any measure of gun control, like Slinger. I'm all for gun control. Keep practicing until you can hit your target. If you can't hit your target it's lack of gun control. If you're talking about registering firearms I'm against that. Registration leads to confiscation. If you're talking about banning autoloading semi-automatic rifles I'm opposed to that as it servers no purpose other than control. Same with magazines. There are already restrictions on the adjudicated mentally ill. I suspect if you try to take the rights of people not adjudicated mentally ill the ACLU might not like that. I don't own any firearms that would be affected by the ban. This isn't about guns it's about liberty. I'm not a "gun nut", I'm a "liberty nut". DON'T TREAD ON ME.
See what I mean?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
hbfa
Group: Members
Posts: 7073
Joined: Feb. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 12 2013, 1:17 pm |
|
|
(HighGravity @ Jan. 12 2013, 9:56 am)
QUOTE
(ScotH @ Jan. 12 2013, 12:51 pm)
QUOTE Define a "gun nut". Would that be anyone who owns a firearm? Of course not. It's someone who cringes at the idea of any measure of gun control, like Slinger.
I don't opt for the term "gun-nut". I would describe them as unreasonable.
And the unreasonable fringe should essentially be ignored by the reasonable members of society.
Don't let the tail wag the dog.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
gunslinger
Group: Members
Posts: 6024
Joined: Mar. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 12 2013, 1:34 pm |
|
|
(hbfa @ Jan. 12 2013, 1:17 pm)
QUOTE
(HighGravity @ Jan. 12 2013, 9:56 am)
QUOTE
(ScotH @ Jan. 12 2013, 12:51 pm)
QUOTE Define a "gun nut". Would that be anyone who owns a firearm? Of course not. It's someone who cringes at the idea of any measure of gun control, like Slinger. I don't opt for the term "gun-nut". I would describe them as unreasonable. And the unreasonable fringe should essentially be ignored by the reasonable members of society. Don't let the tail wag the dog.
How many contracts have you read that use the term reasonable or unreasonable?
The term is subject to interpretation.
We already have very strict regulation regarding firearms and an entire alphabet agency to enforce them.
So, IMO, this is definitely a case of the tail wagging the dog, banning a firearm with an insignificant percentage of crime related to it.
--------------
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
gunslinger
Group: Members
Posts: 6024
Joined: Mar. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 12 2013, 1:41 pm |
|
|
(HighGravity @ Jan. 12 2013, 1:38 pm)
QUOTE
(gunslinger @ Jan. 12 2013, 1:34 pm)
QUOTE
We already have very strict regulation regarding firearms and an entire alphabet agency to enforce them. And yet it's the easiest thing in the world to buy one with no background check and not register it.
Okay, so enforce the law as written.
You seem to think passing more law would fix this? Criminals are not affected by such laws, only those who live by the law.
Failure to enforce the law seems to be a problem with this administration. Not just with firearms....
--------------
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
HighGravity
Group: Members
Posts: 2322
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 12 2013, 1:44 pm |
|
|
The law as written doesn't prohibit someone from buying a gun from their neighbor.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
HighGravity
Group: Members
Posts: 2322
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 12 2013, 1:59 pm |
|
|
You just made my point for me. Although I doubt you noticed.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
HighGravity
Group: Members
Posts: 2322
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 12 2013, 2:05 pm |
|
|
Nope. Why are you changing the topic? I said, "And yet it's the easiest thing in the world to buy one with no background check and not register it." You responded that we needed to enforce the law then. I pointed out there was no law prohibiting someone from buying a gun with no background check. You then went on a tear about your misunderstanding of the 2nd Amendment. So which is it? Do we need to enforce the law or do we need to pass additional laws?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
|
|
| Post Number: 19
|
HighGravity
Group: Members
Posts: 2322
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 12 2013, 3:21 pm |
|
|
Stick your fingers back in your ears. Oh wait, you already did.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 20
|
hbfa
Group: Members
Posts: 7073
Joined: Feb. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 12 2013, 6:06 pm |
|
|
(gunslinger @ Jan. 12 2013, 10:57 am)
QUOTE
(HighGravity @ Jan. 12 2013, 1:44 pm)
QUOTE The law as written doesn't prohibit someone from buying a gun from their neighbor. What part of "shall not be infringed" are you having trouble with?
Yeah, it comes a few words after "well regulated"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 21
|
Old Frank
Group: Members
Posts: 624
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 12 2013, 8:40 pm |
|
|
I'm asking a serious question, no sarcasm intended. I've owned a gun for over 60 years, have a CHL, and definitely do not consider somebody a lunatic just because they own a gun....(nor, by the way, does anybody else who's posting on this forum, from what I can tell).
Ignore, for the moment, most of the pro/con arguments regarding stricter gun controls.
Just focus on the family safety issue.
Do you believe your family would be less likely to be shot if every person in your neighborhood who could pass a background check purhased a bushmaster equipped with a high capacity magazine?
Or, do you believe your family would be more likely to be shot?
Why?
--------------
My favorite compliment: "GrandPa, I've seen other old men, and their faces are a whole lot cruddier than yours is".
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 22
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39533
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 12 2013, 9:02 pm |
|
|
Though "ban" has been the generator of much heat here in the forum and in the reporting on the current discussion, my observation ( largely the White house press briefings and the topics under discussion by VP Biden's group, Senator Boxer's suggestions) is the administration's approach is currently much more widespread (such gun nuts eh? Going for the fallacious like that) whether out of political pragmatism or a desire to effect changes they deem genuinely effective instead of going for a simple superficial photo-op time will probably reveal.
Possibly and, truth be told, hopefully the purists on both sides are going to be pissed. ( That'll keep this forum full for a while eh?  ) That's so often the mark of a decent effort IMHO.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 23
|
Three
.jpg)
Group: Members
Posts: 746
Joined: Dec. 2011
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 12 2013, 9:34 pm |
|
|
(Old Frank @ Jan. 12 2013, 8:40 pm)
QUOTE I'm asking a serious question, no sarcasm intended. I've owned a gun for over 60 years, have a CHL, and definitely do not consider somebody a lunatic just because they own a gun....(nor, by the way, does anybody else who's posting on this forum, from what I can tell).
Ignore, for the moment, most of the pro/con arguments regarding stricter gun controls.
Just focus on the family safety issue.
Do you believe your family would be less likely to be shot if every person in your neighborhood who could pass a background check purhased a bushmaster equipped with a high capacity magazine?
Or, do you believe your family would be more likely to be shot?
Why?
Frank,
I think there are some assumptions underlying your question that need to be unpacked.
To answer your question. Of course if there were no firearms it would be less likely for anyone to be shot.
But much of life seems to be a cost-benefit analysis. I disagree with the premise of some that there is no legitimate civilian purpose for firearms in general and semi automatic rifles in particular.
If no one drove in my neighborhood, there would be less of a chance one of my family would be hit by a car, if there were no swimming pools, there would be less of a chance anyone would drown there, and if there was no electricity there would be less of a chance anyone would be injured by electric shock.
We think in the final analysis though that these things are worth the risk so we keep them.
The Founders seemed to think that our people would be both freer and more secure, in the long run, with the right to keep firearms than without it.
And I think they were right.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 24
|
gunslinger
Group: Members
Posts: 6024
Joined: Mar. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 13 2013, 7:50 am |
|
|
(Old Frank @ Jan. 12 2013, 8:40 pm)
QUOTE I'm asking a serious question, no sarcasm intended. I've owned a gun for over 60 years, have a CHL, and definitely do not consider somebody a lunatic just because they own a gun....(nor, by the way, does anybody else who's posting on this forum, from what I can tell).
Ignore, for the moment, most of the pro/con arguments regarding stricter gun controls.
Just focus on the family safety issue.
Do you believe your family would be less likely to be shot if every person in your neighborhood who could pass a background check purhased a bushmaster equipped with a high capacity magazine?
Or, do you believe your family would be more likely to be shot?
Why?
IMO a family is safer from crime when more citizens are armed.
I assume every household in my area is armed. I hope the bad guys make the same assumption.
--------------
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 25
|
|
|
| Post Number: 26
|
|
|
| Post Number: 27
|
Old Frank
Group: Members
Posts: 624
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 13 2013, 8:31 am |
|
|
(Three @ Jan. 12 2013, 9:34 pm)
QUOTE
(Old Frank @ Jan. 12 2013, 8:40 pm)
QUOTE I'm asking a serious question, no sarcasm intended. I've owned a gun for over 60 years, have a CHL, and definitely do not consider somebody a lunatic just because they own a gun....(nor, by the way, does anybody else who's posting on this forum, from what I can tell).
Ignore, for the moment, most of the pro/con arguments regarding stricter gun controls.
Just focus on the family safety issue.
Do you believe your family would be less likely to be shot if every person in your neighborhood who could pass a background check purhased a bushmaster equipped with a high capacity magazine?
Or, do you believe your family would be more likely to be shot?
Why? Frank, I think there are some assumptions underlying your question that need to be unpacked. To answer your question. Of course if there were no firearms it would be less likely for anyone to be shot. But much of life seems to be a cost-benefit analysis. I disagree with the premise of some that there is no legitimate civilian purpose for firearms in general and semi automatic rifles in particular. If no one drove in my neighborhood, there would be less of a chance one of my family would be hit by a car, if there were no swimming pools, there would be less of a chance anyone would drown there, and if there was no electricity there would be less of a chance anyone would be injured by electric shock. We think in the final analysis though that these things are worth the risk so we keep them. The Founders seemed to think that our people would be both freer and more secure, in the long run, with the right to keep firearms than without it. And I think they were right.
Three, I agree with some of your comments.
My concern is not with guns in general; it is with certain types of guns.
Using the swimming pool analogy:
I am OK with all my neighbors owning pools specifically designed for swimming, even tho I know some risks exist.
But, I am not OK if they own pools that were specifically designed/engineered/built with the intent of drowning a lot of people in a short period of time....even if my neighbor is a good guy who promises to only use it for swimming.
--------------
My favorite compliment: "GrandPa, I've seen other old men, and their faces are a whole lot cruddier than yours is".
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 28
|
Montecresto
Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 13 2013, 8:34 am |
|
|
(hbfa @ Jan. 12 2013, 6:06 pm)
QUOTE
(gunslinger @ Jan. 12 2013, 10:57 am)
QUOTE
(HighGravity @ Jan. 12 2013, 1:44 pm)
QUOTE The law as written doesn't prohibit someone from buying a gun from their neighbor. What part of "shall not be infringed" are you having trouble with? Yeah, it comes a few words after "well regulated"
Uhem. Well regulated militia, not firearms!!
--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 29
|
BillBab
Group: Members
Posts: 4490
Joined: Sep. 2008
|
|
Posted on: Jan. 13 2013, 9:06 am |
|
|
What the "gun nuts" understand is that most of what is being pushed as "reasonable gun laws" is silly feel good legislation that will accomplish nothing more than to screw with law abiding gun owners.
Because unlike those on the other side , who are just nutz in general, gun owners are more or less immune to the efforts by the government propaganda machine (media) to scare the hell out of people.
All responsible gun owners support punishing those people that commit crimes with guns. They support making the govt actually put mental health data into the backgound check system
People have been whining about the "gun show loophole" for years but private transfers are not the major source of all illegal weapons that they would like you to believe
--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."
Thomas Sowell
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 30
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
