poll: guns

[BlueTalon]

I remember a few years ago, liberal legislators were wanting to ben .50 Caliber rifles, saying they are the weapon of choice for terrorists. It was a lie, as those guns weigh about 40# give or take. I always wanted to get someone like Murtha or McDermott on a range, and tell them to run a mile, squeeze off a well placed shot, and then repeat that process one more time.

It may not convince the liberal legislators that those weapons are not the choice of terrorists, but it sure would be fun to watch.

[Baculus]

I remember a few years ago, liberal legislators were wanting to ben .50 Caliber rifles, saying they are the weapon of choice for terrorists. It was a lie, as those guns weigh about 40# give or take. I always wanted to get someone like Murtha or McDermott on a range, and tell them to run a mile, squeeze off a well placed shot, and then repeat that process one more time.

It may not convince the liberal legislators that those weapons are not the choice of terrorists, but it sure would be fun to watch.

LOL - indeed.

What's sad or funny about some folks who are pro-ban on certain firearms is that, many times, they have no issues with being protected by firearm-wielding bodyguards. Rosie O'Donnell is a very good example: She supports a complete ban on firearms, except for police and the military, but her bodyguards are armed.

[BlueTalon]

What's sad or funny about some folks who are pro-ban on certain firearms is that, many times, they have no issues with being protected by firearm-wielding bodyguards. Rosie O'Donnell is a very good example: She supports a complete ban on firearms, except for police and the military, but her bodyguards are armed.

I remember that. I think the you-know-what hit the fan when she tried to get permission for that bodyguard to enter her child's elementary school with his sidearm.

Now, I think it's a great idea to allow permit-holding citizens on school property with their guns (Personally, I think it should be mandated that at least four teachers in ever school be trained in defensive tactics and carry concealed on the job.) But I had to enjoy a lib getting caught in the gun control web. The rules for other people got to be a pain in the butt when they suddenly applied to a proponent of those restrictive rules.

[Baculus]

I remember that. I think the you-know-what hit the fan when she tried to get permission for that bodyguard to enter her child's elementary school with his sidearm.

Now, I think it's a great idea to allow permit-holding citizens on school property with their guns (Personally, I think it should be mandated that at least four teachers in ever school be trained in defensive tactics and carry concealed on the job.) But I had to enjoy a lib getting caught in the gun control web. The rules for other people got to be a pain in the butt when they suddenly applied to a proponent of those restrictive rules.

I believe that, in some areas, there should be a few teachers that have a sidearm of some sort.

About Rosie, she used to be a spokesperson for a large retailer chain. I wrote a letter to this retailer stating that I would never, ever go into their store again until she is dropped as their spokesperson. A few months afterwards, this chain dropped her as their representative. And while it wasn't due to just my e-mail, I am sure enough citizens responded that they decided to make a change for the better. :-)

[Predicto]

I don't know why I can't keep away from this thread. No one ever changes their mind about anything. Still....

The fact that full machine guns have not been used in many crimes doesn't demonstrate much. Make them much more widely in circulation, and the use of them in crimes will increase.

I know you hate this analogy, but it is completely apt. There have been very few cases of crime committed through the use of anthrax bacillus. That alone is not a valid argument for the private ownership of anthrax bacillus - it is a testimony to the wisdom of not permitting the private ownership of anthrax bacillus.

In likelihood, I haven't convinced you of anything because deep down you like guns and you don't want to be convinced. You haven't convinced me, probably for the same reasons. So I'm done here. Thanks for the discussion.

[BlueTalon]

Ack, I hate this canard. Cars are a vital part of our society. They are our primaty means of transportation. Deaths in accidents are an unfortunate side effect, one we strive to reduce with speed limits, safety devices, etc. Guns are designed to kill. We do not design guns with the hope that they will become less effective in killing.

To accuse someone of intellectual dishonesty because they do not accept the validity of your gun/car analogy is an unfair debate tactic.

One could make the arguement that guns also are a vital part of our society. They're used in the hunting and slaughter of animals, and in the security of the populace. And just as automobile technology is continually advancing for the purpose of making cars safer, guns likewise are continually being made safer, to protect against accidental discharge, etc.

My previous point, which I stand by, is that people complaining about gun deaths are primarily motivated by either the deaths or the guns. If it's the deaths they are concerned about, then it doesn't make sense to argue so stridently and exclusively for gun restrictions when things such as cars, swimming pools, mop buckets, plastic bags, etc. kill so many more people per year than guns do. However, if it's the (anti)guns that motivate them, then ignoring the other causes of accidental death seems disingenuous, and raising accidental gun-related deaths as an argument seems kind of spurious.

[Baculus]

The fact that full machine guns have not been used in many crimes doesn't demonstrate much. Make them much more widely in circulation, and the use of them in crimes will increase.

I know you hate this analogy, but it is completely apt. There have been very few cases of crime committed through the use of anthrax bacillus. That alone is not a valid argument for the private ownership of anthrax bacillus - it is a testimony to the wisdom of not permitting the private ownership of anthrax bacillus.

What has been advocated is the removal of any legal ownership of full-auto firearms. Your argument is not valid because while you can theorize why it may be bad for Anthrax to be owned by citizens, we have DIRECT EVIDENCE of legal ownership of full-auto firearms and a complete lack of violence and criminal action resulting from such ownership. And as a further demonstrated in a previous posts, there have been, indeed THOUSANDS of legal ownership of full-auto firearms without any undue violence or crime resulting in it.

Trying to compare legal ownership of Anthrax and full-auto firearms is simply not a good argument. And since you can only use a "potential" theory instead of hard, valid facts, then I believe that it may demonstrate that your argument may not be sound. I know it is your "gut" feeling, but let's not take away someone's right because of a "gut" feeling.

[Predicto]

One could make the arguement that guns also are a vital part of our society. They're used in the hunting and slaughter of animals, and in the security of the populace. And just as automobile technology is continually advancing for the purpose of making cars safer, guns likewise are continually being made safer, to protect against accidental discharge, etc.

My previous point, which I stand by, is that people complaining about gun deaths are primarily motivated by either the deaths or the guns. If it's the deaths they are concerned about, then it doesn't make sense to argue so stridently and exclusively for gun restrictions when things such as cars, swimming pools, mop buckets, plastic bags, etc. kill so many more people per year than guns do. However, if it's the (anti)guns that motivate them, then ignoring the other causes of accidental death seems disingenuous, and raising accidental gun-related deaths as an argument seems kind of spurious.

It is not spurious. You have much better arguments than this one that you have made before.

I advocate for safety wherever reasonably possible. Trucks should have better designed bumpers so that they don't decapitate auto drivers who rear end them. However, I do not advocate banning 18 wheelers, because we need them for our economy, and they can be made safer without banning them.

The gun argument is that guns (or at least certain kinds of guns) are inherently dangerous, can't be made safer in their intended primary use, lead to an unreasonable amount of accidental deaths and injuries (and an unreasonable amount of intentional deaths and injuries as well), and are not necessary to our economy or anything else.

You can disagree, of course, but the argument is not at all "spurious." Spurious arguments are ones that are advanced even though the person advancing them has to know that they have no merit. It assumes an intellectual dishonesty on the part of the person who advances the argument. Arguments that one does not find sufficiently compelling to change one's stance do not fit that category.

[Baculus]

I still have yet to hear a single rational anti-firearm argument backed-up with facts and data. (And not the made up "facts" that I see anti-firearm organizations trying to pawn off as "facts.") I am not trying to dismiss anyone's thoughts or feelings on this matter, but let's deal with reason and actual valid information instead of merely trying to "feel" out the matter.

Let's hear some counter-arguments with usable information.

[Baculus]

The gun argument is that guns (or at least certain kinds of guns) are inherently dangerous, can't be made safer in their intended primary use, lead to an unreasonable amount of accidental deaths and injuries (and an unreasonable amount of intentional deaths and injuries as well), and are not necessary to our economy or anything else.

You cannot guard against all dangers in life, nor should we create an authoratative Mommy / Daddy society to guard us against all of the "ills" of the world. Nor is it just to penalize all of the safe firearm owners, who far outweigh the criminals, because of the action of violent criminals or irresponsible behaviour.

What about knives, which are commonly used for murder. Do you know England was trying to (or succeeded) ban certain kitchen knives because they were used for domestic violence murders? What about base ball bats? You do realize that stabbings and blunt trauma outweights firearm murders in some regions?

Again, do you have information that will provide a basis for your argument, other than your distrust of certain firearms?

[BlueTalon]

The fact that full machine guns have not been used in many crimes doesn't demonstrate much. Make them much more widely in circulation, and the use of them in crimes will increase.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you are only presenting the options of making machine guns more widely available or banning them from private ownership altogether, and ignoring the option of maintaining the status quo. I'm not advocating making machine guns any more available than they already are. IMO, they are sufficiently restricted right now. People that really want to own a machine gun enough to jump through all the hoops and pay the tremendous costs of acquiring one are not the sort of people who are intending to commit any crimes with them.

[redskinsfan17]

if you take a gun away from a criminal, he'll get another one and shoot the person that took his gun in the first place.

[BlueTalon]

not if he's dead.

[Predicto]

Trying to compare legal ownership of Anthrax and full-auto firearms is simply not a good argument. And since you can only use a "potential" theory instead of hard, valid facts, then I believe that it may demonstrate that your argument may not be sound. I know it is your "gut" feeling, but let's not take away someone's right because of a "gut" feeling.

And we do not know that Iran would misuse a nuke if they had one either. No one has ever set off a nuke (but us) even though nukes have been around for 60 years and lots of contries have them. Somehow, nonetheless, we have a "gut feeling" that nuclear proliferation is a bad idea in general and that Iran having a nuke should not be permitted.

I'm sorry, but in this type of argument, "valid hard facts" are the ones that you (or I) agree with, while the points of the other side are either irrelevant or may be explained away.

Here is a valid hard fact. There are a lot less deaths from handguns and full aoto weapons in countries in Europe that restrict the private ownership of such firearms. This fact means a lot to me, but it does not mean anything to you, because you can get around it both stastically and philosophically in lots of ways - if you really want to. Do a search - there are many gun advocate websites that will do so in ways you never even thought about yourself.

So, again, we are at an impasse. The facts that are important to me are not recognized as valid by you, and vice versa. The arguments that are compelling to me are not compelling to you, and vice versa.

The bottom line is, you enjoy firing off that full auto weapon and you want to be able to do it, and you see things this way, and read arguments accordingly.

I, on the other hand, am concerned about what all the other full auto weapons in the hands of millions of people (other than you of course ) could mean for me and my family and my society, and I don't see the obvious inevitable consequences of that proliferation outweighed by the slight infringement of rights of limiting sportsmen to rifles and shotguns.

And I think I really am done now, 'cause their ain't no more to say.

[BlueTalon]

Oh Predicto, this thread is like a good train wreck to you! You'll be back, and you know it!

[Predicto]

*refresh*

*refresh*

*refresh*

[Baculus]

And we do not know that Iran would misuse a nuke if they had one either. No one has ever set off a nuke (but us) even though nukes have been around for 60 years and lots of contries have them. Somehow, nonetheless, we have a "gut feeling" that nuclear proliferation is a bad idea in general and that Iran having a nuke should not be permitted.

Well, there is probably more than a "gut" feeling, but there are some who would argue that such a military strike based upon a "gu" feeling would be a bad move. I have argued that invading Iraq based upon a a "gut" feeling was a bad move, too, since it has yet to be demonstrated that Iraq as an immediate threat that had to be resolved at that time.

Here is a valid hard fact. There are a lot less deaths from handguns and full aoto weapons in countries in Europe that restrict the private ownership of such firearms. This fact means a lot to me, but it does not mean anything to you, because you can get around it both stastically and philosophically in lots of ways - if you really want to. Do a search - there are many gun advocate websites that will do so in ways you never even thought about yourself.

First of all, it has to be understood that Europe in general, even before firearm laws, already had a lower muder rate than the U.S. Also, do you realize that firearm ownership is common in a nation such as Switzerland, and they have a very murder rate? Second, is it really a "hard fact"? To quote from the below included link:

"The U.S. has a high gun murder rate, whereas a country like England with strict gun controls has almost no gun murders and a very low murder rate. Doesn't this show that gun control is effective in reducing murder rates? Not exactly. Prior to having any gun controls, England already had a homicide rate much lower than the United States (Guns, Murders, and the Constitution: A Realistic Assessment of Gun Control, Don B. Kates Jr.). Japan is another country typically cited (see Japanese Gun Control, by David B. Kopel). (Briefly discussing the difference in homicide rates between England and the U.S. is Clayton Cramer's, Variations in California Murder Rates: Does Gun Availability Cause High Murder Rates?)

Gun control opponents can play similar games. The Swiss with 7 million people have hundreds of thousands of fully-automatic rifles in their homes (see GunCite's "Swiss Gun Laws") and the Israelis, until recently, have had easy access to guns (brief summary of Israeli firearms regulations here). Both countries have low homicide rates. Likewise this doesn't mean more guns less crime."

Futhermore:

"The U.S. has a higher non-gun murder rate than many European country's total murder rates. On the other hand, Taiwan, the Philippines, and Mexico have non-gun murder rates in excess of our total murder rate.

Incidentally in 13th century Europe, several studies have estimated homicide rates in major cities to be around 60 per 100,000. (Even back then, the equivalent of coroners, kept records.)

There are many, many factors, some much more prominent than gun availability that influence homicide rates and crime in general. (See this excerpt from 1997 FBI Uniform Crime Report and GunCite's "Is Gun Ownership Correlated with Violent Deaths?")"

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

Thus, the absence of firearms does not demonstrate a safer environment. More so, there are some nations, with strict firearm laws, that demonstrate a HIGHER murder rate then some nations have more permissive laws. Is it possible that the main issue isn't the availability of firearms, but the willingless for people to murder each other, which is often due to enculturation?

Also, another note: Deaths from military style rifles and full-auto firearms are already VERY low in this nation, less than 1% of crimes committed with firearms. Of course any nation, though, that has very zero ownership of these firearms are going to have a much lower rate of incident of violent crimes committed with these type of firearms.

So, again, we are at an impasse. The facts that are important to me are not recognized as valid by you, and vice versa. The arguments that are compelling to me are not compelling to you, and vice versa.

I believe that the issue is a lack of facts presented to support your argument. Even the argument you presented as a fact, when closely, is not quite the "slam dunk case" as you'd think, as information I provided earlier in this post would show.

Predicto, I understand what you are saying and how you feel, but you also must understand that I believe your position has been influenced by anti-firearm marketing and media, to the degree that you believe such firearm violence is much higher and prevelant than, in reality, it actually is.

I, on the other hand, am concerned about what all the other full auto weapons in the hands of millions of people (other than you of course ) could mean for me and my family and my society, and I don't see the obvious inevitable consequences of that proliferation outweighed by the slight infringement of rights of limiting sportsmen to rifles and shotguns.

I think this is an unnecessary and unreleastic fear. It is similiar to the fears that I see in the "Drug Legalization" thread, where folks fear that legalization will result in a huge increase of drug users: It won't. And you will not see a huge spike of legal full-auto owners EVEN if everyone could buy one. Why? Because, the fact is, they are too spendy, and everyone does not want one in the first place. You are assuming the worst fear, and based upon this, you would support the worst tactics to combat this extreme scenario.

Can you imagine if we dealt with every issue in this manner? Isn't that the type of mentality that leads to authoratism? What happens when we have a loss of reason and base all of our actions upon the worst possible situation that we can possibly believe will occur?

That, Predicto, scares me more so than any firearm. And such radical reaction would be a reason, ironically, I'd want a full-auto firearm.

[BlueTalon]

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 agree that for the most part, a rifle is impractical for home defense, for exactly the reason you mentioned -- penetration and the risk of hitting something or someone unintentionally through a wall. However, there could be legitimate reasons why someone might want a rifle handy, and I don't want to make that decision for anyone. Just like I don't want anyone making that decision for me. My personal bump-in-the-night stick is a handgun (H&K USP .45 with a surefire flashlight mounted under the chin), and there are handguns in various places throughout the house. But a shotgun is also an excellent home defense weapon, and just because it's longer than a handgun does not mean it's impractical. :2cents:

[PokerPacker]

And we do not know that Iran would misuse a nuke if they had one either. No one has ever set off a nuke (but us) even though nukes have been around for 60 years and lots of contries have them. Somehow, nonetheless, we have a "gut feeling" that nuclear proliferation is a bad idea in general and that Iran having a nuke should not be permitted.

I'm sorry, but in this type of argument, "valid hard facts" are the ones that you (or I) agree with, while the points of the other side are either irrelevant or may be explained away.

Here is a valid hard fact. There are a lot less deaths from handguns and full aoto weapons in countries in Europe that restrict the private ownership of such firearms. This fact means a lot to me, but it does not mean anything to you, because you can get around it both stastically and philosophically in lots of ways - if you really want to. Do a search - there are many gun advocate websites that will do so in ways you never even thought about yourself.

So, again, we are at an impasse. The facts that are important to me are not recognized as valid by you, and vice versa. The arguments that are compelling to me are not compelling to you, and vice versa.

The bottom line is, you enjoy firing off that full auto weapon and you want to be able to do it, and you see things this way, and read arguments accordingly.

I, on the other hand, am concerned about what all the other full auto weapons in the hands of millions of people (other than you of course ) could mean for me and my family and my society, and I don't see the obvious inevitable consequences of that proliferation outweighed by the slight infringement of rights of limiting sportsmen to rifles and shotguns.

And I think I really am done now, 'cause their ain't no more to say.

predicto, i think that iran failed the "background check" required to own nukes. sorry, i don't think these issues compare.

[skinfan133]

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

im trying to get a UNA spot. if that doesnt work im going to VMI, but i'll definatley get a commision as a second lieutentant in the USMC. most guys here know my story, Grandpa wa a major in the marines, and i just want to follow in his footsteps and serve our great nation. ive grown up my whole life under the influence of the military and have a good understanding of the military structure, military life, and basic military strategy, also ive read the likes of sun tzu and other great strategists. i keep my self in excelent physical condition for the day my country calls on me to lead men into the field.

but short answer is no, im not in the USMC yet.

[SUNSTONE]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIJ9Wvn3EEc&feature=Views&page=1&t=t&f=b

I just watched this video, I thought it was pretty good.

WARNING!

This dude is ugly, watch at your own risk.

Don't say I didn't try to warn you!

[TheDoyler23]

I believe in safe and sane firearms for responsable individuals.

[PleaseBlitz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIJ9Wvn3EEc&feature=Views&page=1&t=t&f=b

I just watched this video, I thought it was pretty good.

Same tired arguments spouted in this thread, but without the documentation or cool sigs.

I especially love when he says. "Yes, guns killed x number of kids last year, and everyone is tragic, BUT........"

[SUNSTONE]

Same tired arguments spouted in this thread, but without the documentation or cool sigs.

I especially love when he says. "Yes, guns killed x number of kids last year, and everyone is tragic, BUT........"

You don't think people should have the right to have a gun to defend themselves?

[rincewind]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIJ9Wvn3EEc&feature=Views&page=1&t=t&f=b

I just watched this video, I thought it was pretty good.

You don't think people should have the right to have a gun to defend themselves?

I think you should have put a graphic disclaimer on that video.