Gun Control

[knapplc]

The concept that the citizenry can do anything to prevent government tyranny through armed conflict went away with cavalry charges and cloth-winged aircraft.

So you're saying we're helpless then?

Answer your own question. You and 10,000 of your fellow gun-wielding citizens believe the only way to counter an out-of-control government is to take up arms. How successful will you be with the weapons in your gun cabinet?

I realize the situation. That doesn't mean you roll over and play dead. Like any revolution, if enough people make a stand against it, they will not allow tyranny to happen.

The government outguns you by orders of magnitude. There is no way we, no matter how strong our resolve, can defeat F-22s and cruise missiles with light arms. In this reality, the 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with overthrowing tyranny.

The 1st Amendment, however, will be the far more effective tool. In fact, it's the only tool we have that can successfully overthrow our government.

 

[HuskerShark]

And you're not going to stop a tyrannical government with your words.

Oh, really?

Gandhi worked from the inside out. How does that apply to citizens protecting themselves against an out of control tyrannical government using fatal force?

 

[Elf]

Why is it that sane, rational people who think we don't need guns have to be labeled "leftists" or "liberals" or whatever other dismissive name comes to mind?

Why can't we just realize there are people without an agenda who understand that guns, while neat & fun & safe in the right hands, don't really have a place in a civilized society?

I understand I'm late to this party.

Yes they do. They have a place in civilized society because not everyone is civilized. Like it or not, that's a fact.

The gun is the great equalizer. It puts a 70 yr old man on equal footing with a 19 yr old gang banger. It puts a 120 lb woman on equal footing with a 200 lb rapist. I have a concealed handgun permit and I don't step outside my front door w/o packing heat. Why? Because there is evil in this world and the national average response time to a 911 call is something like 23 minutes. On top of that the police are not required to protect any of us. I choose to carry to protect my wife and daughters. It would be extremely distasteful to have to pull my weapon and use it on another human being but I refuse to let my family or myself be helpless victims.

Solid points. But how would your desire and ability to protect your family be taken away by any of the following, assuming you are able to pass a background check?
-Limit on rounds fired per second

-Limits on magazine capacity

-Background checks for every gun purchase

I enjoy shooting. I don't ever want people unable to protect their families, including my own. But there are some simple things that can be done that won't restrict our rights, and if they save only ONE life, they would be worth it.

If my life, or my families lives are in danger, then I choose to have as much firepower as I can handle to eliminate the threat(s).

How much firepower I choose will depend on how many assailants there are. This isn't something that can be determined ahead of time by some buron.

Limiting magazine capacity is a joke. Any weapon I own that uses replaceable magazines can be reloaded in mere seconds, as in 2 or less. If you limit my magazine capacity I'll just carry more of them. And why would you limit MY magazine capacity? I'm no criminal. For that matter, why would you limit anything firearms related for law abiding citizens?

And get this, as a Concealed Handgun Permit holder not only have I passed multiple background checks (mine come back in minutes compared to days for other people) but Concealed Handgun Permit holders belong to the most law abiding group of citizens in America.

And understand this, you cannot get rid of firearms. That is a pandora's box that cannot be closed again.

I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill to the greatest extent possible without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens. The mental health care in this country is atrocious and needs fixing.

 

[funhusker]

Why is it that sane, rational people who think we don't need guns have to be labeled "leftists" or "liberals" or whatever other dismissive name comes to mind?

Why can't we just realize there are people without an agenda who understand that guns, while neat & fun & safe in the right hands, don't really have a place in a civilized society?

I understand I'm late to this party.

Yes they do. They have a place in civilized society because not everyone is civilized. Like it or not, that's a fact.

The gun is the great equalizer. It puts a 70 yr old man on equal footing with a 19 yr old gang banger. It puts a 120 lb woman on equal footing with a 200 lb rapist. I have a concealed handgun permit and I don't step outside my front door w/o packing heat. Why? Because there is evil in this world and the national average response time to a 911 call is something like 23 minutes. On top of that the police are not required to protect any of us. I choose to carry to protect my wife and daughters. It would be extremely distasteful to have to pull my weapon and use it on another human being but I refuse to let my family or myself be helpless victims.

Solid points. But how would your desire and ability to protect your family be taken away by any of the following, assuming you are able to pass a background check?
-Limit on rounds fired per second

-Limits on magazine capacity

-Background checks for every gun purchase

I enjoy shooting. I don't ever want people unable to protect their families, including my own. But there are some simple things that can be done that won't restrict our rights, and if they save only ONE life, they would be worth it.

If my life, or my families lives are in danger, then I choose to have as much firepower as I can handle to eliminate the threat(s).

How much firepower I choose will depend on how many assailants there are. This isn't something that can be determined ahead of time by some buron.

Limiting magazine capacity is a joke. Any weapon I own that uses replaceable magazines can be reloaded in mere seconds, as in 2 or less. If you limit my magazine capacity I'll just carry more of them. And why would you limit MY magazine capacity? I'm no criminal. For that matter, why would you limit anything firearms related for law abiding citizens?

And get this, as a Concealed Handgun Permit holder not only have I passed multiple background checks (mine come back in minutes compared to days for other people) but Concealed Handgun Permit holders belong to the most law abiding group of citizens in America.

And understand this, you cannot get rid of firearms. That is a pandora's box that cannot be closed again.

First of all, I will never support banning guns.

Secondly, you already go through background checks, so shouldn't everyone for every sale?

Lastly, why would we limit YOUR capacity if your not a criminal?

a. Omar Mateen was not a criminal before Orlando

b. Adam Lanza was not a criminal before Sandy Hook

c. James Holmes was not a criminal before Aurora

d. the list goes on

e. Where do you think criminals get automatic guns, ammo, and magazines? They buy/steal them from legal owners and buyers. If legal owners/buyers can't have them, neither can the criminals. That logical deduction isn't hard to comprehend.

I understand that there are people who are unwilling to at make small sacrifices (in this case time: waiting for background check, time in changing magaizines), I just don't understand why.....

 

[zoogs]

Guns really are the great equalizer. Going back a few pages to the point Elf raised.

That's the great, and terrible thing about them.

Many pages ago now there was a discussion about high capacity clips. The same fact is viewed differently by both sides. Yes, they really help someone with a gun to kill his target(s) dead. On the other hand, they really help someone with a gun kill his target(s) dead.

A gun lets a physically weaker person kill one or many stronger people. It also is the tool that allows someone who has no capacity to do so otherwise to walk into a crowded church, or school, or bar, or theater, and slaughter dozens of people.

Isn't that grounds for severe restrictions and regulation regarding the privilege of use and ownership of one of these extremely hazardous, expressly-designed-for-killing machines?

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

From a Houston Mom's facebook post this past March:

“It would be horribly tragic if my ability to protect myself or my family were to be taken away, but that’s exactly what Democrats are determined to do by banning semi-automatic handguns.”


Well, she doesn't need to worry anymore about Dems taking away her ability to protect her family -- on Friday she got into an argument with her 2 daughters, then shot and killed them herself.

She was then was subsequently shot and killed by police.

http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/fo...in-8324118.php

 

[HuskerShark]

And unless that woman had a criminal history, what piece of legislation other than a complete ban of firearms would have prevented that? Even in that case, she still could have done it with a myriad of other weapons.

That simply proves once again, it's not a gun problem. It's a mental health, religion, and/or education problem.

 

[HuskerShark]

I'll add that i am not opposed to making it more difficult to buy guns. I don't think it will make a difference, and it will be impossible to measure considering so many variables, but it can't hurt.

 

[zoogs]

And unless that woman had a criminal history, what piece of legislation other than a complete ban of firearms would have prevented that? Even in that case, she still could have done it with a myriad of other weapons.

Bingo. Guns are the problem. They are freaking dangerous, and one should have to pass a high hurdle in order to obtain the privilege.

Treating it as a birthright is not the way to go.

Granting (or allowing one to keep) a driver's license to someone who hasn't proved they aren't a reckless driver is a dangerous situation. Same with guns.

 

[Enhance]

I'll add that i am not opposed to making it more difficult to buy guns. I don't think it will make a difference, and it will be impossible to measure considering so many variables, but it can't hurt.

If we took the same approach to gun registration and ownership that other countries do - particularly some of the ones on a similar playing field as the U.S. - there's plenty of sound reason and evidence to suggest improvement.

The problem is that hundreds of thousands... probably millions... of Americans are too paranoid and protective of their weapons to want to make a difference.

So, instead, many suggest better gun laws "won't change anything" and then say we attack mental health, religion, and education issues, essentially proclaiming that we eliminate crime and mental health problems for the first time in human history.

 

[HuskerShark]

I'll add that i am not opposed to making it more difficult to buy guns. I don't think it will make a difference, and it will be impossible to measure considering so many variables, but it can't hurt.

If we took the same approach to gun registration and ownership that other countries do - particularly some of the ones on a similar playing field as the U.S. - there's plenty of sound reason and evidence to suggest improvement.
The problem is that hundreds of thousands... probably millions... of Americans are too paranoid and protective of their weapons to want to make a difference.

So, instead, many suggest better gun laws "won't change anything" and then say we attack mental health, religion, and education issues, essentially proclaiming that we eliminate crime and mental health problems for the first time in human history.

Those issues will never be fully eliminated. Neither will guns, theft, or drugs. That doesn't mean that you allow your elected officials who constantly display a complete lack of common sense to pass any sort of legislation prohibiting or regulating these things. At least not without mass consent by the people that it affects.

With the gun control issue, it comes down to trust, and most people (rightfully so) don't trust these politicians, many of which have hidden agendas, to pass anything sensible.

 

[zoogs]

America has over 300 million guns. That can be cut down. A lot.

And if it is, I think there's pretty darn good reason to think that gun violence will likewise decline (all other things being equal).

Some 30% of American households own guns. This number was a lot higher some decades ago. That number can get a lot lower, too.

 

[Elf]

Guns really are the great equalizer. Going back a few pages to the point Elf raised.

That's the great, and terrible thing about them.

Many pages ago now there was a discussion about high capacity clips. The same fact is viewed differently by both sides. Yes, they really help someone with a gun to kill his target(s) dead. On the other hand, they really help someone with a gun kill his target(s) dead.

A gun lets a physically weaker person kill one or many stronger people. It also is the tool that allows someone who has no capacity to do so otherwise to walk into a crowded church, or school, or bar, or theater, and slaughter dozens of people.

Isn't that grounds for severe restrictions and regulation regarding the privilege of use and ownership of one of these extremely hazardous, expressly-designed-for-killing machines?

Owning a gun is not a privilege. It's a right. And there is a huge difference.

 

[Elf]

America has over 300 million guns. That can be cut down. A lot.

And if it is, I think there's pretty darn good reason to think that gun violence will likewise decline (all other things being equal).

Some 30% of American households own guns. This number was a lot higher some decades ago. That number can get a lot lower, too.

You will never cut down on the number of guns in America. I could make them in my garage if I was so inclined. Every time a mass shooting happens and politicians start talking about gun control gun/ammo sales skyrocket.

 

[Elf]

And unless that woman had a criminal history, what piece of legislation other than a complete ban of firearms would have prevented that? Even in that case, she still could have done it with a myriad of other weapons.

Bingo. Guns are the problem. They are freaking dangerous, and one should have to pass a high hurdle in order to obtain the privilege.

Treating it as a birthright is not the way to go.

Granting (or allowing one to keep) a driver's license to someone who hasn't proved they aren't a reckless driver is a dangerous situation. Same with guns.

Guns are NOT the problem and they are NOT inherently dangerous. People are the problem and many of them ARE inherently dangerous.

I have a loaded Kimber .45 sitting on top of my computer tower and it has never once jumped up and committed a crime. I suspect it never will.

You want to take away our birthright to own firearms. I want to take away your birthright to Free Speech. Speech can be dangerous so we must treat it as a privilege and not a birthright. (See how easy that is?) I don't want to hear how speech can't kill or that it could never be as dangerous as guns. Adolf Hitler inspired an entire nation to go to war with his speeches. Over 60 million people died before that nightmare ended.

Btw, there has never been a consensus that the 2nd Amendment is a collective right instead of an individual one. There have been many people (mostly Democrats) who have made that claim. Before the NRA-ILA became the force it is now, 34/36 Constitutional scholars said it was an individual right.

What about all the defensive gun uses in America every day? Every single day good guys use guns to foil crimes and in most cases the weapon never gets fired. Twice in my life I have pulled a weapon in my defense. Once to stop a crazed homeless man from entering my vehicle and attacking me (yes, he was crazed and I do not have the time to relay that story atm) and the other time it was to stop a guy from climbing into my apartment through my bedroom window while I slept. I didn't fire my weapon in either case but I certainly stopped a pair of bad guys.

Defensive gun use in America has been studied and estimates run anywhere from 100,000 to 3 million times per year depending on who did the study and their methodology. How many peoples lives have been saved by defensive gun use? We'll never know the answer to that one because it is impossible to know. I do think it's reasonable to assume that number would be in the thousands and possibly many thousands each year. Far too often we focus on the bad and forget to look for any good. The NRA used to publish stories about citizens defending themselves with guns and all of the stories were taken from local newspapers. It used to be posted online but I am not seeing it anymore. Read through some of those stories and you just might change your mind on some things.

Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.