poll: guns

[skinfan133]

if our state becomes one that of a totalitarian state, how can we defend our rights with standard rifles and shotguns when we'll be attacked with autos, snipers, and tanks?

i hope your're not refering to me there;) trust me, most guys in the military would be on your side fighting if the US became a totalitarian state, the difference between here and the rest of the world is that 1) the military is neither above the law, nor specially priveliged. meaning we're just citizens too. 2) the people of this country are not wiling to just give up our constitution, alot of people would fight that. and if it ever happens to our glorious country (God forbid) i'll be right by yalls side defending the constitution of the united states, for after all, we military guys when we take our oath swear to uphold the constitution.

[BlueTalon]

No, I would not take handguns away from cops and the military.

As I said before, rifles and shotguns make sense for private use, and cover all the needs of home protection/hunting/recreation that people need. Handguns are best used for committing crimes.

An assault firearm is a semi automatic or fully automatic weapon. Again, totally unnecessary for home protection/hunting/recreation.

When I asked how you define an "assault firearm," I was looking for a more specific definition. "Semi automatic or fully automatic weapon" is overly broad. All weapons capable of full-automatic fire are classified by BATF as class III weapons and are highly regulated. "Semi automatic" covers a whole lot of territory that most people don't intend to cover when they are attempting to define "assault weapons." Do you really intend to include all semi-auto guns as "assault firearms"? You acknowledge that people can use rifles and shotguns for home defense, but do you intend for people only to have bolt-action rifles and break-open or pump shotguns at home? Perhaps you do, but until you say so, I don't think that was your intended result.

Can you try defining "assault firearms" again?

[PokerPacker]

i hope your're not refering to me there;) trust me, most guys in the military would be on your side fighting if the US became a totalitarian state, the difference between here and the rest of the world is that 1) the military is neither above the law, nor specially priveliged. meaning we're just citizens too. 2) the people of this country are not wiling to just give up our constitution, alot of people would fight that. and if it ever happens to our glorious country (God forbid) i'll be right by yalls side defending the constitution of the united states, for after all, we military guys when we take our oath swear to uphold the constitution.

well, if it did come to an actual war over this country, things might not be as clear as black and white. i would hope to have most of the military on my side, but as i said, its not as easy as black and white. the country has, within the last decades, become less free in some senses. i think that if we give these politicians too much control (patriot act, warrentless wiretaps) that they will take more.

what i'm particularly worried about is the FCC. the amount of censorship is ridiculous. howard stern gets attacked for speaking his mind, and that goes against the very 1st amendment.

we need a better way to keep congress in check. the way politics works allows them to get away with so much. there are too many social issues that law makers take into their own hands.

[Enter Apotheosis]

The only reason I vote for "no guns" is just because there are way too many blithering idiots out there who I do NOT trust with any sort of firearm. If I had any sort of control over who could get a hold of what guns or was confident in the way they run background checks, I really wouldn't care at all...

[PokerPacker]

The only reason I vote for "no guns" is just because there are way too many blithering idiots out there who I do NOT trust with any sort of firearm. If I had any sort of control over who could get a hold of what guns or was confident in the way they run background checks, I really wouldn't care at all...

but if no one legally had guns, then by definition, the only ones with them would be criminals. oh yeah, i'd feel REAL safe then.

[Predicto]

When I asked how you define an "assault firearm," I was looking for a more specific definition. "Semi automatic or fully automatic weapon" is overly broad. All weapons capable of full-automatic fire are classified by BATF as class III weapons and are highly regulated. "Semi automatic" covers a whole lot of territory that most people don't intend to cover when they are attempting to define "assault weapons." Do you really intend to include all semi-auto guns as "assault firearms"? You acknowledge that people can use rifles and shotguns for home defense, but do you intend for people only to have bolt-action rifles and break-open or pump shotguns at home? Perhaps you do, but until you say so, I don't think that was your intended result.

Can you try defining "assault firearms" again?

By the way, I appreciate that you are remaining civil in this discussion. Thank you.

Well, the honest problem with your question is, history on these boards has shown me that if I attempt to define the exact point at which a firearm passes the line, all of the serious gun afficianados in here jump all over it with specialized arguments about specific weapons, ad infinitum, and the underlying discussion is lost.

I continue to think there is some point at which you can draw a line between basically individual shot hunting and defense weapons, and multiple shot or spray weapons. Perhaps it is only bolt-action rifles and break-open or pump shotguns, perhaps not. I am open to discussion on that.

My point remains that I do not think the legitimate interests of self defense or sport require that we allow private weapons that in unstable hands can clear an entire playground in under six seconds, or can be shoved into a pocket and snuck into the local convenience store.

[Enter Apotheosis]

but if no one legally had guns, then by definition, the only ones with them would be criminals. oh yeah, i'd feel REAL safe then.

Theoretically the police should be taking care of that kind of thing. Personally, I don't really feel afraid or paranoid enough to have any desire to own a gun and think that in a lot of cases they can actually make situations a bit worse. That's just me, though...

[PokerPacker]

Theoretically the police should be taking care of that kind of thing. Personally, I don't really feel afraid or paranoid enough to have any desire to own a gun and think that in a lot of cases they can actually make situations a bit worse. That's just me, though...

this isn't minority report, the cops don't know a crime is about to be committed. the can get him after he already killed me and my family. what good does that do me?

[Redskins Diehard]

i hope your're not refering to me there;) trust me, most guys in the military would be on your side fighting if the US became a totalitarian state, the difference between here and the rest of the world is that 1) the military is neither above the law, nor specially priveliged. meaning we're just citizens too. 2) the people of this country are not wiling to just give up our constitution, alot of people would fight that. and if it ever happens to our glorious country (God forbid) i'll be right by yalls side defending the constitution of the united states, for after all, we military guys when we take our oath swear to uphold the constitution.

Are you even in the military? Or are you just speaking for them as if you are one of them?

[Predicto]

this isn't minority report, the cops don't know a crime is about to be committed. the can get him after he already killed me and my family. what good does that do me?

Fine. Get a shotgun and a rifle. You will be well protected.

[Predicto]

Are you even in the military? Or are you just speaking for them as if you are one of them?

I believe he is active military.

[Enter Apotheosis]

this isn't minority report, the cops don't know a crime is about to be committed. the can get him after he already killed me and my family. what good does that do me?

What are the odds that someone is going to kill your whole family?

Pretty slim.

Will having a gun necessarily save everyone?

Certainly not.

Will having a gun save some people?

Maybe.

Could having a gun pointed at someone else with a gun scare them into doing something even more reckless?

Quite possibly.

Is it possible that someone could take your gun and use it against yourself or someone else?

Yeah.

Having a gun is NOT a gurantee of safety. In some situations it can help... but those types of situations are incredibly rare.

[Baculus]

Make them all legal. Heck, in most states, they ARE all legal via the correct legal process.

[Baculus]

An assault firearm is a semi automatic or fully automatic weapon. Again, totally unnecessary for home protection/hunting/recreation.

Incorrect Predicto. A semi-automatic rifle is NOT an assault rifle. A FULL automatic rifle is an assault rifle. It is the media that has completely twisted the meaning of the word away from its true definition.

There are hunting rifles that can fire just as fast as my AR-15, which is a so-called assault rifle.

BTW, for my purposes, my AR-15 is necessary for my recreation because I love that rifle. If I didn't have it, my entertainment would be as...entertaining! But that is why a supposed free society is great - you do not NEED to have a purpose for something to have a valid reason for it. We don't NEED sportscars, cigarettes, alcohol, chocolate, AND rifles, but damn if I love them all.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

What are the odds that someone is going to kill your whole family?

Pretty slim.

You're right they're pretty slim. The chances are fairly small that I'm going to get into a car accident on my drive, but I wear the seatbelt anyway. I'd rather be safe than sorry.

Will having a gun necessarily save everyone?

Certainly not.

Will having a gun save some people?

Maybe.

Again, you're correct. A firearm will not necessarily save everyone or anyone. However it will likely save more people than not having one. Criminals are generally cowardly by nature. Show them force and they tend to look for easier targets. Especially if they believe you are willing to actually pull the trigger, which you better be if you're using a defensive firearm.

Could having a gun pointed at someone else with a gun scare them into doing something even more reckless?

Quite possibly.

Yes it could. Which is why you don't use the gun as a threat. If it clears leather you had damn well better be pulling the trigger.

Is it possible that someone could take your gun and use it against yourself or someone else?

Yeah..

That's what proper training and situational awareness are for.

Having a gun is NOT a gurantee of safety. In some situations it can help... but those types of situations are incredibly rare.

I would SERIOUSLY disagree with THAT. The FBI has published a report stating that they believe over 2 MILLION crimes a year are stopped by armed civilians. The police are not there with you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. In some areas their response time is more than 3-5 minutes. I'm not putting my safety and my property in the hands of the police. I have great respect for law enforcement officers, but they cant be everywhere all the time. Individual citizens have to take some responsibility for their own safety. A firearm and proper training can be a big part of that. It isn't a 100% guarantee, but it is a good step in the right direction.

[Baculus]

When I asked how you define an "assault firearm," I was looking for a more specific definition. "Semi automatic or fully automatic weapon" is overly broad. All weapons capable of full-automatic fire are classified by BATF as class III weapons and are highly regulated. "Semi automatic" covers a whole lot of territory that most people don't intend to cover when they are attempting to define "assault weapons." Do you really intend to include all semi-auto guns as "assault firearms"? You acknowledge that people can use rifles and shotguns for home defense, but do you intend for people only to have bolt-action rifles and break-open or pump shotguns at home? Perhaps you do, but until you say so, I don't think that was your intended result.

Thank you. :-)

[PokerPacker]

What are the odds that someone is going to kill your whole family?

Pretty slim.

Will having a gun necessarily save everyone?

Certainly not.

Will having a gun save some people?

Maybe.

Could having a gun pointed at someone else with a gun scare them into doing something even more reckless?

Quite possibly.

Is it possible that someone could take your gun and use it against yourself or someone else?

Yeah.

Having a gun is NOT a gurantee of safety. In some situations it can help... but those types of situations are incredibly rare.

you're not being honost with yourself. you give guns NO credit for any viable safty. you make it sound like its easier for them to take your gun than for you to shoot them. that is absurd. you are grasping at non-existand strands.

[BlueTalon]

By the way, I appreciate that you are remaining civil in this discussion. Thank you.

Well, the honest problem with your question is, history on these boards has shown me that if I attempt to define the exact point at which a firearm passes the line, all of the serious gun afficianados in here jump all over it with specialized arguments about specific weapons, ad infinitum, and the underlying discussion is lost.

I continue to think there is some point at which you can draw a line between basically individual shot hunting and defense weapons, and multiple shot or spray weapons. Perhaps it is only bolt-action rifles and break-open or pump shotguns, perhaps not. I am open to discussion on that.

My point remains that I do not think the legitimate interests of self defense or sport require that we allow private weapons that in unstable hands can clear an entire playground in under six seconds, or can be shoved into a pocket and snuck into the local convenience store.

I enjoy civil debate.

My point in asking the question really is to try to point out the futility of attempting to answer it. Here, there is an additional aspect of futility that you pointed out, the nature of an internet debate. But IMO the primary futility of defining an "assault weapon" is that it doesn't exist. It's a media construct.

See, assault rifle is a technical term refering to a rifle that is (A) lightweight, ( has select fire capability (meaning the soldier can select between semi-auto single fire and full-auto or burst fire), and © fires small caliber ammunition so more of it can be carried by the soldier.

On the other hand, the term "assault weapon" defies any useful definition (that's why I always use it in quotes). It's a term that has come into widespread use via anti-gun activists, anti-gun politicians, and much of the media, but that doesn't mean the term is useful in anything other than a propoganda sense. If you were to ask 20 different people what exactly is an "assault weapon," you'd probably get 20 different answers. Even if you ask people who are fairly knowledgeable, you'll still get different answers (the sole exception being if you get someone like Redskins Diehard who knows the law, in which case they can tell you what the law says).

First of all, let's consider what they CANNOT be --fully automatic in any way. Those are all in a different category (legal, pain in the butt to buy, heavily regulated). What is commonly thought of as an assault weapon is something that can be purchased in most places where purchasing a rifle is legal. They are functionally not any different than any other sami-auto rifle, except for looks. That's really the bottom line. And because they look scary, they make easier targets for anti-gun activists and politicians, and it's easier to sway other people who are relatively ignorant about guns. But they are no different than any other semi-auto rifle

[BlueTalon]

What are the odds that someone is going to kill your whole family?

With a gun? Pretty slim. With a car? A whole lot higher.

Will having a gun necessarily save everyone?

Certainly not. Poorly worded. Try "Not necessarily."

Will having a gun save some people?

Maybe. The correct answer is "Yes."

Could having a gun pointed at someone else with a gun scare them into doing something even more reckless?

Quite possibly. It could also scare them into backing off. The chances of that increase greatly if you look like you know what you're doing.

Is it possible that someone could take your gun and use it against yourself or someone else?

Yeah if you're don't know what you're doing. Otherwise you'd get training and learn how to properly handle it.

Having a gun is NOT a gurantee of safety. However, not having a gun in a situation where you need one IS a guarantee, but not of safety. In some situations it can help... but those types of situations are incredibly rare.

What constitutes "rare" for you? How many stories of people defending themselves with guns would you need to read before acknowledging that using guns for self defense is a legitimate use and fairly common occurrence?

[Predicto]

I enjoy civil debate.

My point in asking the question really is to try to point out the futility of attempting to answer it. Here, there is an additional aspect of futility that you pointed out, the nature of an internet debate. But IMO the primary futility of defining an "assault weapon" is that it doesn't exist. It's a media construct.

See, assault rifle is a technical term refering to a rifle that is (A) lightweight, ( has select fire capability (meaning the soldier can select between semi-auto single fire and full-auto or burst fire), and © fires small caliber ammunition so more of it can be carried by the soldier.

On the other hand, the term "assault weapon" defies any useful definition (that's why I always use it in quotes). It's a term that has come into widespread use via anti-gun activists, anti-gun politicians, and much of the media, but that doesn't mean the term is useful in anything other than a propoganda sense. If you were to ask 20 different people what exactly is an "assault weapon," you'd probably get 20 different answers. Even if you ask people who are fairly knowledgeable, you'll still get different answers (the sole exception being if you get someone like Redskins Diehard who knows the law, in which case they can tell you what the law says).

First of all, let's consider what they CANNOT be --fully automatic in any way. Those are all in a different category (legal, pain in the butt to buy, heavily regulated). What is commonly thought of as an assault weapon is something that can be purchased in most places where purchasing a rifle is legal. They are functionally not any different than any other sami-auto rifle, except for looks. That's really the bottom line. And because they look scary, they make easier targets for anti-gun activists and politicians, and it's easier to sway other people who are relatively ignorant about guns. But they are no different than any other semi-auto rifle

Yes. I was aware of the definitional problem (I am a lawyer after all... hehe) That is why I was trying to avoid it to get at the meat of thephilosophical question underneath.

So Ok. Accepting your definitions and constraints, would you consider the banning of fully automatic weapons for private use? If not, why?

[stevenaa]

The details of what guns are appropriate for home ownership might be worked out by reasonable people, if reasonable people were allowed to frame the debate.

Right now, they are not. The antigun crowd will vilify hunting, reject any argument that some firearms may be appropriate for home defense and generally seek to ban all private firearm ownership. The progun crowd will continue to demand broad access to weaponry more suitable for a battlefield than a home, concealable weapons best suitable for crime, plastic guns undetectable by metal detectors, bullets that easily pierce police armor, and so forth.

That is the way the debate is framed these days.

The old slippery slope problem. Everybodies afraid to give an inch for fear of losing a foot.

Rifles and shotguns are not appropriate for home defense. Both are too long to use in a home setting. Rifles are dangerous because they will easily penetrate your walls and pose a threat to your neighbors. You definately don't want to be discharging a scatter gun with family members home. Hand guns are the only viable home defense firearm. You can buy bullets that won't penetrate walls so they are much safer to your neighbors and your family.

I have no problem keeping full autos out of the hands of private citizens. I agree there is no practical use.

[BlueTalon]

Yes. I was aware of the definitional problem (I am a lawyer after all... hehe) That is why I was trying to avoid it to get at the meat of thephilosophical question underneath.

So Ok. Accepting your definitions and constraints, would you consider the banning of fully automatic weapons for private use? If not, why?

No. Why not? Two reasons. One, they are not a problem, as far as crimes being committed with them are concerned (they aren't). (They're like .50 caliber rifles in that regard -- guns that scare people but are never used in crimes.) Two, they are already highly regulated, meaning that for the average person who does not have a Class III license, they are already effectively banned.

The people who legally own fully automatic guns have to jump through hoops to get them, BATF and FBI know who those people are, and they are not going to risk their livelyhoods and their lives to hold up the local bank or gas station. Chances are good that they spent more money to buy those guns and pay for the licenses and transfers than they would get in a robbery like that anyway, meaning their income stream puts them above any such activity. What do they do with those guns? Well, there are ranges that host shooting events, under strict supervision of course, where people can bring their machine guns, legally shoot up several hundred dollars worth of ammo, and have a royal blast.

[Slateman]

The old slippery slope problem. Everybodies afraid to give an inch for fear of losing a foot.

Rifles and shotguns are not appropriate for home defense. Both are too long to use in a home setting. Rifles are dangerous because they will easily penetrate your walls and pose a threat to your neighbors. You definately don't want to be discharging a scatter gun with family members home. Hand guns are the only viable home defense firearm. You can buy bullets that won't penetrate walls so they are much safer to your neighbors and your family.

I have no problem keeping full autos out of the hands of private citizens. I agree there is no practical use.

Ok I was gonna stay out of this, but now I gotta get involved.

Shotguns are great for home defense. For one, they will stop anyone stupid enough to come into your house late at night. Second, you don't shoot at what you can't see. Therefore, if you see your kid or family member, best not to shoot them. Third, as to the scatter angle, properly choke the barrel and it won't be a problem. My Benelli holds an 6-8 inch pattern at 15 yards. Thats plenty precise enough.

Every home defense course I've been to as emphasized the use of a shotgun for home defense. Is easy, you don't have to be as precise as with a pistol. And it will stop anyone.

[Sarge]

Are we having another gun thread fight?

Guess what? All you non-gun packers.

Bang! You're dead

I win :laugh:

[Baculus]

For those who oppose ownership of full-auto firearms in the hands of private citizens, for what reason do you support this viewpoint? Do you realize that, much like .50 cal rifles, the incident of crimes being committed by legal full-auto weapons is non-existent: It does not happen. In fact, since 1934, there have been TWO murders committed by legal firearms. Two murders.

"In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the BATF. (Zawitz, Marianne, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns Used in Crime [PDF].) About half are owned by civilians and the other half by police departments and other governmental agencies (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.)

Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies."

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

Can you believe it? If you listen to the anti-firearm crowd, you'd think that we had an epidemic of legal full-auto owners going on rampages. You are many, many more times to be stabbed or beat to death than shot with a legal full-auto firearm. It is that simple.

(Military style firearms are further used in less than 1% of crimes committed by a firearm - these are the much feared so-called "assault weapons.") There are several reasons for this, but partially due to the fact that each individual has to go through an ATF and local police inspection before they can even purchase such a firearm. Then, they actually have to buy it from a licensed seller, and such firearms are expensive.

It is way too much trouble for anyone that is merely seeking to commit a violent crime.

Thus, much like .50 cal rifles, there is no statistical evidence, legal reasoning, or rash of violent crimes by these firearms to warrant them from being banned from private ownership.

So, what is the REASON they should be banned? Is it based upon mere irrational fears, built upon by self-serving political action committees in D.C. and hysterical soccer moms? Evidence would have to give a resounding YES - there is not any statistical evidence to prove that neither military style semi-automatic nor legal full-auto firearms are a threat to the common good and peace.