Gun Control and Liberals? Help me here...

[Predicto]

hueman, you put too much work into this one not to get at least one bump.

[Baculus]

Predicto, take a look at my last response to you - I'd like to see if you can understand my criticism of those who can critique the Bush administration for "preemptive" action when they support an "assault weapon" ban, which is just that...preemptive action. Or, perhaps folks who support an assault weapon ban simply do not have a rebuttal to my own point: That they are hypocrites for criticizing Bush when they, themselves, support such preemptive actions, except in this nation and against its citizens.

[Baculus]

that's funny, cuz i was going to say that about the gun totin' people that're absolutely terrified that someone's either going to break into their home 6 nights out of 7 (sundays are for mass, after all) or that the gov't needs to be kept in check by owning an armory that's ONLY accessible by said people, and of course, their small children any 4th rate breaking-and-entering hack.

I'll tell ya, I'd rather have a firearm then NOT if someone broke into my house. Sorry, I am not going to rely upon a mere police presence for my home protection.

This what it comes down to, when it comes to the firearm issue: I don't like anyone telling me what I can or cannot do, as long as I don't injure someone else. I don't care if it is Republicans or Democracts - just stay out of my business. But, there are those on the Left, some of whom are on this thread, who would have the gall to tell me what I can or cannot do. Forget that - it is just as bad as their right-wing opponents who attempt to do the same controlling efforts, except in different subjects. The Right and Left are sometimes just sides of the same coin.

I guess that is why I am a Libertarian.

[Predicto]

Predicto, take a look at my last response to you - I'd like to see if you can understand my criticism of those who can critique the Bush administration for "preemptive" action when they support an "assault weapon" ban, which is just that...preemptive action. Or, perhaps folks who support an assault weapon ban simply do not have a rebuttal to my own point: That they are hypocrites for criticizing Bush when they, themselves, support such preemptive actions, except in this nation and against its citizens.

It's not that simple, and I am not a hypocrite for disagreeing with you. You are using a general term ("preemptive") that means very different things in different contexts.

A ban on privately owned nuclear weapons is "preemptive," is it not? I think we can agree that it makes sense. Or a ban on privately owned Anthrax bacillus. That is "preemptive" too. Obviously, then there is a line that may be drawn somewhere. We just disagree on where that line should be drawn.

In the geopolitical context, preemptive war means affirmatively attacking someone because you are concerned that you may be attacked later. Indeed, that is how the Japanese justified their attack on Pearl Harbor - the US was growing ever more hostile toward them, and if war broke out, the US Fleet would be used against Japan. Ergo, a preemptive strike against the US Fleet was appropriate to protect the Japanese people. Again, I think we can agree that this was faulty reasoning and wicked foreign policy.

I am not a pacifist, and there are situations where preemptive war may be necessary. I do not think Iraq qualifies. There was no real urgency about the situation, except for the urgency manufactured by the Administration. We rushed in there because the Administration wanted us to be in there. Even if everything they said about Saddam was true, we didn't need to start a war Right Then, not unless it was what we wanted to do for geopolitical reasons. Heck, we have alot better reason for preemptive war right now with Iran because of their open nuclear ambitions than we ever had in Iraq.

Returning to gun control: My concern with privately owned assault weapons is that not everyone is as reasonable and well intentioned as you, not by a long shot, and what those irresponsible or evil people might do with an assault weapon truly can affect me and my family, in an instant. Also, many people have anger issues. I have seen bitter, bitter disputes where one person gets punched - if there had been an an assault weapon nearby the person who got punched probably would be swiss cheese, along with everyone else in a 20 yard radius. To me, the very limited utility having such weapons in private hands is greatly outweighted by the unfortunate consequences that would occur. Same thing with handguns. As I see it, anything legitimate you want to do with a gun - you can do with rifle and a shotgun.

If you still think this makes me a hypocrite, that is too bad.

[Predicto]

This what it comes down to, when it comes to the firearm issue: I don't like anyone telling me what I can or cannot do, as long as I don't injure someone else. I don't care if it is Republicans or Democracts - just stay out of my business. But, there are those on the Left, some of whom are on this thread, who would have the gall to tell me what I can or cannot do. Forget that - it is just as bad as their right-wing opponents who attempt to do the same controlling efforts, except in different subjects. The Right and Left are sometimes just sides of the same coin.

I guess that is why I am a Libertarian.

Can I borrow a cup of Anthrax? I'm all out

[Baculus]

As a note, if the first part of my post is boring, I have some important figures later in my writing…

A ban on privately owned nuclear weapons is "preemptive," is it not? I think we can agree that it makes sense. Or a ban on privately owned Anthrax bacillus. That is "preemptive" too. Obviously, then there is a line that may be drawn somewhere. We just disagree on where that line should be drawn.

Well, the first ban is rarely challenged since not only is it unrealistic that a private person would own a nuclear weapon, and the potential for an accident, due to the nuclear material or an atomic detonation far outweighs the potential violence caused by one rifle. This is goes for Anthrax, since it is an volatile substance – there are valid reasons for their private ban – this validity does not apply to military-style rifles.

In the geopolitical context, preemptive war means affirmatively attacking someone because you are concerned that you may be attacked later. Indeed, that is how the Japanese justified their attack on Pearl Harbor - the US was growing ever more hostile toward them, and if war broke out, the US Fleet would be used against Japan. Ergo, a preemptive strike against the US Fleet was appropriate to protect the Japanese people. Again, I think we can agree that this was faulty reasoning and wicked foreign policy.

In my example, the firearm ban is preemptive – it may not be a preemptive war, per se, but it is a preemptive action. And that has been a main criticism of the Bush administration: Preemptive action without a seemingly strong enough due cause. This is the same way that I feel about the “assault” weapon bans that have been attempted.

Returning to gun control: My concern with privately owned assault weapons is that not everyone is as reasonable and well intentioned as you, not by a long shot, and what those irresponsible or evil people might do with an assault weapon truly can affect me and my family, in an instant. Also, many people have anger issues. I have seen bitter, bitter disputes where one person gets punched - if there had been an an assault weapon nearby the person who got punched probably would be swiss cheese, along with everyone else in a 20 yard radius. To me, the very limited utility having such weapons in private hands is greatly outweighted by the unfortunate consequences that would occur. Same thing with handguns. As I see it, anything legitimate you want to do with a gun - you can do with rifle and a shotgun.

Well, my intention isn't to accuse you of being a hypocrite, but I have noticed a hypocritical streak in some of the anti-firearm arguments I encounter.

Now, I understand your concern, but let me ask you this: isn't the potential for mayhem present regardless of the availability of military style firearms? Have you looked at the statistics for the amount of blunt trauma, stabbing, and other type of victims? I know the scenario you presented sounds scary, but is it , really really realistic? Take into consideration the following statement:

"Knives more deadly: According to the FBI, people have a much greater chance of being killed by a knife or a blunt object than by any kind of rifle, including an "assault rifle." In Chicago, the chance is 67 times greater. That is, a person is 67 times more likely to be stabbed or beaten to death in Chicago than to be murdered by an "assault rifle." FBI, "Crime in the United States," 1994, p. 18. Matt L. Rodriguez, Superintendent of Police for the City of Chicago, 1993 Murder Analysis at 12, 13."

And further more:

"National statistics. Less than four percent of all homicides in the United States involve any type of rifle. No more than .8% of homicides are perpetrated with rifles using military calibers. (And not all rifles using such calibers are usually considered "assault weapons.") Overall, the number of persons killed with rifles of any type in 1990 was lower than the number in any year in the 1980s."

http://www.awbansunset.com/crime.html

Thus, your fear is, to be honest, unfounded and, well, highly unlikely to happen, and probably as likely as someone being able to own a small nuclear weapon. Thus, my argument still consists of the following: That any attempt to ban military-style rifles is completely based upon a fear that is highly unrealistic. And this unrealistic fear usually impacts honest citizens and not criminal elements.

Is that fair? Is it fair for so many legal, law abiding firearm owners to be affected by laws which are passed becaue of fear, and not hard data? Hasn’t this country spent years trying to overcome mentalities that were based upon fear?

BTW, if you didn’t know, the 1994 AWB (“Assault Weapon Ban”) ended just a couple of years ago – have you seen an increase in crime using these types of weapons? Nope. In fact, I am overjoyed by the sunset of this ban because, *gasp*, I can buy a pistol grip for my SA-93. Yeah!

Now, I don't want this to sound like I am accusing you, Predicto, once again, of being illogical or irrational (in fact, I am approaching you in this subject since I believe you can look at it in a balance manner) - it is more so the arguments that I hear against the private ownership of military style rifles are often illogical or irrational? Why? Because military-style rifles are one of the last weapons used in violent crimes, and you are more likely to be stabbed, clubbed, or hit by a drunken driver. So, if reality states that these weapons, statistically, are one of the least used firearms in violent crimes, then why the fuss over them? And that is where the illogical, irrational arguments appear…

Let me state this: There is NO basis for the banning or restriction of these firearms. There are no figures or frequency of use in crime figures to back the laws that some have imposed on these firearms. Now, anti-gun groups may invent statistics, but that is the best they can do. (And you have to examine the motivation of some of these groups as well.) These assault-weapon laws is purely based upon "what ifs" and fear of their appearance and potential firepower, as opposed to the people that actually own them, and by and large, use them in a rational manner.

[Predicto]

Well, the first ban is rarely challenged since not only is it unrealistic that a private person would own a nuclear weapon, and the potential for an accident, due to the nuclear material or an atomic detonation far outweighs the potential violence caused by one rifle. This is goes for Anthrax, since it is an volatile substance – there are valid reasons for their private ban – this validity does not apply to military-style rifles.

And I disagree. I think the exact same validity applies, especially since there is no real need for a private person to have a military style rifle to hunt, target shoot or protect their home. The analogy between nukes and military style rifles is completely valid. The only difference is the scale of the destruction possible.

Now, I understand your concern, but let me ask you this: isn't the potential for mayhem present regardless of the availability of military style firearms? Have you looked at the statistics for the amount of blunt trauma, stabbing, and other type of victims? I know the scenario you presented sounds scary, but is it , really really realistic? Take into consideration the following statement:

[several statistics showing many more deaths involve knives and blunt trauma than military style guns]

Thus, your fear is, to be honest, unfounded and, well, highly unlikely to happen, and probably as likely as someone being able to own a small nuclear weapon. Thus, my argument still consists of the following: That any attempt to ban military-style rifles is completely based upon a fear that is highly unrealistic. And this unrealistic fear usually impacts honest citizens and not criminal elements.

You assume that because there have not been many deaths from military style guns to date, there is no legitimate fear of death from such guns. I say the opposite - the reason that there have been few deaths from such guns is because such guns are not in common circulation, are hard to obtain, and remain quite expensive. Were they common, they would be used more, and would result in more deaths given their demonstrated ability to cause death much more quickly and to many more people than other guns (not to mention knives and clubs and pointed sticks). If I grab a knife, I can probably kill my wife, kids, and next door neighbor before my rampage is ended. If I grab an assault weapon, I can kill a good couple of dozen people, and maybe a cop or two.

Is that fair? Is it fair for so many legal, law abiding firearm owners to be affected by laws which are passed becaue of fear, and not hard data? Hasn’t this country spent years trying to overcome mentalities that were based upon fear?

Yes it is fair. I am not going to wait for the hard data on home ownership of nukes before I decide that it is a bad thing, I am not going to wait for the hard data on home ownership of Anthrax, and I am similarly not interested in waiting for the hard data on military style rifles. Plus, in order to get the true hard data, we would need to have millions of the damn things in circulation. Once the hard data is in, it will be too late - they will be everywhere, just like cheap crappy handguns are now. My hard data won't help me then, and what is more, people who own the guns will then have a "taking of private property" argument to go along with their "right to bear arms" argument.

BTW, if you didn’t know, the 1994 AWB (“Assault Weapon Ban”) ended just a couple of years ago – have you seen an increase in crime using these types of weapons? Nope. In fact, I am overjoyed by the sunset of this ban because, *gasp*, I can buy a pistol grip for my SA-93. Yeah!

As a proponent of gun ownership, you know as well as I do that the 1994 AWB was a baloney, feel good, watered down law that really did nothing. I doubt it had any effect on anything.

Now, I don't want this to sound like I am accusing you, Predicto, once again, of being illogical or irrational (in fact, I am approaching you in this subject since I believe you can look at it in a balance manner) - it is more so the arguments that I hear against the private ownership of military style rifles are often illogical or irrational? Why? Because military-style rifles are one of the last weapons used in violent crimes, and you are more likely to be stabbed, clubbed, or hit by a drunken driver.

because assault weapons are very uncommon right now, a condition that I hope will be preserved. There have been no recorded deaths from Black Mamba snakes in the US this year. I still don't want a Black Mamba snake farm next door to my kid's school.

So, if reality states that these weapons, statistically, are one of the least used firearms in violent crimes, then why the fuss over them? And that is where the illogical, irrational arguments appear…

Or at least the arguments you don't agree with.

Let me state this: There is NO basis for the banning or restriction of these firearms. There are no figures or frequency of use in crime figures to back the laws that some have imposed on these firearms. Now, anti-gun groups may invent statistics, but that is the best they can do. (And you have to examine the motivation of some of these groups as well.) These assault-weapon laws is purely based upon "what ifs" and fear of their appearance and potential firepower, as opposed to the people that actually own them, and by and large, use them in a rational manner.

Statistics can mean anything you want. I think the statistics show that the overall lack of assault weapons in general circulation has led to less deaths from assault weapons, period. It leads me to the further conclusion that removing the much more common handgun from general circulation would lead to less deaths from handguns.

I am not a nut. There ARE legitimate uses for the private ownership of guns, and I acknowledge them. Strap on your hunting rifle and go bag a buck. Keep a shotgun in your closet to protect your home. Fine.

Conclusion:

A. It is actually kind of hard to kill someone with a knife, or a club, but it can be done, and sometimes is.

B. It is easier with a gun.

C. It is much, much easier with an assault rifle, and you can kill lots and lots of people if you get lucky.

D. It is easiest with a nuke.

You draw the line between C and D. I draw the line between B and C. But it is the same line, just a different place.

[Baculus]

And I disagree. I think the exact same validity applies, especially since there is no real need for a private person to have a military style rifle to hunt, target shoot or protect their home. The analogy between nukes and military style rifles is completely valid. The only difference is the scale of the destruction possible.

Well, no one needs a fast sportscar either, do they? Are we now going to determine who can own what based upon real need? Anyway, this is a bad correlation: Military style rifles make fine sports rifles. They are also nice pieces of engineering and nice for target shooting. You cannot the say the same for a nuclear weapon, can you? Just because you don't think of any uses doesn't mean that a lot of people DO use them for something other then "killing people."

You assume that because there have not been many deaths from military style guns to date, there is no legitimate fear of death from such guns. I say the opposite - the reason that there have been few deaths from such guns is because such guns are not in common circulation, are hard to obtain, and remain quite expensive. Were they common, they would be used more, and would result in more deaths given their demonstrated ability to cause death much more quickly and to many more people than other guns (not to mention knives and clubs and pointed sticks). If I grab a knife, I can probably kill my wife, kids, and next door neighbor before my rampage is ended. If I grab an assault weapon, I can kill a good couple of dozen people, and maybe a cop or two.

First, you always want to declare some extreme example of a crazed person always grabbing the military-style rifle and going on a rampage. You do realize that people do this daily without rifles? And you do realize that there are thousands of these rifles in circulation? Actually, some of these rifles aren't considered controlled firearms, so they aren't terribly hard to procure if someone actually wants one. Perhaps you should take into account that a person who is willing to pay a certain price for a firearm isn't the sort that may be a criminal element. But you are assuming that a = difficulty to procure has resulted in B = fewer deaths, and that isn't the case. There has never been a proven correlation between stronger firearm laws and a decrease in deaths or crime. You are basing this upon assumptions as opposed to the last decade plus of documentation on these laws and their affects.

Yes it is fair. I am not going to wait for the hard data on home ownership of nukes before I decide that it is a bad thing, I am not going to wait for the hard data on home ownership of Anthrax, and I am similarly not interested in waiting for the hard data on military style rifles. Plus, in order to get the true hard data, we would need to have millions of the damn things in circulation. Once the hard data is in, it will be too late - they will be everywhere, just like cheap crappy handguns are now. My hard data won't help me then, and what is more, people who own the guns will then have a "taking of private property" argument to go along with their "right to bear arms" argument.

So you viewpoint is purely from emotion - you don't care the stats that declare how infrequently these firearms are used in crimes. You just have a "feeling" they are bad, therefore you think they should be regulated? Is this how you approach everything, from your guy and damn any hard data or logic? Because this is how you are approaching it: There is NOTHING in police records to demonstrate that these firearms are a threat to the public good.

because assault weapons are very uncommon right now, a condition that I hope will be preserved. There have been no recorded deaths from Black Mamba snakes in the US this year. I still don't want a Black Mamba snake farm next door to my kid's school.

Assault weapons are full-auto rifles - they are heavily regulated, but they are out there. The frequency of crimes with TRUE full auto firearms are very rare. Semi auto military rifles are actually somewhat more common, and compared to the number of legal semi-auto rifles, once again, the incident of their use in crimes are small, and NOT because they are heavily controlled in some areas.

Or at least the arguments you don't agree with./quote]

You have not shown me ONE piece of evidence that these firearms are a threat. NOT ONE. You only have your "gut." You really do have, so far from what you have produced, zero to show as a true logical reason for their restriction, in your eyes.

[DCNightHawk]

excellent post. Im a Repub too, and I agree with your post entirely. Excellent job!

[Predicto]

Baculus, I have not shown you one piece of information or one logical argument that satisfies you. Fine then, we disagree. I can't go around and around on this forever.

Suffice to say that your arguments and statistics have not convinced me either. And it's not because I don't understand the arguments or can't accept the overwhelming statistical truth presented to me: it is because they can be interpreted different ways by honest people. Statistics are easily manipulated or misinterpreted.

Again, I return to my Black Mamba example. No one has died from Black Mamba snake bites in the US this year. No one. Not a single one. Zero. Ergo, Black Mamba snakes are not dangerous. They are safe. Everyone should have one as a pet, and there is no increased risk of deaths from snake venom. The argument MAKES NO SENSE, but statistically the argument is correct.

My viewpoint is not entirely from emotion or from my gut, that is simply the characterization you choose to place upon it. My argument comes from experience, logic and common sense.

Have a nice weekend.

[skinfan133]

i happen to be a right minded fellow who loves guns, who at a young age learned how to fire a gun, grew up in the revelry of the corps. but you'd be surprised at my opinion on gun control.

i am a big supporter of gun control and background checks. when the founding fathers made the second amendment im sure they did not intened for the average citizen to own anything as lethal as an AK-47 or an SCAR-17. these guns need to stay where they belong, out of the average persons hands. only those who have gone through very lengthy background and training checks should be able to own them. the average citizen however should be allowed to own pistols, rifles, and hunting shotguns. automatics have no place in mainstream or criminal america.

you are entitled to own a weapon, no question, but there have to be limits.

edit: there should be control of heavy guns just like how explosives are illegal in most sates in the average citizens possesion. the same reason that you cant own an MAAW-T13, or a shoulder mounted SAM, or any lethal projectiale explosive weapon, to keep others safe.

[#98QBKiller]

Why are you even still here? In the US? My God, from the things you write, the evil you see, I would think you couldn't stand it one more day. I'm a registered Republican - (that doesn't mean I think Bush is perfect, so can it) What am I saying? Half the people here don't even read the posts. They see a headline and rush desperately to reply. But even I, a kool-aid swilling, racist, black-hearted sheep bowing at the alter of W (according to many who generalize all Repub's) has a cache that will assist me in the event of a **** hits the fan scenario.

Speaking of generalizations....do I even need to say it? You sound like paranoid Bush-worshipping swine...haha...j/k, but seriously though....You're ****ing about generaliziations yet generalizing in the very same post.

I'm a registered democrat and a proud gun-owner. Not every Dem. wants to banish firearms.

Also, I live in Wilmington too....what in this town could possibly have you so frightened?

[Taylor 36]

Your talking about the same group of people who think that the government should use hard-working tax payers money to fund and assist people due to the color of their skin and the bad choices THEY have made, yet feel justified in killing a helpless, unborn child.

[Midnight Judges]

I've seen plenty of rabid libs screeching

That's as far as I got. You're not worth my time.

[Sisyphus]

Statistics from western societies that do have comparable gun-control laws to the USA, but have far less violent crime, prove that guns are not the problem. It's clearly Americans that are the problem.

Logic favors more restrictions on Americans, not on guns.

[SnyderShrugged]

There is no legal, rational, nor moral basis to prohibit legal gun ownership in the United States. The Gun Control crowd can harp all day, everyday, but facts are that legal gun owners have shown the highest degrees of responsibility and care in their dealings with firearms.

How in the world does limiting the rights of the law abiding American help crime whatsoever? Its plain silly.

Here is a novel thought, How about we enforce the laws we already have and throw the book at the criminals when they commit a crime instead?

[DCsportsfan53]

I'm a lib but I'm not really for gun control. I'm a big believer that people are responsible for their actions and you don't punish everyone because some can't use something responsibly.

Now, I'm not against background checks or anything, I'd prefer if those convicted of violent felonies didn't have legal access to guns, but that's about as far as I take it.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Statistics from western societies that do have comparable gun-control laws to the USA, but have far less violent crime, prove that guns are not the problem. It's clearly Americans that are the problem.

Logic favors more restrictions on Americans, not on guns.

You're VERY close Sisyphus. Logic actually favors more restrictions on American criminals, not on law-abiding citizens.

I would suggest that most of those restrictions could be most easily implimented by putting the criminals in PRISON for extended periods of time.

Unfortunately, it's much easier for Lawmakers to pass some new gun law, further restricting the rights of only those law abiding citizens, rather than pushing for the arrest, prosecution, and real punishment of the people who committed whatever crime the public is up in arms about.

[DjTj]

Why did this thread get bumped? What is this, Groundhog Day?

[Slateman]

Holy resurrected thread batman!!

[EersSkins05]

I hadn't seen this thread before, but I'll chime in now.

I don't have a gun in my home. So I won't be able to shoot an intruder and "defend my family." But I also won't kill any family members, which happens more often than homes are defended anyway.

So I'll call it a truce.

[SnyderShrugged]

I hadn't seen this thread before, but I'll chime in now.

I don't have a gun in my home. So I won't be able to shoot an intruder and "defend my family." But I also won't kill any family members, which happens more often than homes are defended anyway.

So I'll call it a truce.

data? proof that more family members are killed than home's defended?

Not a truce at all. Lets see the stats please.

[Predicto]

Dang, I made some brilliant points in this old thread :laugh:

[PokerPacker]

Im a moderate that leans to the right. I voted for Bush, twice.

I dont think people need assualt rifles or handguns.

If the "EVIL EMPIRE" comes to get you (OH NO!) your 9mm isnt going to help you.

so if my 9mm won't help me, that's why i need assault rifles

[Mass_SkinsFan]

I don't have a gun in my home. So I won't be able to shoot an intruder and "defend my family." But I also won't kill any family members, which happens more often than homes are defended anyway.

I have several firearms fairly readily available in my apartment and have no concern whatsoever that I could ever shoot one of my roommates. You know why?.... because I have the proper training, do the proper amount of practice, and have made sure that my roommates are both well aware of the potential dangers of having a firearm in the house.

On the other hand, I have no reservations at all in saying that I could and would shoot an intruder in the apartment. That's also part of what I train and practice for. I hope it never comes to that, but I am ready if the situation were ever to come up.

I've always been very skeptical of the data claiming all these people are killed with firearms in their own home is really accurate. Especially compared to the possibly 2 million defensive uses of a firearm that the FBI has suggested may occur every year (there's no easy way to keep that statistic). Believe what you will, but I know that I will not be caught unable to defend myself in my own home.