Stand Up For Your Rights - DPChallenge Forums

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/12/2013 05:04:45 PM · #51

Originally posted by Cory:

1. Calling a gun a "Human-killing machine" is akin to calling a camera a "Pornography creation device"

Isn't killing (or threatening to kill) humans the ultimate purpose of guns (handguns, at least)? Everything else is just practice for that.

08/12/2013 05:12:41 PM · #52

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Cory:
1. Calling a gun a "Human-killing machine" is akin to calling a camera a "Pornography creation device"

Isn't killing (or threatening to kill) humans the ultimate purpose of guns (handguns, at least)? Everything else is just practice for that.

No sir. I think the point of handguns is self-defense, the most desirable outcome would be that a potential attacker would see that a person is armed, and simply choose to look elsewhere. At worst, it is a 'Human killing machine', but that could well be said for any number of objects. Is a knife carried for self-defense and other purposes also immediately relegated to the status of 'Human killing machine'?

In fact, some people (me) own handguns simply for the pleasure of going out and shooting them. I'm FAR more likely to kill someone with my hands, or a convenient pipe, than I am to actually shoot anyone - simply because my guns aren't even immediately accessible. My girlfriend on the other hand is probably more likely to kill someone with a gun, simply because she weighs about 100lbs and would have a HELL of a time defending herself physically against an attacker. (although, she has had years of martial arts training, so she'd probably do OK at least...)..

So, yeah, her gun is indeed potentially a human killing machine, and that is exactly why I bought it for her. My guns are really more sentimental and recreational. My ONLY remaining handgun in fact is a very desirable and highly collectable Stainless Steel Colt .45 acp Gold Cup National Match that is worth four figures, and belonged to my Grandfather, it lives in my closet, buried fairly deeply behind a random assortment of things. To say that this thing is a 'Human killing machine' is really extremely silly - my cars are FAR more likely to be responsible for killing someone while in my control.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/12/2013 05:17:22 PM · #53

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Cory:
1. Calling a gun a "Human-killing machine" is akin to calling a camera a "Pornography creation device"

Isn't killing (or threatening to kill) humans the ultimate purpose of guns (handguns, at least)? Everything else is just practice for that.

No sir. I think the point of handguns is self-defense, the most desirable outcome would be that a potential attacker would see that a person is armed, and simply choose to look elsewhere.

Exactly -- you threaten to kill them and they back off. If they don't, you kill them.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

08/12/2013 05:20:23 PM · #54

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Cory:
1. Calling a gun a "Human-killing machine" is akin to calling a camera a "Pornography creation device"

Isn't killing (or threatening to kill) humans the ultimate purpose of guns (handguns, at least)? Everything else is just practice for that.

No sir. I think the point of handguns is self-defense, the most desirable outcome would be that a potential attacker would see that a person is armed, and simply choose to look elsewhere.

Exactly -- you threaten to kill them and they back off. If they don't, you kill them.

I threaten the same unarmed.

Armed, or unarmed - that threat is always in play with me. If you seek to harm me, I will absolutely take decisive 'corrective' action.

Surely you don't disagree that such a response is appropriate? And certainly you don't think that a gun is the factor that puts this threat into play? A person who is 'armed' with a vehicle is just as able to defend themselves as a person who is armed with firearm, and 3000lbs of steel is potentially even more lethal than 130 grains of lead.

Message edited by author 2013-08-12 17:26:40.

giantmike

Canon EOS R6

08/12/2013 05:46:34 PM · #55

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by giantmike:

For what it's worth, I do agree with many of your points, including the fact that the police were unnecessarily heavy handed in this case. But I believe they were within their rights to do so (based on their lack of knowledge as to what he was doing), just as much as the guy was within his rights to take photos of the building while carrying.

They were within reason, because they had a lack of knowledge as to what he was doing? That is really your argument here?

Cory, please re-read what I highlighted in bold. I clearly stated that I believe they were heavy handed. BUT, they also were within their rights.

Remember, having the right to do something doesn't mean doing that something is the right thing to do.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/12/2013 05:47:09 PM · #56

Quit trying to conflate the lethality of guns with cars -- we are talking about the primary purpose of the item. You can kill someone with just about anything, but only guns are made for the express purpose of doing so.

08/12/2013 05:48:17 PM · #57

Originally posted by giantmike:

Sorry Spork, but what I see from you is still more logical fallacies in your arguments. For example, arguing that police are not in the business of preventing crime because it takes them "too long" to respond. These two things are unrelated, and cannot be used to prove each other.

FYI, this is a good resource as a reminder for how logical fallacies work (well, don't work). It's a fun read. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

---
For what it's worth, I do agree with many of your points, including the fact that the police were unnecessarily heavy handed in this case. But I believe they were within their rights to do so (based on their lack of knowledge as to what he was doing), just as much as the guy was within his rights to take photos of the building while carrying.

Sorry, I guess you have a funny idea of what "prevent" means. Police presence in the community provides a deterrent, in that the criminals might get caught and will maybe even be punished. That's how they "prevent" crime, through a disincentive that occurs after the fact. They do not (except in rare occasions) prevent crimes by intervening while they're being committed. A criminal determined to break into your house, has already decided to do so despite the deterrent provided by the presence of police. In any event, the police cannot prevent that crime unless by some odd chance they catch the in the act. The long response times are simply an indicator of how easy it is for the criminal to disregard the disincentive the police provide and commit whatever crime they wish.

Message edited by author 2013-08-12 17:54:49.

08/12/2013 05:52:18 PM · #58

Originally posted by GeneralE:

And stop ignoring 90% of what I've bothered to say to further your rhetoric.

Really, it's insulting that you, despite so many very clear explanations, continue to think that anything which shoots a projectile is designed for human killing. Either you're being obstinate, or you really have failed to hear much of what has been said.

I made it clear that my car IS more likely to be used as a weapon by me than my handgun is. That's NOT conflating the issue. The primary purpose of MY gun is to be a collectors item with sentimental value, the primary purpose of my car is transport.

I could use either to defend myself - but I'm FAR more likely to choose the car for various reasons, largely that it is simply available and the gun is not.

Message edited by author 2013-08-12 17:53:53.

08/12/2013 05:53:46 PM · #59

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Quit trying to say that guns are simply for killing. Guns are made for all kinds of purposes.

The fact is that both are lethally dangerous. Both have been used to kill intentionally. It's all about the intent and actions of the person wielding the destructive force.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/12/2013 05:56:57 PM · #60

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Quit trying to conflate the lethality of guns with cars -- we are talking about the primary purpose of the item. You can kill someone with just about anything, but only guns are made for the express purpose of doing so.

Quit trying to say that guns are simply for killing. Guns are made for all kinds of purposes.

What purpose do they have other than killing or practicing the skills needed to use them for killing?

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

08/12/2013 05:58:39 PM · #61

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Quit trying to conflate the lethality of guns with cars -- we are talking about the primary purpose of the item. You can kill someone with just about anything, but only guns are made for the express purpose of doing so.

Quit trying to say that guns are simply for killing. Guns are made for all kinds of purposes.

What purpose do they have other than killing or practicing the skills needed to use them for killing?

Go back and read the threads, there's no reason anyone should bother to answer this question again, you're simply wasting everyone's time with questions like this.

giantmike

Canon EOS R6

08/12/2013 05:59:09 PM · #62

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by giantmike:
Sorry Spork, but what I see from you is still more logical fallacies in your arguments. For example, arguing that police are not in the business of preventing crime because it takes them "too long" to respond. These two things are unrelated, and cannot be used to prove each other.

FYI, this is a good resource as a reminder for how logical fallacies work (well, don't work). It's a fun read. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

---
For what it's worth, I do agree with many of your points, including the fact that the police were unnecessarily heavy handed in this case. But I believe they were within their rights to do so (based on their lack of knowledge as to what he was doing), just as much as the guy was within his rights to take photos of the building while carrying.

Sorry, I guess you have a funny idea of what "prevent" means. Police presence in the comment provides a deterrent, in that the criminals that caught will maybe even be punished. That's how they "prevent" crime, through a disincentive that occurs after the fact. They do not (except in rare occasions) prevent crimes by intervening while they're being committed. A criminal determined to break into your house, has already decided to do so despite the deterrent provided by the presence of police. In any event, the police cannot prevent that crime unless by some odd chance they catch the in the act. The long response times are simply an indicator of how easy it is for the criminal to disregard the disincentive the police provide and commit whatever crime they wish.

I don't believe I do. To prevent something means to stop it before it begins. What you are arguing is that prevention is to stop it after it begins, but before it ends.

Crime prevention is never going to be 100%. A police presence (this doesn't have to be a physical presence) may have only prevented someone from starting a crime 1 in 5 times. They are still preventing that crime. The other 4 cases they are reacting to the crime that took place. In all 5 cases, they were "in the business" of preventing crimes, but ineffective in 4 of them.

Look at it this way. Apple is in the business of selling iPhones. But there is a group of people that ignored Apple's sales tactic, and bought Android phones. Because Apple wasn't 100% successful at selling iPhones, does that mean they are not really in the business of selling iPhones?

08/12/2013 06:03:31 PM · #63

Originally posted by giantmike:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by giantmike:
Sorry Spork, but what I see from you is still more logical fallacies in your arguments. For example, arguing that police are not in the business of preventing crime because it takes them "too long" to respond. These two things are unrelated, and cannot be used to prove each other.

FYI, this is a good resource as a reminder for how logical fallacies work (well, don't work). It's a fun read. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

---
For what it's worth, I do agree with many of your points, including the fact that the police were unnecessarily heavy handed in this case. But I believe they were within their rights to do so (based on their lack of knowledge as to what he was doing), just as much as the guy was within his rights to take photos of the building while carrying.

Sorry, I guess you have a funny idea of what "prevent" means. Police presence in the comment provides a deterrent, in that the criminals that caught will maybe even be punished. That's how they "prevent" crime, through a disincentive that occurs after the fact. They do not (except in rare occasions) prevent crimes by intervening while they're being committed. A criminal determined to break into your house, has already decided to do so despite the deterrent provided by the presence of police. In any event, the police cannot prevent that crime unless by some odd chance they catch the in the act. The long response times are simply an indicator of how easy it is for the criminal to disregard the disincentive the police provide and commit whatever crime they wish.

I don't believe I do. To prevent something means to stop it before it begins. What you are arguing is that prevention is to stop it after it begins, but before it ends.

Crime prevention is never going to be 100%. A police presence (this doesn't have to be a physical presence) may have only prevented someone from starting a crime 1 in 5 times. They are still preventing that crime. The other 4 cases they are reacting to the crime that took place. In all 5 cases, they were "in the business" of preventing crimes, but ineffective in 4 of them.

Look at it this way. Apple is in the business of selling iPhones. But there is a group of people that ignored Apple's sales tactic, and bought Android phones. Because Apple wasn't 100% successful at selling iPhones, does that mean they are not really in the business of selling iPhones?

I agree with everything you just said.

But, given that the other 4 WILL happen to someone - do you honestly ask that person to allow inequity of force to be present only on the criminal's side of the equation? Like it or not, those who are criminals will take the advantages they can get - and a gun ban would actually be a hugely beneficial imbalance for at least a decade or two.

Does the world become a better place after those decades? Perhaps - but I personally would prefer if we could please wait until I'm dead, as I'd really rather not live through those decades.

08/12/2013 06:07:04 PM · #64

Originally posted by giantmike:

Only it's not a crime until it happens, so if it never happens, did the crime even exist to be prevented?

None of that changes the fact that when crime occurs, the police are a LONG way away and the vast majority of the time, you're on your own until the crime is over and the police come help manage the aftermath.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/12/2013 06:08:06 PM · #65

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Quit trying to conflate the lethality of guns with cars -- we are talking about the primary purpose of the item. You can kill someone with just about anything, but only guns are made for the express purpose of doing so.

Quit trying to say that guns are simply for killing. Guns are made for all kinds of purposes.

What purpose do they have other than killing or practicing the skills needed to use them for killing?

Go back and read the threads, there's no reason anyone should bother to answer this question again, you're simply wasting everyone's time with questions like this.

I pretty much read them already and have yet to hear a reasonable answer to this question, and now I think you're dodging the question.

I'm only referring to handguns and actual military automatic weapons. I recognize the validity of using long guns for hunting, and have not been referring to them in this discussion.

Used responsibly, guns are made to kill, or to present sufficient (real) threat of lethality so as to change someone's behavior. Used irresponsibly, guns are used by many to kill others and themselves.

Used responsibly, cars carry people and goods around. Used irresponsibly, cars are used by many to kill others and themselves.

Trotterjay

Sony Alpha NEX-7

Sony Sony / Carl Zeiss 24mm f1.8, e-series

08/12/2013 06:09:23 PM · #66

Nice to see good police work like that. With the state of affairs these days I'd be really disappointed if our law enforcement officials didn't try to record a name of someone at 3:00 A.M. in the morning, taking photographs of a municipal facility with a gun on their hip (whether legal or not). The cops were doing their job and did not overstep their authority. As for a helicopter, (I didn't catch that when I saw the clip), that would come across as a little extreme. With the Police it's damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Message edited by author 2013-08-12 18:19:23.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

08/12/2013 06:22:56 PM · #67

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
Quit trying to conflate the lethality of guns with cars -- we are talking about the primary purpose of the item. You can kill someone with just about anything, but only guns are made for the express purpose of doing so.

Quit trying to say that guns are simply for killing. Guns are made for all kinds of purposes.

What purpose do they have other than killing or practicing the skills needed to use them for killing?

Go back and read the threads, there's no reason anyone should bother to answer this question again, you're simply wasting everyone's time with questions like this.

I pretty much read them already and have yet to hear a reasonable answer to this question, and now I think you're dodging the question.

I'm only referring to handguns and actual military automatic weapons. I recognize the validity of using long guns for hunting, and have not been referring to them in this discussion.

Used responsibly, guns are made to kill, or to present sufficient (real) threat of lethality so as to change someone's behavior. Used irresponsibly, guns are used by many to kill others and themselves.

Used responsibly, cars carry people and goods around. Used irresponsibly, cars are used by many to kill others and themselves.

Ok, I'll hit this one, but I really do think you're being obstinate.

Is using a gun for sport not a reasonable answer to an alternative to guns being useful only for killing humans?
Is using a gun for hunting game not a reasonable answer to guns being 'human killing machines'?
Is collecting weapons not a reasonable justification?
Is bear defense not a valid reason to own a handgun? (I'm less sure of this reason than the others FYI - most bears are quite peaceful in fact, and only threaten humans, rarely harming them)
..

And finally, what the heck is so wrong with guns being used to kill a human if the homicide is justifiable in the first place? People WILL kill each other, and have been at it long before guns were even conceived.

...

As a single point of clarification, what exactly is a 'military automatic weapon' in your opinion? A semi-auto that is black? Any semi-auto? Or are you actually using that term correctly and referring to fully automatic weapons, especially those larger than a .50 caliber? Which, interestingly enough, as best I'm aware, have been used something like once every forty years to commit a homicide in the US. Now, granted, there are 1,000 regular guns legally owned to every legally owned fully automatic weapon, but it's extremely clear that 'military automatic weapons' are not of any concern to those who wish to prevent homicides, and this argument is based entirely on an irrational emotive justification that has no basis in fact whatsoever.

..

giantmike

Canon EOS R6

08/12/2013 06:59:51 PM · #68

Originally posted by Cory:

But, given that the other 4 WILL happen to someone - do you honestly ask that person to allow inequity of force to be present only on the criminal's side of the equation? Like it or not, those who are criminals will take the advantages they can get - and a gun ban would actually be a hugely beneficial imbalance for at least a decade or two.

Does the world become a better place after those decades? Perhaps - but I personally would prefer if we could please wait until I'm dead, as I'd really rather not live through those decades.

FYI, I have never said anything like this. You might be confusing me with someone else. In fact, I enjoy guns and own three.
I totally agree with you, balance cannot swing in favor of criminals.

Originally posted by Spork99:

That's an interesting philosophical question. I would word my answer with a anecdote (which of corse proves nothing, but may still be a valid answer).

There is a 4-way stop near my house that a cop sits at randomly. Because of that cop being there more than once, I make sure to come to a complete stop each time. Not stopping is against the law, so the police presence stopped this "crime" from happening. The crime didn't ever technically exist, but they did stop it from ever existing, which is of course the definition of prevention.

Of course, I totally agree that you're on your own to do what you can if a crime is happening to you. But that is well after the crime could be prevented, because it already started.
Something to consider is that you could tell the would-be-criminal "don't do this or I'll call the cops." If that worked, then the crime was prevented, which is partially due to there being a potential police presence.

08/12/2013 07:06:09 PM · #69

Originally posted by giantmike:

Originally posted by Cory:
But, given that the other 4 WILL happen to someone - do you honestly ask that person to allow inequity of force to be present only on the criminal's side of the equation? Like it or not, those who are criminals will take the advantages they can get - and a gun ban would actually be a hugely beneficial imbalance for at least a decade or two.

Does the world become a better place after those decades? Perhaps - but I personally would prefer if we could please wait until I'm dead, as I'd really rather not live through those decades.

FYI, I have never said anything like this. You might be confusing me with someone else. In fact, I enjoy guns and own three.
I totally agree with you, balance cannot swing in favor of criminals.

Originally posted by Spork99:

Only it's not a crime until it happens, so if it never happens, did the crime even exist to be prevented?

None of that changes the fact that when crime occurs, the police are a LONG way away and the vast majority of the time, you're on your own until the crime is over and the police come help manage the aftermath.

That's an interesting philosophical question. I would word my answer with a anecdote (which of corse proves nothing, but may still be a valid answer).

There is a 4-way stop near my house that a cop sits at randomly. Because of that cop being there more than once, I make sure to come to a complete stop each time. Not stopping is against the law, so the police presence stopped this "crime" from happening. The crime didn't ever technically exist, but they did stop it from ever existing, which is of course the definition of prevention.

Of course, I totally agree that you're on your own to do what you can if a crime is happening to you. But that is well after the crime could be prevented, because it already started.
Something to consider is that you could tell the would-be-criminal "don't do this or I'll call the cops." If that worked, then the crime was prevented, which is partially due to there being a potential police presence.

Didn't really mean for that to look like it was directed at you, although I wasn't previously clear on your position, or at least hadn't catalogued it. :)

FYI - I'd say that telling a criminal that you'll call the cops is probably about the worst thing anyone has ever suggested. ;)

The immediate emotional response would be anger and fear, which increases the odds of violence hugely, and unlike a gun, threatening someone with the cops won't actually protect you if they call your bluff.

Message edited by author 2013-08-12 19:08:31.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/12/2013 07:08:50 PM · #70

Yes, when I refer to fully-automatic weapons I mean that, not a stylized semi-automatic weapon; I understand the mechanical difference between the two.

Sport/target shooting is practicing to use the weapon lethally.

Hunting is best done with rifles or shotguns, not pistols or those "stylized assault weapons" or howitzers.

Weapons in a "collection" can be (at least temporarily) disabled so they can't be used in crime if stolen/diverted, or for murder and/or suicide in the case of domestic strife (I think the source of most gun homicides).

Bear defense ... they need it for sure. I support the right to arm bears, or maybe for you to take them on with bare arms, just to make the contest a bit more sporting ... :-)
However, they can be messy ...

08/12/2013 07:24:30 PM · #71

Originally posted by GeneralE:

So, given that fully automatic military style rifles account for 0.1% of all legally owned US guns, and have accounted for 2 homicides in 80 years in the US, how do you justify your position on that? What reason do you have to deprive the owners of those guns of their right to ownership? I'm not even asking for a justified reason, I simply can't understand at all why you'd want to ban one of the safest items ever sold in all of history? (really, 2 homicides, 80 years... These guns aren't terribly uncommon (1 in 1000), and yet are responsible for almost no deaths)

I agree that hunting is usually not done with a pistol, but for those who live among dangerous animals and really do need to be armed, carrying around a rifle while trying to work is a bad idea. And what about armored truck drivers and the other types of civilians who really need to be armed? A pistol is needed for those folks for sure. Private detectives, bounty hunters, and a laundry list of other people really do have reason to arm themselves, and a rifle isn't something one can easily transport around with them.

In fact, rifles are also quite a bit better for killing people too, consider the question, do you really want to make sure that someone who arms themselves and goes out to harm others has no choice but to use the most effective possible firearm? Pistols are easy to miss with, and have lower chance of fatally wounding someone... The advantage to a pistol is that it can be transported easily, not that it is somehow more effective at killing people than a rifle is.

Sure, weapons can be disarmed, but I see no reason to legally require it, if someone steals or diverts the weapon, I'm sure they'll know how to reenable it, and suicide is best approached with a bag of inert gas, much more likely to be successful, much less potentially painful, and no mess for someone else to clean up (I've done that job - really, folks, please don't shoot yourself, or at least go outside where the birds will clean up the mess)...

I just don't find any of your reasons valid. And sport/target shooting is not just practicing to kill - the actual experience is quite a bit of fun in fact, and for many serves no further purpose - you assume that everyone who shoots a gun is practicing to kill people.

FFS, go after video games or something, there are some amazingly realistic games where you actually USE GUNS TO KILL PEOPLE! Talk about preparing, pilots use flight simulators, not hang gliders, it's pretty reasonable to assume that killers will use video games to do practice runs... Of course, they'll also train with real weapons, but as I've said before, far better that than spending their time learning to make bombs and considering how to really inflict maximum casualties (guns, while pretty darn good at killing, aren't actually the most effective options available to a homicidal maniac, they're just currently the most convenient option)

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/12/2013 08:07:20 PM · #72

Originally posted by Cory:

So, given that fully automatic military style rifles account for 0.1% of all legally owned US guns, and have accounted for 2 homicides in 80 years in the US, how do you justify your position on that?

I think the second statistic probably accounts for the first, along with the fact that their ownership has been severely restricted during that time.

Though, when I was growing up, I saw more that two homicides committed with what seemed to be fully-automatic weapons in every episode ... I presume the show had a vague connection with reality ... though I guess your 80-year cut-off tries to exempt Prohibition-era killings from your stats, even though that's exactly the environment we have now.

The "War On Drugs" employs plenty of lethal hardware on both sides, and other than suicide, probably accounts for the vast majority of gun deaths. Maybe if we'd quit banning things which make people "happy" we'd have less need to be concerned with people shooting each other.

08/12/2013 09:11:18 PM · #73

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Hunting is best done with rifles or shotguns, not pistols or those "stylized assault weapons" or howitzers.

Really? I know plenty of people around here who use an AR style rifle for hunting mostly because they are almost always accurate right out of the box, they're modular and can be fitted with different barrels, sights even switching the caliber fired depending upon the game being pursued. Lots of people swear by them as the most effective coyote/varmint rifle period. My veteran also friends like them because they are similar to the M4 rifle they used in the service and they're both comfortable and familiar with operating the weapon. Parts and components are readily available as well.

I also know plenty of people who hunt with handguns. A friend of mine took a trophy buck last season with his .44 revolver.

When you say you know how hunting is "best done", I say you don't know much about hunting.

Message edited by author 2013-08-12 21:14:55.

08/12/2013 09:26:46 PM · #74

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Cory:
So, given that fully automatic military style rifles account for 0.1% of all legally owned US guns, and have accounted for 2 homicides in 80 years in the US, how do you justify your position on that?

I think the second statistic probably accounts for the first, along with the fact that their ownership has been severely restricted during that time.

Though, when I was growing up, I saw more that two homicides committed with what seemed to be fully-automatic weapons in every episode ... I presume the show had a vague connection with reality ... though I guess your 80-year cut-off tries to exempt Prohibition-era killings from your stats, even though that's exactly the environment we have now.

The "War On Drugs" employs plenty of lethal hardware on both sides, and other than suicide, probably accounts for the vast majority of gun deaths. Maybe if we'd quit banning things which make people "happy" we'd have less need to be concerned with people shooting each other.

Not entirely sure what to even make of this post.

you think that the fact that there is a ratio of 1:1000 fully auto weapons to regular weapons somehow accounts for the fact that they have accounted for a proportion of homicides that is WAY below average? I think the fact that they owners are generally responsible, and wealthy (more wealthy than responsible in truth), probably account for this much better.

As for you equating TV shows to reality, I don't quite know what to make of that.

My 80 year limit is absolutely to avoid the prohibition era use of such weapons, which, although not widespread, was certainly more prevalent than today.

I do agree that we are again in a prohibition state, and that you are COMPLETELY right that the real source of the trouble is overzealous restrictions on freedoms. What baffles the snot outta me is that you realize that, yet you still wish to ban guns (starting with the least dangerous possible variety), and that you would support a measure which is yet another prohibition (on weapons, but it's not entirely different from other prohibitions)..

We're not miles apart man, but there is a really intriguing difference in our logic leading to our highly disparate conclusions, and I honestly, really, truly do not understand your logic.