| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/02/2012 08:17:23 AM · #476 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Seems to be a case for eliminating all guns then hmm? If you are so worried about criminals with guns you should wear a bulletproof vest or take some Krav Maga classes. ;)
The idea of having a gun to combat criminals doesn't even work in cases like this. Are you going to carry your gun 24/7 because perhaps there will be a psycho at the movie theater? No way. Keep it in your house, I don't care. Don't bring it on the street. |
This position is what fuels those who are on the oppisite side of this. "Eliminate all guns". |
|
|
|
08/02/2012 08:19:37 AM · #477 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
I would just like to bring attention to the fact that bombs are illegal. However, that didn't stop the Colorado shooter from wiring his home to blow using homemade bombs.
Again, the problem isn't the laws governing guns, its the criminals that obtain them. Even if laws make the firearms most likely to kill large numbers of people illegal, the criminals do not follow laws. You will only be disarming law abiding citizens. |
The fact that criminals do illegal things (the definition of criminal) is a ridiculous argument against making those things illegal. Shall we also legalize cocaine and murder because criminals will continue anyway? Guns are used in defense of violent crime something like .02% of the time compared to 40% of homicides and 55% of suicides (let alone the percentage of crimes that didn't result in homicide because a gun wasn't handy). Effective gun control disproportionately affects those much larger percentages while the effect on self defense is statistically zilch. |
Not according to John Lott and his book More Guns Less Crime. |
|
|
|
08/02/2012 08:23:33 AM · #478 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I love my ar-15 and it is a great hunting rifle |
Just out how mean and fast are the critters you hunt down there.
My dad fed a family of 13 with deer, moose, rabbits and a host of other critters and he rarely went into the bush with more than three bullets.
I asked him about that one day and he replied that if he couldn't hit his target with three bullets he really did not belong in the bush.
Ray |
I suspect your father was raised with a respect for his firearm and practiced safe use/handling. Marksmanship (being able to hit what you are shooting at) takes proper training and practice. Both things the NRA advocates. |
|
|
|
08/02/2012 08:31:23 AM · #479 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
What do you mean by 'effective gun control'? |
What do you think I mean? Common sense approaches. The automatic weapons ban that several have noted is already in place (without ranting about how their rights were taken away) was a good start. Complete bans on extended magazines, armor piercing and hollow point bullets should be similarly non-controversial. The assault weapons ban was not so effective because it restricted guns by cosmetic appearance (dumb) and date of manufacture (as if earlier or later assault weapons were harmless). A law that actually bans military-type assault weapons by design and purpose makes more sense, and those are not required for self defense or sport. Existing laws banning sales to felons are not consistently backed with checks or enforcement, and thanks to the NRA, violent criminals may petition for "relief" from the "disability" of not owning guns. Again, dumb. The same background check requirements for guns should apply to ammunition and body armor, too. If a photo ID is such a critical requirement for casting a vote, then we can ask at least that much for purchasing weaponry. |
We actually aren't that far apart here. The area of difference would be hollowpoint bullets. Their effectiveness against assailants is too great to restrict from lawful civilian use. I have no problem with requiring identification for the purchase of ammunition, body armor, etc. And it should be required at ALL voting locations. |
|
|
|
08/02/2012 08:34:45 AM · #480 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I love my ar-15 and it is a great hunting rifle |
Some people like fishing with dynamite. It is a very quick way to get many fish. |
I do a lot of fishing. More fishing than photography. Never seen anyone use dynamite. Actually thought it was restricted and illegal to use for fishing. An AR15 for hunting praire dogs, coyotes, woodchucks, on the other hand has been done many times. Several states have magazine capacity restrictions when hunting - even with an AR15. |
|
|
|
08/02/2012 09:00:32 AM · #481 |
Holmes doctor
Reads to me as though there was mounting evidence as to his psychological state and enough concern to predict the outcome or at least something similar.
So was it the gun or the person? |
|
|
|
08/02/2012 09:12:18 AM · #482 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
soon after was when I purchased my first handgun. |
With that move, the odds of you dying by gunfire went up, not down. Gun sales have spiked in Colorado, too. Don't let fear of the irrational cloud your sound judgement. |
Tuche. But it's not the fear of the irrational that drives the sales. For me, I just saw what an armed person could do against an unarmed person. It's a matter of who you trust to protect yourself. Do you trust your self, or do you trust the government to protect you?
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
I wonder what is more prevalent, a gun owner legally using a weapon to defend himself or ward off a perpetrator... or a mass killing. |
If mass killing means more than one person killed in the incident, then the answer is very likely mass killing by a wide margin. Again, criminals disobeying the law and rare use for positive purposes is not a sound argument. Criminals also found another way to bring down airliners, and knives may be used for cutting horrid airline food, but we still have reason to restrict guns and knives on planes. |
I think we can only speculate which is more prevalent. I had a difficult time finding any evidence for rates of either in a quick search. However, I am positive that the vast majority of defensive actions involving weapons are undocumented or not publicly reported.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
What do you mean by 'effective gun control'? |
What do you think I mean? Common sense approaches. The automatic weapons ban that several have noted is already in place (without ranting about how their rights were taken away) was a good start. Complete bans on extended magazines, armor piercing and hollow point bullets should be similarly non-controversial. The assault weapons ban was not so effective because it restricted guns by cosmetic appearance (dumb) and date of manufacture (as if earlier or later assault weapons were harmless). A law that actually bans military-type assault weapons by design and purpose makes more sense, and those are not required for self defense or sport... |
What "automatic weapons ban" are you talking about? I was not able to find the Act that you refer to. I was able to find the "Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act" (AKA: Federal Assault Weapons Ban), but that expired on March 2, 2004 because there was no evidence that it helped anything. The National Research Council panel noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."
Hollow tips are considered good defensive rounds because of their stopping power. Instead of requiring a spray of a few bullets, an intruder can often be stopped with one. That lessens the likelihood of collateral damage. They also break up better when going through walls than an FMJ, further reducing effects of collateral damage. Actually, contrary to intuition, one of the safest home-defense weapons is a shot gun.
As I understand it, automatic weapons can still be owned by civilians, but they require special licenses depending on the state you are in. Honestly, I am not completely versed on the subject, but if you are, please explain.
Originally posted by scalvert:
...Existing laws banning sales to felons are not consistently backed with checks or enforcement, and thanks to the NRA, violent criminals may petition for "relief" from the "disability" of not owning guns. Again, dumb. The same background check requirements for guns should apply to ammunition and body armor, too. If a photo ID is such a critical requirement for casting a vote, then we can ask at least that much for purchasing weaponry.
I have no problem with the right to bear arms, but literally half of the entire world's privately owned firearms are in this country, and we have become the supermarket of choice for drug lords and gangs. Those are not sane conditions for protection nor necessary to maintain the 2nd amendment. |
I agree that all weapons sales should be approved by background checks. When I purchased mine, my dealer had to call the state police gun sales division and check my background - no problem. I'm not so sure it's dumb to allow criminals to petition their ruling. That's a given right in the 1st amendment. However, the checks in order to approve a felon for gun ownership should be intense psychological evaluation presented in court with a ruling by a judge.
I'm not following the necessity for background checks for body armor or ammunition, nor am I following your last statement. Are you saying that because we have guns and drugs, that we should abandon the second amendment?
Seeing as you believe that fewer guns contributes to less crimes, can you explain this graphic? Sorry it's so large (couldn't find a smaller version)...
//www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/06/29/weekinreview/29liptak-grfk.html
Message edited by author 2012-08-02 09:19:59. |
|
|
|
08/02/2012 09:21:05 AM · #483 |
Originally posted by Flash:
to label a semi-automatic AR15 a "battlefield rifle" is simply not true. |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
"The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire assault rifle for the United States armed forces. Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt. The select-fire AR-15 entered the US military system as the M16 rifle. Colt then marketed the Colt AR-15 as a semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle for civilian sales in 1963"
With a bump stock it can fire 900 rounds per minuet, all perfectly legal. |
Originally posted by Flash:
Are we now in agreement that the M16 is the military "battlefield" rifle and the AR15 is the civilian semi-automatic version that functions like any other semi-automatic? |
How can you read Brennan's post and arrive at this conclusion?
The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire assault rifle for the United States armed forces.
It may not be the weapon of choice as a semi-automatic, but on no level was this rifle built as a civilian rifle.
It was designed and built to used to shoot people.
|
|
|
|
08/02/2012 09:37:35 AM · #484 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire assault rifle for the United States armed forces.
It may not be the weapon of choice as a semi-automatic, but on no level was this rifle built as a civilian rifle.
It was designed and built to used to shoot people. |
Following your logic, a musket must then be classified a battlefield rifle.
Message edited by author 2012-08-02 09:54:39. |
|
|
|
08/02/2012 09:44:24 AM · #485 |
Originally posted by Flash:
We actually aren't that far apart here. The area of difference would be hollowpoint bullets. Their effectiveness against assailants is too great to restrict from lawful civilian use. |
This is mind-boggling to me. "We shouldn't restrict civilian use of hollow-point bullets because they are SO good at killing and maiming targets." There's a reality disconnect here/.
R. |
|
|
|
08/02/2012 09:46:36 AM · #486 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Flash:
We actually aren't that far apart here. The area of difference would be hollowpoint bullets. Their effectiveness against assailants is too great to restrict from lawful civilian use. |
This is mind-boggling to me. "We shouldn't restrict civilian use of hollow-point bullets because they are SO good at killing and maiming targets." There's a reality disconnect here/.
R. |
Why do I get the feeling some of these people walk around their houses HOPING that someone breaks in? (or, if they have concealed carry permits, HOPING someone tries to mug them?)
Heck, I think some of them even hope someone approaches them in any way at all they could deem "worrying". |
|
|
|
08/02/2012 09:56:26 AM · #487 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
It's a matter of who you trust to protect yourself. Do you trust your self, or do you trust the government to protect you? |
Did you also buy a shoulder fired missile in case terrorist highjack an airplane?
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
I am positive that the vast majority of defensive actions involving weapons are undocumented or not publicly reported. |
I don't have time to find it now, but did see an earlier that guns are used in defense of crime .02% of the time. Given gangs, serial killers, family murder-suicides, drug activity and the like, I doubt it's even close.
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
I was able to find the "Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act" (AKA: Federal Assault Weapons Ban), but that expired on March 2, 2004 because there was no evidence that it helped anything. |
Of course not– the overwhelming majority of existing assault weapons were excluded, and the remainder were largely circumvented by manufactures making cosmetic changes to skirt the law.
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Hollow tips are considered good defensive rounds because of their stopping power. |
So are bazookas.
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
As I understand it, automatic weapons can still be owned by civilians, but they require special licenses depending on the state you are in. |
You are correct. I knew the assault weapons ban had expired, but thought automatic weapons were still off limits. Lovely.
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
I agree that all weapons sales should be approved by background checks. When I purchased mine, my dealer had to call the state police gun sales division and check my background - no problem. ...I'm not following the necessity for background checks for body armor or ammunition, nor am I following your last statement. Are you saying that because we have guns and drugs, that we should abandon the second amendment? |
If you have no problem with background checks for buying a gun, then why should background checks for ammunition or body armor be any different?
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Seeing as you believe that fewer guns contributes to less crimes, can you explain this graphic? |
Sure, it's a post hoc causation fallacy. Gun control is a necessary condition for reducing violent crime, but insufficient on its own. A similar situation existed in Rio de Janiero, and an effective gun control program combined with programs to reduce poverty, gangs and drugs has since reduced the violence there dramatically. |
|
|
|
08/02/2012 09:59:33 AM · #488 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Why do I get the feeling some of these people walk around their houses HOPING that someone breaks in? (or, if they have concealed carry permits, HOPING someone tries to mug them?)
Heck, I think some of them even hope someone approaches them in any way at all they could deem "worrying". |
Edward, meet George Zimmerman. |
|
|
|
08/02/2012 10:28:16 AM · #489 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Flash:
We actually aren't that far apart here. The area of difference would be hollowpoint bullets. Their effectiveness against assailants is too great to restrict from lawful civilian use. |
This is mind-boggling to me. "We shouldn't restrict civilian use of hollow-point bullets because they are SO good at killing and maiming targets." There's a reality disconnect here/.
R. |
Why do I get the feeling some of these people walk around their houses HOPING that someone breaks in? (or, if they have concealed carry permits, HOPING someone tries to mug them?)
Heck, I think some of them even hope someone approaches them in any way at all they could deem "worrying". |
I suggest you read Massad Ayoob's book titled In The Gravest Extreme. In it he describes in detail the consequences of using a firearm in self defense and the liabilities associated with it. It should be required reading for anyone choosing to arm themselves. Those who take this matter as seriously as I do, have done this kind of reserarch and have availed themselves of this level of training. If you understood that, then your statement would seem both un-necessary and inappropriate. |
|
|
|
08/02/2012 10:28:20 AM · #490 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Why do I get the feeling some of these people walk around their houses HOPING that someone breaks in? (or, if they have concealed carry permits, HOPING someone tries to mug them?)
Heck, I think some of them even hope someone approaches them in any way at all they could deem "worrying". |
Why would anyone hope to be attacked? Train and prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
It's a matter of who you trust to protect yourself. Do you trust your self, or do you trust the government to protect you? |
Did you also buy a shoulder fired missile in case terrorist highjack an airplane? |
Now you're just being silly. Missiles are illegal to own. The government is set up to fight our wars in order to protect our individual rights. They cannot however protect every individual against crimes. The majority of police work is not in preventing crime, but in documenting it for trial.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
I am positive that the vast majority of defensive actions involving weapons are undocumented or not publicly reported. |
I don't have time to find it now, but did see an earlier that guns are used in defense of crime .02% of the time. Given gangs, serial killers, family murder-suicides, drug activity and the like, I doubt it's even close. |
It would be interesting to see the evidence... but there is no way to know how many open carrying citizens have prevented crimes from occurring by merely being seen while a location was being cased by a criminal. Same thing as an ADT logo in your hedges.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
I was able to find the "Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act" (AKA: Federal Assault Weapons Ban), but that expired on March 2, 2004 because there was no evidence that it helped anything. |
Of course not– the overwhelming majority of existing assault weapons were excluded, and the remainder were largely circumvented by manufactures making cosmetic changes to skirt the law. |
In the United States, the federal government is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution and the states are prohibited from the same by clause 1 of Article I, section 10.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Hollow tips are considered good defensive rounds because of their stopping power. |
So are bazookas. |
You ignored the rest of a sound argument.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
I agree that all weapons sales should be approved by background checks. When I purchased mine, my dealer had to call the state police gun sales division and check my background - no problem. ...I'm not following the necessity for background checks for body armor or ammunition, nor am I following your last statement. Are you saying that because we have guns and drugs, that we should abandon the second amendment? |
If you have no problem with background checks for buying a gun, then why should background checks for ammunition or body armor be any different? |
I actually believe many states do require extensive background checks to purchase level II+ body armor. Ammunition is a bit silly though, plus you'd be forcing people to buy in high quantities due to the regulation. You'd be inviting gun owners to do what scared so many people about the Colorado shooter.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Seeing as you believe that fewer guns contributes to less crimes, can you explain this graphic? |
Sure, it's a post hoc causation fallacy. Gun control is a necessary condition for reducing violent crime, but insufficient on its own. A similar situation existed in Rio de Janiero, and an effective gun control program combined with programs to reduce poverty, gangs and drugs has since reduced the violence there dramatically. |
So we agree that there are many other factors into crime levels, other than the number of guns. There is no direct or simple relationship between number of guns (or gun regulations) and crime rates. |
|
|
|
08/02/2012 10:31:57 AM · #491 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Flash:
We actually aren't that far apart here. The area of difference would be hollowpoint bullets. Their effectiveness against assailants is too great to restrict from lawful civilian use. |
This is mind-boggling to me. "We shouldn't restrict civilian use of hollow-point bullets because they are SO good at killing and maiming targets." There's a reality disconnect here/.
R. |
Why do I get the feeling some of these people walk around their houses HOPING that someone breaks in? (or, if they have concealed carry permits, HOPING someone tries to mug them?)
Heck, I think some of them even hope someone approaches them in any way at all they could deem "worrying". |
I suggest you read Massad Ayoob's book titled In The Gravest Extreme. In it he describes in detail the consequences of using a firearm in self defense and the liabilities associated with it. It should be required reading for anyone choosing to arm themselves. Those who take this matter as seriously as I do, have done this kind of reserarch and have availed themselves of this level of training. If you understood that, then your statement would seem both un-necessary and inappropriate. |
Unfortunately, I know too many people in real life that are about as far from this level of gun-ownership as you can get, while still owning a gun. This is an exception, not a rule. The salivation that goes on when I have to sit and listen to people talk about their precious babies (guns) and how they would use them on a would be 'attacker' is above and beyond. I get the same vibe from various factions on here.
It's one thing to want to be prepared for the worst. It's another when it becomes all-encompassing to your life. |
|
|
|
08/02/2012 10:33:09 AM · #492 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Flash:
We actually aren't that far apart here. The area of difference would be hollowpoint bullets. Their effectiveness against assailants is too great to restrict from lawful civilian use. |
This is mind-boggling to me. "We shouldn't restrict civilian use of hollow-point bullets because they are SO good at killing and maiming targets." There's a reality disconnect here/.
R. |
I can only conclude that you have little knowledge about defensive tactics nor the liabilities associated with them. Hollowpoint bullets are designed to transfer their energy into their target thus remaining inside the target and not endangering innocents via "pass throughs". Your disdain for the use of force against an assailant is perfectably acceptable to me for you personally. I bristle however, when you imply that I cannot have that level of personal protection for myself. |
|
|
|
08/02/2012 10:39:04 AM · #493 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Flash:
We actually aren't that far apart here. The area of difference would be hollowpoint bullets. Their effectiveness against assailants is too great to restrict from lawful civilian use. |
This is mind-boggling to me. "We shouldn't restrict civilian use of hollow-point bullets because they are SO good at killing and maiming targets." There's a reality disconnect here/.
R. |
Why do I get the feeling some of these people walk around their houses HOPING that someone breaks in? (or, if they have concealed carry permits, HOPING someone tries to mug them?)
Heck, I think some of them even hope someone approaches them in any way at all they could deem "worrying". |
I suggest you read Massad Ayoob's book titled In The Gravest Extreme. In it he describes in detail the consequences of using a firearm in self defense and the liabilities associated with it. It should be required reading for anyone choosing to arm themselves. Those who take this matter as seriously as I do, have done this kind of reserarch and have availed themselves of this level of training. If you understood that, then your statement would seem both un-necessary and inappropriate. |
Unfortunately, I know too many people in real life that are about as far from this level of gun-ownership as you can get, while still owning a gun. This is an exception, not a rule. The salivation that goes on when I have to sit and listen to people talk about their precious babies (guns) and how they would use them on a would be 'attacker' is above and beyond. I get the same vibe from various factions on here.
It's one thing to want to be prepared for the worst. It's another when it becomes all-encompassing to your life. |
And I know drivers that shouldn't drive and cooks that should't cook. Surgeons that shouldn't perform surgery and politicians that shouldn't run for office. However, the NRA has a long standing committment to training and safe use of firearms. More persons should avail themselves of this including the Eddie the Eagle program for youngsters in school. |
|
|
|
08/02/2012 10:44:19 AM · #494 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Flash:
We actually aren't that far apart here. The area of difference would be hollowpoint bullets. Their effectiveness against assailants is too great to restrict from lawful civilian use. |
This is mind-boggling to me. "We shouldn't restrict civilian use of hollow-point bullets because they are SO good at killing and maiming targets." There's a reality disconnect here/.
R. |
Why do I get the feeling some of these people walk around their houses HOPING that someone breaks in? (or, if they have concealed carry permits, HOPING someone tries to mug them?)
Heck, I think some of them even hope someone approaches them in any way at all they could deem "worrying". |
I suggest you read Massad Ayoob's book titled In The Gravest Extreme. In it he describes in detail the consequences of using a firearm in self defense and the liabilities associated with it. It should be required reading for anyone choosing to arm themselves. Those who take this matter as seriously as I do, have done this kind of reserarch and have availed themselves of this level of training. If you understood that, then your statement would seem both un-necessary and inappropriate. |
Unfortunately, I know too many people in real life that are about as far from this level of gun-ownership as you can get, while still owning a gun. This is an exception, not a rule. The salivation that goes on when I have to sit and listen to people talk about their precious babies (guns) and how they would use them on a would be 'attacker' is above and beyond. I get the same vibe from various factions on here.
It's one thing to want to be prepared for the worst. It's another when it becomes all-encompassing to your life. |
And I know drivers that shouldn't drive and cooks that should't cook. Surgeons that shouldn't perform surgery and politicians that shouldn't run for office. However, the NRA has a long standing committment to training and safe use of firearms. More persons should avail themselves of this including the Eddie the Eagle program for youngsters in school. |
I'm also a proponent of FAR stricter standards for driving, and bad cooks don't go around hoping that someone attacks them in their kitchen so they can slap them with a string of spaghetti. You're living an idealist dream here. The reality is that guns are too readily available and people aren't going to take the time to train themselves properly. Especially if the attitude is "you better protect yourself from EEEVVVIIILL!!!" People make snap-decisions in repsonse to scary situations, and we end up with a society full of jumpy gun-toting soccer parents itching to kill the bad guys. Not a recipe I particularly enjoy. I'd rather have a bit of food poisoning, thank you ;) |
|
|
|
08/02/2012 10:52:45 AM · #495 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Flash:
We actually aren't that far apart here. The area of difference would be hollowpoint bullets. Their effectiveness against assailants is too great to restrict from lawful civilian use. |
This is mind-boggling to me. "We shouldn't restrict civilian use of hollow-point bullets because they are SO good at killing and maiming targets." There's a reality disconnect here/.
R. |
Why do I get the feeling some of these people walk around their houses HOPING that someone breaks in? (or, if they have concealed carry permits, HOPING someone tries to mug them?)
Heck, I think some of them even hope someone approaches them in any way at all they could deem "worrying". |
I suggest you read Massad Ayoob's book titled In The Gravest Extreme. In it he describes in detail the consequences of using a firearm in self defense and the liabilities associated with it. It should be required reading for anyone choosing to arm themselves. Those who take this matter as seriously as I do, have done this kind of reserarch and have availed themselves of this level of training. If you understood that, then your statement would seem both un-necessary and inappropriate. |
Unfortunately, I know too many people in real life that are about as far from this level of gun-ownership as you can get, while still owning a gun. This is an exception, not a rule. The salivation that goes on when I have to sit and listen to people talk about their precious babies (guns) and how they would use them on a would be 'attacker' is above and beyond. I get the same vibe from various factions on here.
It's one thing to want to be prepared for the worst. It's another when it becomes all-encompassing to your life. |
And I know drivers that shouldn't drive and cooks that should't cook. Surgeons that shouldn't perform surgery and politicians that shouldn't run for office. However, the NRA has a long standing committment to training and safe use of firearms. More persons should avail themselves of this including the Eddie the Eagle program for youngsters in school. |
I'm also a proponent of FAR stricter standards for driving, and bad cooks don't go around hoping that someone attacks them in their kitchen so they can slap them with a string of spaghetti. You're living an idealist dream here. The reality is that guns are too readily available and people aren't going to take the time to train themselves properly. Especially if the attitude is "you better protect yourself from EEEVVVIIILL!!!" People make snap-decisions in repsonse to scary situations, and we end up with a society full of jumpy gun-toting soccer parents itching to kill the bad guys. Not a recipe I particularly enjoy. I'd rather have a bit of food poisoning, thank you ;) |
Except the evidence contradicts your hype. Every state that enacted "shall issue" language for carry permits, saw the same argument prior to passage, yet no state that has legal civilian carry has seen this play out. Crime went down and no mass reactive/overreaction by those carrying. The evidence says your concern is without merit. |
|
|
|
08/02/2012 10:55:33 AM · #496 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Flash:
We actually aren't that far apart here. The area of difference would be hollowpoint bullets. Their effectiveness against assailants is too great to restrict from lawful civilian use. |
This is mind-boggling to me. "We shouldn't restrict civilian use of hollow-point bullets because they are SO good at killing and maiming targets." There's a reality disconnect here/.
R. |
Why do I get the feeling some of these people walk around their houses HOPING that someone breaks in? (or, if they have concealed carry permits, HOPING someone tries to mug them?)
Heck, I think some of them even hope someone approaches them in any way at all they could deem "worrying". |
I suggest you read Massad Ayoob's book titled In The Gravest Extreme. In it he describes in detail the consequences of using a firearm in self defense and the liabilities associated with it. It should be required reading for anyone choosing to arm themselves. Those who take this matter as seriously as I do, have done this kind of reserarch and have availed themselves of this level of training. If you understood that, then your statement would seem both un-necessary and inappropriate. |
Unfortunately, I know too many people in real life that are about as far from this level of gun-ownership as you can get, while still owning a gun. This is an exception, not a rule. The salivation that goes on when I have to sit and listen to people talk about their precious babies (guns) and how they would use them on a would be 'attacker' is above and beyond. I get the same vibe from various factions on here.
It's one thing to want to be prepared for the worst. It's another when it becomes all-encompassing to your life. |
And I know drivers that shouldn't drive and cooks that should't cook. Surgeons that shouldn't perform surgery and politicians that shouldn't run for office. However, the NRA has a long standing committment to training and safe use of firearms. More persons should avail themselves of this including the Eddie the Eagle program for youngsters in school. |
I'm also a proponent of FAR stricter standards for driving, and bad cooks don't go around hoping that someone attacks them in their kitchen so they can slap them with a string of spaghetti. You're living an idealist dream here. The reality is that guns are too readily available and people aren't going to take the time to train themselves properly. Especially if the attitude is "you better protect yourself from EEEVVVIIILL!!!" People make snap-decisions in repsonse to scary situations, and we end up with a society full of jumpy gun-toting soccer parents itching to kill the bad guys. Not a recipe I particularly enjoy. I'd rather have a bit of food poisoning, thank you ;) |
Except the evidence contradicts your hype. Every state that enacted "shall issue" language for carry permits, saw the same argument prior to passage, yet no state that has legal civilian carry has seen this play out. Crime went down and no mass reactive/overreaction by those carrying. The evidence says your concern is without merit. |
Crime went down? Correlation data? I'm more wont to believe that the situation is that the threat doesn't exist to begin with, on the scale that people that want guns to 'protect' themselves wish themselves to believe it does :) |
|
|
|
08/02/2012 11:04:12 AM · #497 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Flash:
to label a semi-automatic AR15 a "battlefield rifle" is simply not true. |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
"The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire assault rifle for the United States armed forces. Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt. The select-fire AR-15 entered the US military system as the M16 rifle. Colt then marketed the Colt AR-15 as a semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle for civilian sales in 1963"
With a bump stock it can fire 900 rounds per minuet, all perfectly legal. |
Originally posted by Flash:
Are we now in agreement that the M16 is the military "battlefield" rifle and the AR15 is the civilian semi-automatic version that functions like any other semi-automatic? |
How can you read Brennan's post and arrive at this conclusion?
The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire assault rifle for the United States armed forces.
It may not be the weapon of choice as a semi-automatic, but on no level was this rifle built as a civilian rifle.
It was designed and built to used to shoot people. |
Sometimes you truly are clueless. Please read the Wikipedia references to the AR15. It is today and has been since 1963 a civilian semi-automatic rifle. NOT a battlefield rifle. To claim that an AR15 is a battlefield rifle is to limit the scope and definition to that small percentage of original Armalites. That is not how I read Brennan's post about AR15's as being battlefield rifles nor his reply post. Thus, by him quoting the Wikipedia references to the military M16 (as I stated) and the semi-automatic version produced since 1963 being the AR15, the AR15 cannot be classified a "battlefield fully automatic assault" rifle. |
|
|
|
08/02/2012 11:08:39 AM · #498 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Crime went down? Correlation data? I'm more wont to believe that the situation is that the threat doesn't exist to begin with, on the scale that people that want guns to 'protect' themselves wish themselves to believe it does :) |
Please review John Lott's book More Guns Less Crime, or visit NRA websites that carry the data. Its there and irrefutable - regardless of what HCI or others say. You don't have to believe it. You can even ignore it. But that doesn't change the fact that in the 38 states that have enacted concealed carry for civilians, none have turned into this frenzied reactionary shoot 'em up, that you claim will happen. The evidence is not there.
eta: you may want to check back in post #462 and John Lotts article regarding mass shootings. With one exception (Gabby Giffords Shopping Center incident), every mass shooting has been at a location that prohibited firearms. Perhaps just coincidence.
Message edited by author 2012-08-02 11:22:00. |
|
|
|
08/02/2012 02:09:45 PM · #499 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire assault rifle for the United States armed forces.
It may not be the weapon of choice as a semi-automatic, but on no level was this rifle built as a civilian rifle.
It was designed and built to used to shoot people. |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Following your logic, a musket must then be classified a battlefield rifle. |
From dictionary.com:a heavy, large-caliber smoothbore gun for infantry soldiers, introduced in the 16th century: the predecessor of the modern rifle.
So what's your point?
|
|
|
|
08/02/2012 02:33:59 PM · #500 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
As I understand it, automatic weapons can still be owned by civilians, but they require special licenses depending on the state you are in. |
You are correct. I knew the assault weapons ban had expired, but thought automatic weapons were still off limits. Lovely. |
They are. Except...All NFA items must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Private owners wishing to purchase an NFA item must obtain approval from the ATF, obtain a signature from the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) who is the county sheriff or city or town chief of police (not necessarily permission), pass an extensive background check to include submitting a photograph and fingerprints, fully register the firearm, receive ATF written permission before moving the firearm across state lines, and pay a tax. The request to transfer ownership of an NFA item is made on an ATF Form 4.[14] Many times law enforcement officers will not sign the NFA documents. There have been several unfavorable lawsuits where plaintiffs have been denied NFA approval for a transfer. These lawsuit include; Lomont v. O'Neill 2002 9th circuit, Westfall v. Miller 1996 5th circuit, and Steele v. National Firearms Branch 1985 11th circuit. In response Tennessee and Alaska have passed state laws which require the CLEO to execute the NFA documents. On October 28, 2010 in response to a writ of mandamus a Tennessee Williamson County Chancellor Robbie Beal found that the sheriff or CLEO is not required to execute NFA documents according to Tenn. Code Ann. 39-17-1361.
For civilian possession, all machineguns must have been manufactured and registered with the ATF prior to May 19, 1986 to be transferable between citizens. These machinegun prices have drastically escalated in value, especially items like registered sears and conversion-kits. Only a Class-II manufacturer (a FFL holder licensed to manufacture firearms or Type-07 license that has paid a Special Occupational Tax Stamp or SOT) could manufacture machineguns after that date, and they can only be sold to Government, law-enforcement, and military entities. Transfer can only be done to other SOT FFL-holders, and such FFL-holders must have a “demonstration letter” from a respective Government agency to receive such machineguns. Falsification and/or misuse of the “demo-letter” process can and has resulted in long jail sentences and felony convictions for violators.
so technically a civilian can own a fully automatic assault weapon, however the process to obtain it is long, arduous and repleat with documentation, photo identification, signature approvals, background checks, special taxes, etc.
NFA firearms
Message edited by author 2012-08-02 14:43:28. |
|
