NRA

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm not anti-gun, I am aware of what happens in cities where guns are banned. All I'm saying is, and this is irrefutable, it's harder for the averake kook to kill large numbers of people with a handgun than it is with a rifle.

You're talking about typical street crime. I'm talking about the much rarer situation where someone snaps and wants to kill as many people as possible. I'm not talking robbery, I'm talking about random mass murder. In that scenario, I'm pretty sure we are all better off if that guy has a handgun than a rifle with a high-capacity magazine.

To answer your question, I am a combat vet. And every time I was in for-real combat, I would have been much happier if the bad guys had handguns instead of automatic weapons.



You people are denying that guns are more dangerous than my bare hands, and denying that machine guns are more lethal than handguns? I don't get that argument.

"If a guys is fumbling with a magazine any unarmed person is going to take flight,"

Wrong. Tell that to the principal and the psychologist of Sandy Hook school who died rushing the shooter while he was still shooting. If that kook had to stop to re-load at that time, there is a getter chance they could have overpowered him just long enough for the cavalry to arrive.

I would never say that banning high capacity magazines will end crime. However, I can't believe some people are denying that these weapons make it easier to kill large numbers of people. why do you think the Marines are issued rifles? To twirl around at parades? For the exercise we get carrying them around?

I am not denying that Machine guns are more dangerous than handguns, but there in lies the problem. We are not talking about machine guns, machine guns are fully automatic, hold the trigger and fire as many rounds as you have. We are talking semi automatic look a likes, big difference.

Let me give you this scenario, we were duck hunting one time, I was using a pump shotgun, Remington 870, my buddy was using his Remington 100, semi automatic. When you are duck hunting you are limited to 3 shells in the gun. A group of ducks came in and my buddy spotted them before me, yet I got up and got three shots off at ducks moving very fast and killed 2, before my buddy got off 2 shots not hitting one. He was pissed that a pump shotgun got 3 shots off faster than his semi auto shot gun.


Where did you hear that the unarmed principal "rushed " the shooter, I am thinking she rushed to the commotion, but we will never ever know the true story about that one. There is no denying the average person will try to hide or flee and very few if any will try to do anything. Now lets say she did rush the guy, don't you think if she had been armed we would not be burying all of those little kids ?

The larger problem is how we treat the mentally ill in this country. How we treat each other. How parents raise their kids. The lack of respect most kids have for each other, adults, and life in general...

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I agree. However, the constitution says the people have the right to bear arms. It says nothing whatsoever about the lethality of the guns that are to be allowed.

I'm not saying I necessarily support a ban on these things, for the exact reasons you mention. But we need to have an honest conversation about the pros and cons that are based on facts and common sense.

Here you are dead wrong, because it was implied and meant to be that the people were armed as equally as any threat both foreign and domestic. If they only had pitch forks going up against musket we would all be kissing Elizabeths ass today, and have #^&#^&#^&#^&ty teeth to boot...

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Google the battle of Athens

Exactly as the constitution intended, excellent find...

Kind of like the movie Walking Tall/...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Here you are dead wrong, because it was implied and meant to be that the people were armed as equally as any threat both foreign and domestic. If they only had pitch forks going up against musket we would all be kissing Elizabeths ass today, and have #^&#^&#^&#^&ty teeth to boot...

First, the one adult who was wounded and survived, said that the principal and psychologist were killed as they ran right at the shooter.

Second, you cannot say I am dead wrong because of your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I based my opinion on what the document actually says. You cannot possibly know what was "meant to be", we have been debating that for 200 years.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

The larger problem is how we treat the mentally ill in this country. How we treat each other. How parents raise their kids. The lack of respect most kids have for each other, adults, and life in general...

AGREE 100%. Any impact of gun control is nothing compared to the impact of trying to find ways to teach our kids to have some empathy for their fellow man. You are absolutely, 100% dead-on, you nailed the larger problem correctly. Yet all I'm hearing from Washington is gun control.

[TheSpecialist]

Everyone watch this video and then give an honest answer to whether or not the politicians are wasting their time going after "assault weapons"


Assault Rifle vs. Sporting Rifle - YouTube

[Pete F.]

Fear of Spoiling

[Nebe]

The thing that I argue with that video is that we all know an Ar-15 is not really a hunting riffle. What deer hunter needs more than 10 rounds to down a deer? I don't hunt, but I would think a skilled hunter would only need to have 3 bullets.

The true love for the AR-15 is its fun to shoot and people want one because other people have them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

That being said.. I'm not for the banning of these weapons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

First, the one adult who was wounded and survived, said that the principal and psychologist were killed as they ran right at the shooter.

Second, you cannot say I am dead wrong because of your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I based my opinion on what the document actually says. You cannot possibly know what was "meant to be", we have been debating that for 200 years.

More than one state had opinions prior to the introduction of the amendments to the Constitution, and here in Vermont we had and have the right to bear arms for our own defense
Early Gun Rights Legislation: Eight of the original states enacted their own bills of rights prior to the adoption of the United States Constitution. The following states included an arms-rights provision in their state constitutions:
VIRGINIA
(June 12, 1776)
13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
DELAWARE
(September 11, 1776)
18. That a well-regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free government.
PENNSYLVANIA
(September 28, 1776)
XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
MARYLAND
(November 11, 1776)
XXV. That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government.
NORTH CAROLINA
(December 18, 1776)
XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under the strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
VERMONT
(July 8, 1777)
XV. That the people have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State …
MASSACHUSETTS
(October 25, 1780)
XVII. The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence.
NEW HAMPSHIRE
(June 2, 1784)
XXIV. A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a state.
In addition to these legislative enactments of bills or declarations of rights, there were numerous other proclamations being promulgated at the time. For example:
INSTRUCTIONS OF TOWN MEETING, PRESTON, CONNECTICUT
(November 26, 1787)
It is our ardent wish that an efficient government may be established over these states so constructed that the people may retain all liberties, privileges, and immunities usual and necessary for citizens of a free country and yet sufficient provision made for carrying into execution all the powers vested in government. We are willing to give up such share of our rights as to enable government to support, defend, preserve the rest. It is difficult to draw the line. All will agree that the people should retain so much power that if ever venality and corruption should prevail in our public councils and government should be perverted and not answer the end of the institution, viz., the well being of society and the good of the whole, in that case the people may resume their rights and put an end to the wantonness of power. In whatever government the people neglect to retain so much power in their hands as to be a check to their rulers, depravity and the love of power is so prevalent in the humane mind, even of the best of men, that tyranny and cruelty will inevitably take place."
MINORITY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CONVENTION
(December 12, 1787)


That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public inquiry from individuals.
DEBATES OF THE MASSACHUSETTS CONVENTION
(February 6, 1788)
And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.
NEW HAMPSHIRE RATIFICATION CONVENTION
(June 21, 1788)
Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.
VIRGINIA CONVENTION
(June 27, 1788)
17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear to arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
NEW YORK CONVENTION
(July 7,1788)
That the militia should always be kept well organized, armed and disciplined, and include, according to past usages of the states, all the men capable of bearing arms, and that no regulations tending to render the general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, of distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments to the community, ought to be made.


NEW YORK CONVENTION
(July 26,1788)
That the people have the right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.
RHODE ISLAND RATIFICATION CONVENTION
(May 29, 1790)
XVII. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Nebe

The thing that I argue with that video is that we all know an Ar-15 is not really a hunting riffle. What deer hunter needs more than 10 rounds to down a deer? I don't hunt, but I would think a skilled hunter would only need to have 3 bullets.

The true love for the AR-15 is its fun to shoot and people want one because other people have them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

New Englanders forget that deer, moose, bear and bird are not the only game in this country. I'll tell you one animal I'd want as many rounds available as possible for - wild boar.

Also, where in the Constitution are rights required to be justified by "need"? We live in a free society. If I want to go for a walk, I'm not required to express a need. If I want to drive 24 hours, fish the Florida beaches for a day and then drive home, I'm not required to express why I should be able to do that because of a "need".

No one *needs* alcohol, tobacco or fast food - yet all three of those are individually responsible for killing more people every year than firearms. Where's the outrage there? How many children every year drown in swimming pools? No one really needs a swimming pool in their backyard.

JimInCT says he'd support a ban on magazines over 30 rounds if it meant saving the life of one child, yet I'd bet he enjoys a beer or glass of wine with dinner, maybe even the celebratory cigar at a wedding, and everyone has experienced "crap I'm running late but hungry. I'll just stop by McDonalds."

Nebe, I don't mean to single you out and I know you said you do not support a ban, but your comment is one made frequently by the gun control crowd.

As I've argued repeatedly, people that use wording like "common sense reform," "reasonable changes" and other fluffy phrases that do not have an actual meaning to them, make those statements because they do not have the numbers on their side. You can add the "well why do you need that" argument to the fluffy list as well.

Not a single person that has called for more gun control can actually support what changes would take place with those controls in effect. We had a Federal Assault Weapon ban for 10 years that restricted the sale of "scary guns" and magazines that hold greater than 10 rounds. However, there is not a single shred of evidence that supports a decrease in violence associated with rifles during that time.

[Nebe]

All I'm saying is its a joke to me when I hear people say they need these guns for hunting. No you don't. People want these guns because they think they are cool and because other people have them. If I was a New England deer hunter and I saw someone hunting with an AR-15, I would laugh at them just as hard as the noobs I see with van stalls and zee bass reels who never wade past their ankles.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

All I'm saying is its a joke to me when I hear people say they need these guns for hunting. No you don't. People want these guns because they think they are cool and because other people have them. If I was a New England deer hunter and I saw someone hunting with an AR-15, I would laugh at them just as hard as the noobs I see with van stalls and zee bass reels who never wade past their ankles.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

People buy them for protection.
It's a case of not being out gunned.
Hunting shouldn't and doesn't have a place in this argument . That's not the reason gun ownership was put into the Constitution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by buckman

People buy them for protection.
It's a case of not being out gunned.
Hunting shouldn't and doesn't have a place in this argument . That's not the reason gun ownership was put into the Constitution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm glad we agree
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

New Englanders forget that deer, moose, bear and bird are not the only game in this country. I'll tell you one animal I'd want as many rounds available as possible for - wild boar.

Also, where in the Constitution are rights required to be justified by "need"? We live in a free society. If I want to go for a walk, I'm not required to express a need. If I want to drive 24 hours, fish the Florida beaches for a day and then drive home, I'm not required to express why I should be able to do that because of a "need".

No one *needs* alcohol, tobacco or fast food - yet all three of those are individually responsible for killing more people every year than firearms. Where's the outrage there? How many children every year drown in swimming pools? No one really needs a swimming pool in their backyard.

JimInCT says he'd support a ban on magazines over 30 rounds if it meant saving the life of one child, yet I'd bet he enjoys a beer or glass of wine with dinner, maybe even the celebratory cigar at a wedding, and everyone has experienced "crap I'm running late but hungry. I'll just stop by McDonalds."

Nebe, I don't mean to single you out and I know you said you do not support a ban, but your comment is one made frequently by the gun control crowd.

As I've argued repeatedly, people that use wording like "common sense reform," "reasonable changes" and other fluffy phrases that do not have an actual meaning to them, make those statements because they do not have the numbers on their side. You can add the "well why do you need that" argument to the fluffy list as well.

Not a single person that has called for more gun control can actually support what changes would take place with those controls in effect. We had a Federal Assault Weapon ban for 10 years that restricted the sale of "scary guns" and magazines that hold greater than 10 rounds. However, there is not a single shred of evidence that supports a decrease in violence associated with rifles during that time.

"We live in a free society. If I want to go for a walk, I'm not required to express a need."

Come on, you can do better than that. You aren't likely to kill anyone going for a walk. If, however, you want to get you hands on something inherently dangerous (say dynamite for blasting, or anthrax for research), you absolutely have to show justifiable need. Most rational people are OK with those laws.

Are you saying you're an anarchist now?

"How many children every year drown in swimming pools? No one really needs a swimming pool in their backyard. "

Correct. And we have all kinds of zoning laws you need to follow to put in a pool. You can't just do whatever you want.

Johnny, I'm not saying that sensible gun control is going to save millions and millions of lives. I said it would be likely to save a small number of lives. So pointing out that more people are killed in car accidents, isn't refuting my point, because I concede that. I would not want the government outlawing cars. Outlawing assault rifles with high-capacity magazines does not seem all that totalitarian to me. Almost everyone owns a car, and if we had to get rid of those cars, our lives would be turned upside down. I don't see the same intrusion with giving up high-capacity magazines. Our day-to-day lives don't depend on high-capacity magazines.

"We had a Federal Assault Weapon ban for 10 years that restricted the sale of "scary guns""

There were more than 900 exceptions, including the AR-15. In effect, there was no ban. It was so watered down, no one thought it would do anything.

"there is not a single shred of evidence that supports a decrease in violence associated with rifles during that time"

That's because 99.99% of gun violence is one-on-one confrontations with a handgun. These random mass-murders are a totally different scenario, and as such, they need to be discussed seperately. JD, I'd bet every cent I have, against the spare change you have in your pocket, that the body count in Newtown would have been lower if that kid walked into that school with a handgun.

All other things being equal, you can kill more people with an AR-15 than you can with a handgun. I don't need data to convince me of that. I know it's true. Most of the cops I saw storming that school had rifles in their hands, not handguns. Why is that? JD, why is that?

I'm not saying we'll all live forever if we impose such a ban. I'm not even saying I support such a ban. I just think we need to have a serious conversation on the subject, one that is guided by common sense rather than radical ideology or outright jibberish.

I'll say again, any impact of gun legislation is going to be very minor. More good can be done by talking about re-instilling traditional family values, and by discussing the garbage that's on TV, in movies, and in video games.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

People buy them for protection.
.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I doubt that. I'd bet every penny I have that most people (not all) buy them for the thrill. If I really thought I was in a situation where I was in so much danger that I couldn't defend myself with a handgun, I'd probably look at making some changes in my lifestyle.

It's pretty rare you need such a weapon for protection, isn't it? Rare, but not non-existant. If I was a white store-owner in LA during the Rodney King riots, I'd rather have an AR-15 with a high-capacity magazine than a handgun. And the reason I'd want the AR-15, is the same exact reason why I say (and can't believe people here are denying this) that a kook on a rampage will kill more kids with that weapon than with a handgun.

This is the conversation that should take place. Is the rare need for such a weopon for civilian protection, worth the price of more dead little kids when these rampages happen in schools?

I don't know the answer. But we can't have the conversation if folks won't admit these weapons will increase the body count.

[buckman]

Key word there is " kook"
It's not about the weapon
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

It's not about the weapon
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then please enlighten me. If the weapon plays no role in the outcome, why did all those cops (who have standard issue handguns) run into that school with rifles? How come when I was with the USMC, I never once told my gyus to leave their rifles back at base and just bring handguns?

The kook is the biggest factor, you are correct. But please, tell me what's factually incorrect with the following sentence?

The more lethal the weapon, the more kids the kook can kill before the good guys get there.

How is that wrong?

[Typhoon]

Happy New Year to me.

Had no previous interest in purchasing a Glock. Wouldn't have purchased it, if I didn't feel it was about to be outlawed.

There were 30 people buying guns with 8 people behind the counter.

Joining Old Colony Sportmans association on Sunday.

[buckman]

[QUOTE

The kook is the biggest factor, you are correct. But please, tell me what's factually incorrect with the following sentence?

The more lethal the weapon, the more kids the kook can kill before the good guys get there.

How is that wrong?[/QUOTE]

Think suicide bomber . Your right this kook chose an assault style rifle but your premise that less kids would have died if he didn't illegally access this weapon is hypothetical
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

[QUOTE

The kook is the biggest factor, you are correct. But please, tell me what's factually incorrect with the following sentence?

The more lethal the weapon, the more kids the kook can kill before the good guys get there.

How is that wrong?

your premise that less kids would have died if he didn't illegally access this weapon is hypothetical
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/QUOTE]

So why did those cops storm the school with rifles instead of handguns?

Yes, I am hypothesizing. The fact that those cops entered the school with rifles instead of handguns, would seem to support my hypothesis. The cops did not know what they were facing. Yet just about every one of them chose a rifle instead of a pistol? Why?

If a rifle provides no tactical advantage over a handgun, why did they all have rifles?

[buckman]

So your arguing that in fact citizens need these weapons for defense against those that illegally aquire them ?
That's the NRA position also .
I'm saying without the rifle there is no telling how many might have died with the semi automatic hand guns he had also. Maybe more ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

So your arguing that in fact citizens need these weapons for defense against those that illegally aquire them ?
That's the NRA position also .
I'm saying without the rifle there is no telling how many might have died with the semi automatic hand guns he had also. Maybe more ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"So your arguing that in fact citizens need these weapons for defense against those that illegally aquire them ?
That's the NRA position also "

Right. That's also your position, at least that's what you posted before. I concede that in extremely rare situations, citizens might need these weapons for protection. We agree on that. I don't agree that it's common for citizens to need such a weapon, but I wouldn't say 'never' either.

Somehow, we disagree on the downside ogf these weapons, that in random mass murder killing sprees, these weapons will increase the body count compared to handguns. You seem to disagree that these weapons pose any greater danger than handguns, when in the hands of a would-be mass-murderer.

I asked this 3 times, and you seem to be dodging. Just in case you didn't see the question, I'll ask it yet again. If these rifles offer no tactical advantage over handguns, why did all the cops that stormed the school, who had no idea what they were facing, have rifles instead of their standard-issue handguns?

Please try to anser that question. My hypothesis, and I am certain that I'm correct, is that the cops chose rifles because they know that in most situations, it's easier for them to kill bad guys with rifles instead of handguns. And if that's true, it also holds true for bad guys.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"How many children every year drown in swimming pools? No one really needs a swimming pool in their backyard. "

Correct. And we have all kinds of zoning laws you need to follow to put in a pool. You can't just do whatever you want.

Johnny, I'm not saying that sensible gun control is going to save millions and millions of lives. I said it would be likely to save a small number of lives. So pointing out that more people are killed in car accidents, isn't refuting my point, because I concede that. I would not want the government outlawing cars. Outlawing assault rifles with high-capacity magazines does not seem all that totalitarian to me. Almost everyone owns a car, and if we had to get rid of those cars, our lives would be turned upside down. I don't see the same intrusion with giving up high-capacity magazines. Our day-to-day lives don't depend on high-capacity magazines.

There's that word "sensible" again. I noticed there was a focus on swimming pools and not my mention of alcohol and tobacco. "Sensible" would be outlawing tobacco because of the hundreds of thousands that die due to long-term use - most of which that I know started when they were under 18 years old. Not to mention the immense financial burden on society for their medical care.

"Sensible" would be to outlaw alcohol because children get access to it and drink themselves to death. Or irresponsible adults get access to it, get behind the car and hit a mother driving her 3 children head on.

What's my point? If you're really that emotionally invested in "saving even one child", then you should be at the front lines for seeing alcohol go the same way as those "assault weapons" and politically-defined high-capacity magazines. Why are 100 events with 1 or 2 people dying each time of less importance than 1 instance where 20 people die?

"We had a Federal Assault Weapon ban for 10 years that restricted the sale of "scary guns""

There were more than 900 exceptions, including the AR-15. In effect, there was no ban. It was so watered down, no one thought it would do anything.

With all due respect, I'm not sure you understand what an "assault weapon" actually is or the contents of the 1994 law, resulting in a significant amount of conjecture. First, an AR-15 is not an assault weapon by definition. The media and liberals have created a misconception that just because a firearm come in black or has a synthetic stock, that it is a "military-style weapon". You are aware that the AR in "AR-15" stands for the original manufacturer "ArmaLite" not "assault rifle", right?

In drafting the original federal assault weapon ban, Diane Feinstein leveraged a made-up term and then stamped her own definition to it. The FAWB did rather clearly define how a rifle would be an assault weapon:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The law wasn't a failure at curbing gun crime because it had exceptions, the law was a failure because politicians focused on the hopes of a quick fix. Which of those alleged "900 exceptions" contributed to a lack of decreased deaths due do long guns?

Like most policies pushed through Washington, there was no actual research supporting the bill. It was merely a Democratic legislature, along with Clinton, trying to draft gun control - and a few months later, voters had their heads.

"there is not a single shred of evidence that supports a decrease in violence associated with rifles during that time"

That's because 99.99% of gun violence is one-on-one confrontations with a handgun. These random mass-murders are a totally different scenario, and as such, they need to be discussed seperately. JD, I'd bet every cent I have, against the spare change you have in your pocket, that the body count in Newtown would have been lower if that kid walked into that school with a handgun.

I read an excellent editorial posted on Forbes.com today that, with all due respect, would be perfect for someone like yourself - who supports a renewed AWB - should read.
'Assault Weapon' Is Just A PR Stunt Meant To Fool The Gullible - Forbes

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT;

I asked this 3 times, and you seem to be dodging. Just in case you didn't see the question, I'll ask it yet again. If these rifles offer no tactical advantage over handguns, [B

why did all the cops that stormed the school, who had no idea what they were facing, have rifles instead of their standard-issue handguns?[/B]

Please try to anser that question. My hypothesis, and I am certain that I'm correct, is that the cops chose rifles because they know that in most situations, it's easier for them to kill bad guys with rifles instead of handguns. And if that's true, it also holds true for bad guys.

The cops don't like to be out gunned either Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"So your arguing that in fact citizens need these weapons for defense against those that illegally aquire them ?
That's the NRA position also "

Right. That's also your position, at least that's what you posted before. I concede that in extremely rare situations, citizens might need these weapons for protection. We agree on that. I don't agree that it's common for citizens to need such a weapon, but I wouldn't say 'never' either.

So then, for extremely rare situations, citizens should be able to get a permit for these weapons? How does one prepare for extremely rare situations? How does one even know what those situations might be? Or when they will occur? If a white store owner in L.A. during the Rodney King riots would have been justified to own these weapons, would he also have been justified before the riots? Wouldn't it have been too late to wait for the riots to happen? Would the black store owners also have been justified to own them? How about the truck driver that was hauled out of his truck and nearly beaten to death? Would he have been justified in owning one? How about all the other residents in L.A.? Would they have been justified to own them? Would they only be justified in the actual event of a riot? wouldn't it be too late to wait for a riot to happen before applying for a permit?

Somehow, we disagree on the downside ogf these weapons, that in random mass murder killing sprees, these weapons will increase the body count compared to handguns. You seem to disagree that these weapons pose any greater danger than handguns, when in the hands of a would-be mass-murderer.

My hypothesis, and I am certain that I'm correct, is that the cops chose rifles because they know that in most situations, it's easier for them to kill bad guys with rifles instead of handguns. And if that's true, it also holds true for bad guys.

I don't think buckman or anybody else disagrees that high capacity weapons can increase the body count compared to lower capacity handguns. There might be a disagreement that they pose a greater danger. All guns pose the danger of being used to kill. Greater numbers of killed does not increase the danger, it, as you say, increases the body count. I doubt that the parents of children killed by a handgun think to themselves that, "phew, it's a good thing the guy didn't have a high capacity weapon or he might have killed some other kids. Hey Jim, congrats, you're kid was not shot. I feel good for you." On the other hand, parents of kids who weren't shot might well be grateful. But the danger that they could have been the ones killed was there, by hand gun or rifle.

Your hypothesis is that cops chose rifles because they know that in most situations, [not just extremely rare ones] it's easier to kill bad guys with rifles instead of handguns. And that if that's true, it also holds true for bad guys. But then, as I believe buckman implied, that it would also hold true for civilians defending themselves against bad guys. Why would we allow police to defend with rifles but not allow civilians to do so? Aren't civilians killed in far greater numbers than police?

It would seem that if the number of kids killed in rare instances is enough to ban high capacity weapons, that there is an even greater need to ban hand guns which are used to kill, on an almost daily basis, many more people, including children.

You keep wanting to have a "serious conversation" on the subject, as if such conversations have not occurred. If the conversation is simply about the number killed, the acceptable number would have to be less than one. Which guns would be allowed under that number?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

The cops don't like to be out gunned either Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hold on! You have repeatedly denied that rifles are going to result in more deaths than handguns. Therefore, you are denying a tactical advantage to using rifles. In that case, why would the cops be "out-gunned" with pistols?

You can't have it both ways. Which is it?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

There's that word "sensible" again. I noticed there was a focus on swimming pools and not my mention of alcohol and tobacco. "Sensible" would be outlawing tobacco because of the hundreds of thousands that die due to long-term use - most of which that I know started when they were under 18 years old. Not to mention the immense financial burden on society for their medical care.

"Sensible" would be to outlaw alcohol because children get access to it and drink themselves to death. Or irresponsible adults get access to it, get behind the car and hit a mother driving her 3 children head on.

What's my point? If you're really that emotionally invested in "saving even one child", then you should be at the front lines for seeing alcohol go the same way as those "assault weapons" and politically-defined high-capacity magazines. Why are 100 events with 1 or 2 people dying each time of less importance than 1 instance where 20 people die?


With all due respect, I'm not sure you understand what an "assault weapon" actually is or the contents of the 1994 law, resulting in a significant amount of conjecture. First, an AR-15 is not an assault weapon by definition. The media and liberals have created a misconception that just because a firearm come in black or has a synthetic stock, that it is a "military-style weapon". You are aware that the AR in "AR-15" stands for the original manufacturer "ArmaLite" not "assault rifle", right?

In drafting the original federal assault weapon ban, Diane Feinstein leveraged a made-up term and then stamped her own definition to it. The FAWB did rather clearly define how a rifle would be an assault weapon:
Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The law wasn't a failure at curbing gun crime because it had exceptions, the law was a failure because politicians focused on the hopes of a quick fix. Which of those alleged "900 exceptions" contributed to a lack of decreased deaths due do long guns?

Like most policies pushed through Washington, there was no actual research supporting the bill. It was merely a Democratic legislature, along with Clinton, trying to draft gun control - and a few months later, voters had their heads.


I read an excellent editorial posted on Forbes.com today that, with all due respect, would be perfect for someone like yourself - who supports a renewed AWB - should read.
'Assault Weapon' Is Just A PR Stunt Meant To Fool The Gullible - Forbes

"I noticed there was a focus on swimming pools and not my mention of alcohol and tobacco"

Fine, let's talk about alcohol and tobacco all you like, because it plays into my argument, not yours. Just like with pools, there are all kinds of restrictions on alcohol and tobacco use that are designed to promote public safety. Is this news to you? Age restrictions, can't drink and drive, bars are required not to give you too much, can't smoke in public places where you can harm others...Notice a pattern here? These are all examples of society putting limits on our freedoms, in the interest of public safety. That's what I'm talking about here.

""Sensible" would be outlawing tobacco because of the hundreds of thousands that die due to long-term use "

Maybe, maybe not. Currently, as a society, we have collectively decided that the freedom to choose to smoke is more important than the lives that would be saved if we banned smoking. What I'm saying is, we should have that discussion with these weapons, without caving in to radical ideology or NRA lobbying pressure. Let's have a common sense discussion of the pros and cons. I agree thare are cons to banning anything. What I'm stunned by, is the resistance to the notion that there are potential pros to banning these things.

" If you're really that emotionally invested in "saving even one child", then you should be at the front lines for seeing alcohol go the same way as those "assault weapons"

Perhaps you're not reading well lately. Because I have said multiple times on this thread that we can't use public safety as an excuse to trample the constitution. I don't see anything in the constitution about what 'types' of arms we are entitled to bear. Do you?

I know the AR-15 isn't categorized as an assault weapon. What I'm saying is, we should look to see if there are things that serve no legitimate societal need (like, maybe, high capacity magazines) which if banned, might save a few lives.

"Why are 100 events with 1 or 2 people dying each time of less importance than 1 instance where 20 people die?"

I would not support unconstitutional bans to save 100 lives. I might support constitutional bans that save 1 or 2 lives. I can only assume that you can't differentiate between those two things, because you keep trying to refute me by citing inane hypotheticals that would be broadly perceived as trampling the constitution.

If you want to refute me, explain why banning high capacity magazines is in violation of the second amendment.

I never said banning these weapons would save more lives than any other possible bans of other actions or products. I never said banning these weapons would allow all of us to live forever. I have repeatedly said that the impact would be minimal. That doesn't mean it's not worth doing.

Show me how it's blatantly unconstitutional. The 2nd amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. We have collectively decided that banning machine guns and mortars is not a violation of that clause. I feel one could make a compelling case that banning things like high-capacity magazines (or anything else designed for military capacity, not civilian use) is similar.

I agree that banning rifles that look scary, but in fact operate exactly like a small-game hunting rifle, is not accomplishing much. I'm talking about banning things that are significantly more lethal, yet which serve no significant need except to make guys with small wee-wees feel macho enough.

The type of ban I'm talking about might not have had any impact to the Newtown tragedy. But it might help mitigate the next one.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I don't think buckman or anybody else disagrees that high capacity weapons can increase the body count compared to lower capacity handguns. There might be a disagreement that they pose a greater danger. All guns pose the danger of being used to kill. Greater numbers of killed does not increase the danger, it, as you say, increases the body count. I doubt that the parents of children killed by a handgun think to themselves that, "phew, it's a good thing the guy didn't have a high capacity weapon or he might have killed some other kids. Hey Jim, congrats, you're kid was not shot. I feel good for you." On the other hand, parents of kids who weren't shot might well be grateful. But the danger that they could have been the ones killed was there, by hand gun or rifle.

Your hypothesis is that cops chose rifles because they know that in most situations, [not just extremely rare ones] it's easier to kill bad guys with rifles instead of handguns. And that if that's true, it also holds true for bad guys. But then, as I believe buckman implied, that it would also hold true for civilians defending themselves against bad guys. Why would we allow police to defend with rifles but not allow civilians to do so? Aren't civilians killed in far greater numbers than police?

It would seem that if the number of kids killed in rare instances is enough to ban high capacity weapons, that there is an even greater need to ban hand guns which are used to kill, on an almost daily basis, many more people, including children.

You keep wanting to have a "serious conversation" on the subject, as if such conversations have not occurred. If the conversation is simply about the number killed, the acceptable number would have to be less than one. Which guns would be allowed under that number?

"I don't think buckman or anybody else disagrees that high capacity weapons can increase the body count compared to lower capacity handguns"

ThenI can only assume you aren't reading his responses.

"If the conversation is simply about the number killed, the acceptable number would have to be less than one. "

Wrong. You need to read what I'm actually saying. It isn't only about reducing deaths. It's about reducing deaths in accordance with our constitution. That's a big difference. I'm not saying that any ban that reduces deaths is good. I'm saying that if it's not trampling the constitution, let's talk about it.

Automatic machine guns are banned. That ban has been deemed constitutional. What's so crazy about extending that ban to, say, high capacity magazines?

"Greater numbers of killed does not increase the danger, it, as you say, increases the body count."

If it increases the potential body count, it certainly increases the danger to society as a whole. I'm shocked you'd miss that.

"I doubt that the parents of children killed by a handgun think to themselves that, "phew, it's a good thing the guy didn't have a high capacity weapon or he might have killed some other kids"

Why, then, are families of victims so often leading the charge to ban military-style weapons? If what you say is correct (that they don't care about any other kids), and their kid is already dead, why should they give a rat's azz. Wow. You're saying that parents who lost their kids, have zero vested interest in making sure it doesn't happen to someone else's kid. That's one of the stranger things I have seen you post. I could not disagree more.

I survived a war. Using your logic, I have no reason to be concerned about what happens when other teenagers are sent into compat? I have no reasons to call for rules to help future soldiers? That's what you think?

Seems unbelievably self-centered to me.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It would seem that if the number of kids killed in rare instances is enough to ban high capacity weapons, that there is an even greater need to ban hand guns which are used to kill, on an almost daily basis, many more people, including children.

And finally somebody hits the nail on the head. The violence that has resulted from societal issues combined with the proliferation of hand guns is by far the much more serious problem. Some argue it's a racial issue that's ignored because the majority of victims and perps are black.

Incidents of mass shootings tend to involve mental health issues combined with assault weapons if not hand guns. I don't see how anyone can refute Jim's point that an assault weapon as defined under the 1994 law isn't more deadly. They don't just "look scary" their characteristics were designed with a specific purpose. Perhaps it's the line drawn in the sand that's the issue. Is it arbitrary? Does that really make a difference?

Jim made a number of good points in the post above. The most important being, why can't there be a rational discussion on the subject that doesn't fall back on an absolute belief that's fuzzy at best?

I'm certainly not for banning all guns and have no problem with responsible hand gun owners, but the stats on gun violence in our country put us alongside a list of unsavory nations. More guns isn't the answer, there's a huge difference between a concealed carry for personal protection (when justified) and vigilante justice.

As an aside, The Specialist's story about the three load limit for duck hunting was ironic as it was citing a federal law that restricts the use of firearms

-spence