0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
Steven H. wrote...
So, I wonder when FPoD will be in this thread."Speak of the devil and he doth appear".
Black Jesus JC wrote...
Also, on the topic of the assault gun ban. In the stories i mentioned of gun owners defending themselves or others, from what i can read none of them needed a assault rifle to do it. So i'm not sure why gun owners are so against a ban of them.This is a question that comes to the heart of a gun owners philosophy. The gun owners that I have spoken to believe that the citizens should have comparable weapons to that of the government that is supposed to protect them. The reason for this is, the founding fathers at the time of the Constitution's ratification had to deal with the real threat of government confiscating weapons from the population as a means to make them easier to control. I believe we both can agree that an unarmed population is easier to push around than an armed one. There have been several accounts throughout history where the governing body has used violence against unarmed civilians and even armed civilians that were on the "wrong side" of an issue.
Now, I won't go so far as to say that an unarmed population is asking for a genocide. However, the threat of an armed population is supposed to exist as a countermeasure to government abuses. People want weapons to protect themselves from more than common burglars they want to protect themselves from an abusive or tyrannical government. Since it's happened repeatedly in other countries, there is naive to say "it can't happen here"
To view it another way, the state keeps you in line by having threats of force against you. If you break a law, the state will fine or imprison you. If you resist, then the guns come out. An armed population is a similar measure towards the government. If local representatives, police, congress or the president goes against the will of the people then we vote them out. If they refuse to cooperate with the legal system, then the guns come out and we force them to cooperate with our laws.
[color=#2e1a6b]I suspect that it is for this same reason that the Government wants to take away said guns.
0
Black Jesus JC wrote...
My position on gun control has loosened a bit,due to reading a couple of stories of gun owners defending themselves/others. I actually think no gun zones are backfired, and should be eliminated.Also, on the topic of the assault gun ban. In the stories i mentioned of gun owners defending themselves or others, from what i can read none of them needed a assault rifle to do it. So i'm not sure why gun owners are so against a ban of them.
I'll also bone in (and welcome home, FPOD :D ) and say that while they may not have 'needed' an 'assault weapon' to do so, they are inherently suited for the job.
First off, 'assault rifle' is a term that is widely misused. 'Assault rifle' defines a select-fire (ie, Full auto) firearm, which is not what the 'assault weapons' ban is attempting to abolish.
An AR-15 used as example is a lightweight rifle that fires a relatively low-powered cartridge. It is easier to control than a handgun or a shotgun and is more powerful than the former. For this reason it is popular for the home defense role.
And 30-round magazines do have a place. Suppose one is facing an armed home invasion/burglary with more than one perpetrator. You don't know if they're high/on what, their pain tolerance, clothing weight, ect, any number of factors. What are you going to be more comfortable with; ten rounds in the gun, and hoping you can reload if you need that 11th round to stop the threat, or thirty? The thing is that the scenario in which one needs to use a firearm to defend oneself, one is most likely going to lose any fine motor control in the stress and adrenaline dump. Unless you have military experience/training or some equivalent, in that situation the average person is about only going to be able to point and squeeze the trigger, if one can do that. Forcing a reload under such circumstances is going to be an extreme risk. A rifle with a 'high-capacity' magazine simply gives the defender the maximum odds in a very poor situation.
And as I believe I pointed out in my first post, such a ban on either assault weapons or high capacity magazines would not have a meaningful impact on gun crime.
Oh, and DefDist have 3D-printed a useable 30-round AR-15 magazine
Spoiler:
(I'll add that in the second video, he is using a real 'assault rifle'. Such firearms are legal to own but cost six months and $15,000+ to legally buy.)
0
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty." -Adolf Hitler
As you can see in the above quote, Hitler believed that disarming the citizens is the first step to dictating a country. Also, the founding fathers were of the belief that if everyone was in possesion of fire arms crime would go down. I criminal who fears that guns are all around him is less likely to commit a crime than a criminal who knows there are no guns around him. The answer to gun control is clear. It is ignorant and unconstitutional.
As you can see in the above quote, Hitler believed that disarming the citizens is the first step to dictating a country. Also, the founding fathers were of the belief that if everyone was in possesion of fire arms crime would go down. I criminal who fears that guns are all around him is less likely to commit a crime than a criminal who knows there are no guns around him. The answer to gun control is clear. It is ignorant and unconstitutional.
0
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/us/home-invasion-gun-rights/index.html
Reinforcing my last post's point. She emptied a revolver at him. He absorbed five not underpowered rounds and could have still wielded a weapon against them, and she didn't even have a reload. Again, if there had been more than one attacker, or if he had had a weapon they would likely not still be here. Six shots is not enough for defense. Ten shots is not enough for defense.
Reinforcing my last post's point. She emptied a revolver at him. He absorbed five not underpowered rounds and could have still wielded a weapon against them, and she didn't even have a reload. Again, if there had been more than one attacker, or if he had had a weapon they would likely not still be here. Six shots is not enough for defense. Ten shots is not enough for defense.
0
sv51macross wrote...
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/us/home-invasion-gun-rights/index.htmlReinforcing my last post's point. She emptied a revolver at him. He absorbed five not underpowered rounds and could have still wielded a weapon against them, and she didn't even have a reload. Again, if there had been more than one attacker, or if he had had a weapon they would likely not still be here. Six shots is not enough for defense. Ten shots is not enough for defense.
To be fair, she was using a revolver which makes her irrelevant to the argument for high capacity magazines as there are no revolvers on the market that use magazines. However if she was using a rifle of some sort that used a magazine, then we could argue for high capacity magazines.
0
hello everyone ill say before I share my opinion i know nothing about guns other than general stuff nothing technical.I honestly can say i have no real opinion in such matters as i usually dont say what i think as i am never asked but id say if you have a gun to hunt and a hunting reserve(or wherever you hunt) why not join a hunting lodge where they can keep all the stuff you would need and keep your hunting equipment there however I know thats not the issue we have to come with a solution in a calm rathional and comprehensive way because blaming one thing would not be ideal i would assume if you have a gun that you would have a gun safe/a regular safe if its small like a hand gun and has nobody heard of metal detectors?i do apologize for my ignorance in this matter.
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
sv51macross wrote...
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/us/home-invasion-gun-rights/index.htmlReinforcing my last post's point. She emptied a revolver at him. He absorbed five not underpowered rounds and could have still wielded a weapon against them, and she didn't even have a reload. Again, if there had been more than one attacker, or if he had had a weapon they would likely not still be here. Six shots is not enough for defense. Ten shots is not enough for defense.
To be fair, she was using a revolver which makes her irrelevant to the argument for high capacity magazines as there are no revolvers on the market that use magazines. However if she was using a rifle of some sort that used a magazine, then we could argue for high capacity magazines.
You are correct. But more to the point that a gun is a gun and there are pistols marketed towards personal defense that have only six rounds in the magazine. And even then, if one man absorbed five shots and was still a potential shot, what if the luck was similar for a second assailant? How many people would remember to grab a spare magazine (for a pistol limited to ten rounds) when something goes bump in the night and your kids are down the hall?
0
Glad somebody brought this topic up ... really a hot topic now and why MANY are now even buying more guns because of the fear of their safety.
I strongly agree that the UK rates shouldn't be compared to the US rates because the size of the population is really different. America has indeed dropped it's violent crime rates, and I do believe that the media is just using one or two incidents as a means to justify bans on assaults weapons, or weapons in general. Nowadays the only gun violent crimes we see have now much to do with people who are on psychiatric medicine, which in this case should be questioned as to why such a person or their guardians, possess such weapons considering the risks they are taking when a person of little or no control of themselves are living with them.
Guns are used to protect yourselves, not hurt others, yet there are people out there who actually do the opposite, and most of those cases are people with troubles in their lives. I do find it messed up how the media is going with this, especially Morgan Piers that always uses the same argument by comparing the UK with the US.
Besides, the founding fathers of America even wrote it themselves, that possessions of Guns are allowed in case of a tyrannical government. So people should start waking up and start thinking about why we even have laws allowing gun possessions in the first place. Hitler disarmed his folks and look what happened.
I am just saying, there is a reason and explanation for everything.
I strongly agree that the UK rates shouldn't be compared to the US rates because the size of the population is really different. America has indeed dropped it's violent crime rates, and I do believe that the media is just using one or two incidents as a means to justify bans on assaults weapons, or weapons in general. Nowadays the only gun violent crimes we see have now much to do with people who are on psychiatric medicine, which in this case should be questioned as to why such a person or their guardians, possess such weapons considering the risks they are taking when a person of little or no control of themselves are living with them.
Guns are used to protect yourselves, not hurt others, yet there are people out there who actually do the opposite, and most of those cases are people with troubles in their lives. I do find it messed up how the media is going with this, especially Morgan Piers that always uses the same argument by comparing the UK with the US.
Besides, the founding fathers of America even wrote it themselves, that possessions of Guns are allowed in case of a tyrannical government. So people should start waking up and start thinking about why we even have laws allowing gun possessions in the first place. Hitler disarmed his folks and look what happened.
I am just saying, there is a reason and explanation for everything.
0
I think this may have been the only instance after the Revolutionary War where the 2A was employed in it's original purpose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29
-3
Note: I am unable to view some photos and all videos posted to this site.
Well, reading through this, I know I'm not as experienced with guns (never acually touched one) as many of you are. And, it appears that, for the sake of argumental purposes, I'm probably the only one arguing against guns. Yay...
Anyway, one thing I'm curious about is why it's being said that living in a socioty that puts strict regulations and bans on guns is more dangerous than a socioty that, frankly, encourages gun ownership. It seems to me that the second amendmant (second, right?) is being used more as an excuse by gun-nuts, extreme patriots and rednecks to keep their prized fun, loud, bringer of death from long range tool.
This is an... odd excuse: "Guns keep the government from screwing with us." I'll ignore your paranoia... For now. Well, since people aren't ready for anarchy yet, have you ever thought of bringing in a different government? Tell me you aren't restricted to the same show of reds and blues every four years. Surely you have more compitant, non-paranoia inducing parties waiting for their votes. And when the government screws with us, we protest, if that doesn't work, we riot and then us and our leaders will talk shit about each other for a bit. Scares the shit out of the government and we have fun in the process. Oh anarchy you tease.
Also, the idea floating around that people with mental instability not being eligable for gun ownership isn't exactly full proof, is it? Do you think many people are going to come forward admitting to mental instability? Prejudice is being fought, but it is far from gone. Also Do you think many people with a mental instability actually know they have one, or concern themselves enough to think much about it? With the availability, getting a gun is easy for anyone, Legally or illegally.
Oh, sv51macross, you posted a link about that woman using the revolver on the intruder. Interestingly enough, you forgot to mention that if you scroll down far enough, there are statitistics that show gun home owners suicide rates are 5 times larger than non gun home owners and they are also 3 times more the victims of homicide...
I put my concern of guns somewhere between: against use by civilain population, to, I honestly don't give a fuck. I'm not sure where though.
Well, reading through this, I know I'm not as experienced with guns (never acually touched one) as many of you are. And, it appears that, for the sake of argumental purposes, I'm probably the only one arguing against guns. Yay...
Anyway, one thing I'm curious about is why it's being said that living in a socioty that puts strict regulations and bans on guns is more dangerous than a socioty that, frankly, encourages gun ownership. It seems to me that the second amendmant (second, right?) is being used more as an excuse by gun-nuts, extreme patriots and rednecks to keep their prized fun, loud, bringer of death from long range tool.
This is an... odd excuse: "Guns keep the government from screwing with us." I'll ignore your paranoia... For now. Well, since people aren't ready for anarchy yet, have you ever thought of bringing in a different government? Tell me you aren't restricted to the same show of reds and blues every four years. Surely you have more compitant, non-paranoia inducing parties waiting for their votes. And when the government screws with us, we protest, if that doesn't work, we riot and then us and our leaders will talk shit about each other for a bit. Scares the shit out of the government and we have fun in the process. Oh anarchy you tease.
Also, the idea floating around that people with mental instability not being eligable for gun ownership isn't exactly full proof, is it? Do you think many people are going to come forward admitting to mental instability? Prejudice is being fought, but it is far from gone. Also Do you think many people with a mental instability actually know they have one, or concern themselves enough to think much about it? With the availability, getting a gun is easy for anyone, Legally or illegally.
Oh, sv51macross, you posted a link about that woman using the revolver on the intruder. Interestingly enough, you forgot to mention that if you scroll down far enough, there are statitistics that show gun home owners suicide rates are 5 times larger than non gun home owners and they are also 3 times more the victims of homicide...
I put my concern of guns somewhere between: against use by civilain population, to, I honestly don't give a fuck. I'm not sure where though.
0
@ Street Saint
-First off, I disappreciate your characterization of gun owners as extreme patriots and rednecks clinging to one's guns. Also on the point of paranoia. As a group, we are not 'paranoid' persay. The vast majority of us are not anxiously dreading the sight of black helicopters while wearing tinfoil hats.
-As to your point (lines 4 and 5 of your post), if you watch the video in the OP it explains exactly what you're asking. As well, look at the FBI data and gun violence has been on the decline for the last 20 years and gun ownership has increased.
-The second amendment, separated by a comma from the address of millitias, grants the people the right to keep and bear arms. The second amendment is not about hunting. In other European nations such as Germany, France, and even England and Australia, one can reasonably get a license to have a gun for purposes of hunting or sport shooting. No, the second amendment was intended to give teeth to the rest of the constitution and the bill of rights, by (IMHO) giving the average citizen the right to own weapons comparable to the infantryman of the day.
-The goal is not anarchy. That is hyperbole that is spread by those who do not understand the constitution. The constitution mandates that if the government no longer serves the will of the people that it is the citizens' responsibility to usurp that government and install a new one. In history, we have examples of a disarmed populace being ruled by dictators. Hitler prevented the so called 'undesirables' from owning weapons. Mao himself was quoted as saying 'power comes from the barrel of a gun, and so only the government should be allowed them'.
-Your 2nd-last paragraph: I shall have to revisit the link I posted, but I have errands atm.
(EDIT): Street Saint, yes it does mention that. However that study is legendary for being manipulated. Five times more likely to commit suicide with the gun, not five times more likely overall to commit suicide. And the homicide number includes alleged perpetrators/attackers and does not exclusively reflect the occupants of the house.
-First off, I disappreciate your characterization of gun owners as extreme patriots and rednecks clinging to one's guns. Also on the point of paranoia. As a group, we are not 'paranoid' persay. The vast majority of us are not anxiously dreading the sight of black helicopters while wearing tinfoil hats.
-As to your point (lines 4 and 5 of your post), if you watch the video in the OP it explains exactly what you're asking. As well, look at the FBI data and gun violence has been on the decline for the last 20 years and gun ownership has increased.
-The second amendment, separated by a comma from the address of millitias, grants the people the right to keep and bear arms. The second amendment is not about hunting. In other European nations such as Germany, France, and even England and Australia, one can reasonably get a license to have a gun for purposes of hunting or sport shooting. No, the second amendment was intended to give teeth to the rest of the constitution and the bill of rights, by (IMHO) giving the average citizen the right to own weapons comparable to the infantryman of the day.
-The goal is not anarchy. That is hyperbole that is spread by those who do not understand the constitution. The constitution mandates that if the government no longer serves the will of the people that it is the citizens' responsibility to usurp that government and install a new one. In history, we have examples of a disarmed populace being ruled by dictators. Hitler prevented the so called 'undesirables' from owning weapons. Mao himself was quoted as saying 'power comes from the barrel of a gun, and so only the government should be allowed them'.
-Your 2nd-last paragraph: I shall have to revisit the link I posted, but I have errands atm.
(EDIT): Street Saint, yes it does mention that. However that study is legendary for being manipulated. Five times more likely to commit suicide with the gun, not five times more likely overall to commit suicide. And the homicide number includes alleged perpetrators/attackers and does not exclusively reflect the occupants of the house.
0
Winged-Fapper wrote...
My grandpa was a cop and he always said,"Guns don't kill people, people kill people". The gun was just the instrument used in the crime. A gun sitting on a table is just a piece of metal and it's never going to do harm, who picks it up is deciding wether it's for hunting, sport shooting, home defence or murder. It all depends on the person who picks it up.I completely agree. Gun rights should have a limit but the overall constitution right should be partially amended. In a CCW class a robber has to be all the way in your house for you to open fire upon them. That's not fair, if someone is on my property without my consent I will call the police but if they began coming to my house I belive those who are registered CCW owners should be able to shoot them.
1
First off Street Saint, are you deliberately out to offend people? Because that's not the most polite way to start a discussion with someone.
"gun home owners suicide rates are 5 times larger than non gun home owners and they are also 3 times more the victims of homicide..."
The author of that study, Arthur Kellerman, was funded by the anti-gun "Joyce Foundation". He twisted homicide numbers using Seattle-area gang violence figures. Once you control for "subject was/was not a drug-dealing felon with an illegal gun", his results disappear. This nonsense was so bad my freshman statistics teacher used it as an example of abusing math to make propaganda.
The liberal forum Democratic Underground has a great collection of research analyzing that study and others. Check these out: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x334436
[size=10]"Kellermann's work is merely the most egregious example of the genre. After his 1986 study was thoroughly savaged, he insulated himself from criticism in his 1993 study ("Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home") by refusing to share his research data. What is even more remarkable is that the NEJM published the study, even though Kellermann had not deposited his research data with the journal. In other words, neither the journal nor its peer reviewers were in a position to verify that the study's findings were actually supported by any data, let alone valid data, and yet they approved it for publication anyway."[/h]
There's also this in a book by award-winning criminologist Gary Kleck, but it's a bit dense for people without some background knowledge.
Now, the revolution argument. If you want to hear from "compitant, non-paranoia inducing parties", how about the guys who wrote our constitution?
James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were the main writers of the Federalist Papers, a series of opinion pieces written in favour of the new system. Madison was one of the main writers of both the constitution, and was also the creator of the second amendment, although he was (justifiably) skeptical of the efficacy of an enumerated bill of rights.
Several issues of the Federalist Papers directly address the 2nd amendment. Although the entire series is mandatory reading for any discussion of constitutional law, these are the most important for the current subject:
Number 29 (Hamilton)
Number 46 (Madison)
I'll only give one quote, because this post is already too long. But if an armed citizenry is a tinfoil hat idea, then the founders of our country and the writers of our highest law were crazy conspiracy theorists:
As for practicality, this still holds true today. The entire US army was stretched to the limit occupying Iraq, and the US has eleven or twelve times the population. Every counterinsurgency expert knows that technology plays a less important role than the numbers and sentiment of the population, so the "nukes and drones beat rifles" argument falls flat.
For further information about popular warfare, consult [size=10](pdf)[/h] Brigadier General Samuel B. Griffith's translation of Mao Zedong’s On "Guerrilla War".
Or General Petraeus' [size=10](pdf)[/h] Field Manual 3-24 on Counterinsurgency.
Anything else you'd like to know, just ask.
"gun home owners suicide rates are 5 times larger than non gun home owners and they are also 3 times more the victims of homicide..."
The author of that study, Arthur Kellerman, was funded by the anti-gun "Joyce Foundation". He twisted homicide numbers using Seattle-area gang violence figures. Once you control for "subject was/was not a drug-dealing felon with an illegal gun", his results disappear. This nonsense was so bad my freshman statistics teacher used it as an example of abusing math to make propaganda.
The liberal forum Democratic Underground has a great collection of research analyzing that study and others. Check these out: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x334436
[size=10]"Kellermann's work is merely the most egregious example of the genre. After his 1986 study was thoroughly savaged, he insulated himself from criticism in his 1993 study ("Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home") by refusing to share his research data. What is even more remarkable is that the NEJM published the study, even though Kellermann had not deposited his research data with the journal. In other words, neither the journal nor its peer reviewers were in a position to verify that the study's findings were actually supported by any data, let alone valid data, and yet they approved it for publication anyway."[/h]
There's also this in a book by award-winning criminologist Gary Kleck, but it's a bit dense for people without some background knowledge.
Now, the revolution argument. If you want to hear from "compitant, non-paranoia inducing parties", how about the guys who wrote our constitution?
James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were the main writers of the Federalist Papers, a series of opinion pieces written in favour of the new system. Madison was one of the main writers of both the constitution, and was also the creator of the second amendment, although he was (justifiably) skeptical of the efficacy of an enumerated bill of rights.
Several issues of the Federalist Papers directly address the 2nd amendment. Although the entire series is mandatory reading for any discussion of constitutional law, these are the most important for the current subject:
Number 29 (Hamilton)
Number 46 (Madison)
I'll only give one quote, because this post is already too long. But if an armed citizenry is a tinfoil hat idea, then the founders of our country and the writers of our highest law were crazy conspiracy theorists:
[size=10]Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.[/h]
As for practicality, this still holds true today. The entire US army was stretched to the limit occupying Iraq, and the US has eleven or twelve times the population. Every counterinsurgency expert knows that technology plays a less important role than the numbers and sentiment of the population, so the "nukes and drones beat rifles" argument falls flat.
For further information about popular warfare, consult [size=10](pdf)[/h] Brigadier General Samuel B. Griffith's translation of Mao Zedong’s On "Guerrilla War".
Or General Petraeus' [size=10](pdf)[/h] Field Manual 3-24 on Counterinsurgency.
Anything else you'd like to know, just ask.
0
sv51macross wrote...
@ Street Saint-First off, I disappreciate your characterization of gun owners as extreme patriots and rednecks clinging to one's guns. Also on the point of paranoia. As a group, we are not 'paranoid' persay. The vast majority of us are not anxiously dreading the sight of black helicopters while wearing tinfoil hats.
I didn't characterise all gun owners as those two catagories, but if you read the thread, many people seem to come across like that and I do not mean offend. You're unnecessarily exaggerating, tin foil hats steriotypically come with conspircy thereosts. I simply mean that your government is out to get you by taking away guns is a rather paranoid view. It's been said you are able to vote your government out in the case the people disagree with them too much. So a lack of guns doesn't put you in a weak position.
sv51macross wrote...
-As to your point (lines 4 and 5 of your post), if you watch the video in the OP it explains exactly what you're asking. As well, look at the FBI data and gun violence has been on the decline for the last 20 years and gun ownership has increased.You ignored the first thing in my post. Due to the device I am using and/or bad internet connection, I am unable to view all videos. I am more than willing to watch the video if you post a link to it or tell me the title. You also didn't answer my question. I read on the FBI site that the statistics given should not be considered entirely acurate due to information being given volunerily from multiple sources. I wonder what the gun crime statistics would say if guns were completely banned.
sv51macross wrote...
No, the second amendment was intended to give teeth to the rest of the constitution and the bill of rights, by (IMHO) giving the average citizen the right to own weapons comparable to the infantryman of the day.So one of the main reasons the right to own a gun exists is to emphasize the other the other amendments? I don't see how giving the majority of citizens a gun does that.
sv51macross wrote...
-The goal is not anarchy.What? I never said it was. I said people aren't yet ready for anarchy, yes. I never said it was what the american populace were aiming for.
sv51macross wrote...
The constitution mandates that if the government no longer serves the will of the people that it is the citizens' responsibility to usurp that government and install a new one.So why are people saying the government would benefit in any way? They have already angered the majority of americans with this movement it seems. As I said earlier, you would still have the same amount of power without a gun.
sv51macross wrote...
In history, we have examples of a disarmed populace being ruled by dictators. Hitler prevented the so called 'undesirables' from owning weapons. Mao himself was quoted as saying 'power comes from the barrel of a gun, and so only the government should be allowed them'.Why would hitler allow "undesirables" to own a gun when he's planning a holacaust? And Mao said "Political power grows from the barrel of a gun." Where did you find the second part of the quote as I was unable to locate it.
Again, I apologise for any offence my previous post may have caused as that was not my intention.
0
@ Street Saint, you're correct on the last point, I misquoted Mao. The title of the youtube video is 'Choose your own statistics' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0
I also ask what sources and or statistics is one supposed to use other than those compiled by the federal branch of government tasked with investigating crimes? Even if they are not 'entirely accurate', they are the best we have to go on and the numbers and differences between numbers are large enough to be considered accurate for argumentative purposes.
And the 2nd amendment defends the constitution and bill of rights.
@ altereggo, thanks for posting the link to that study.
I also ask what sources and or statistics is one supposed to use other than those compiled by the federal branch of government tasked with investigating crimes? Even if they are not 'entirely accurate', they are the best we have to go on and the numbers and differences between numbers are large enough to be considered accurate for argumentative purposes.
And the 2nd amendment defends the constitution and bill of rights.
@ altereggo, thanks for posting the link to that study.
0
"I don't see how giving the majority of citizens a gun does that."
Try reading these:
Federalist 29
Federalist 46
And you'll understand.
Try reading these:
Federalist 29
Federalist 46
And you'll understand.
-1
I just don't understand the need to have a rifle to protect yourself.
Anything stronger than a handgun was made for the specific purpose to kill. Not self-defense.
I know with that logic people shouldn't have handguns either, but at least those with some training can be used for non-lethal takedowns. After all that's why our police have handguns and not rifles. Nobody, and I mean nobody should own a gun without being properly trained as well, even for self-defense. An untrained person with a gun is a bigger danger to the ones around him than it is protecting the ones around him.
Anything stronger than a handgun was made for the specific purpose to kill. Not self-defense.
I know with that logic people shouldn't have handguns either, but at least those with some training can be used for non-lethal takedowns. After all that's why our police have handguns and not rifles. Nobody, and I mean nobody should own a gun without being properly trained as well, even for self-defense. An untrained person with a gun is a bigger danger to the ones around him than it is protecting the ones around him.
0
"After all that's why our police have handguns and not rifles"
The police have always had rifles and shotguns.
Also, have you ever used a handgun? They're much harder to use than rifles for a number of reasons, which was one reason DC and Chicago tried to ban them.
Among the people who say "oh, I don't want to ban ALL guns, just -X-", it's about evenly split between those wanting to ban rifles, and handguns. And, no offense, none of them actually know what they're talking about.
The whole debate is long on ill-founded opinions, and short on well-researched policy suggestions.
And incidentally, "deadliness" as ranked by the percent of people who survive wounds goes from handguns (80%+ survive), small-bore rifles like AR-15s, full-size rifles, to shotguns (20-40% survive, depending on the sample).
So I have to ask you... "why not a rifle?"
And why am I less qualified to say what I need than some politician who hates and fears guns?
[size=10](edit: cites for all numbers and assertions available on request. Linking on this forum takes a lot of bbcode typing)[/h]
The police have always had rifles and shotguns.
Also, have you ever used a handgun? They're much harder to use than rifles for a number of reasons, which was one reason DC and Chicago tried to ban them.
Among the people who say "oh, I don't want to ban ALL guns, just -X-", it's about evenly split between those wanting to ban rifles, and handguns. And, no offense, none of them actually know what they're talking about.
The whole debate is long on ill-founded opinions, and short on well-researched policy suggestions.
And incidentally, "deadliness" as ranked by the percent of people who survive wounds goes from handguns (80%+ survive), small-bore rifles like AR-15s, full-size rifles, to shotguns (20-40% survive, depending on the sample).
So I have to ask you... "why not a rifle?"
And why am I less qualified to say what I need than some politician who hates and fears guns?
[size=10](edit: cites for all numbers and assertions available on request. Linking on this forum takes a lot of bbcode typing)[/h]
0
Flaser
OCD Hentai Collector
yummines wrote...
I just don't understand the need to have a rifle to protect yourself.Anything stronger than a handgun was made for the specific purpose to kill. Not self-defense.
I know with that logic people shouldn't have handguns either, but at least those with some training can be used for non-lethal takedowns. After all that's why our police have handguns and not rifles. Nobody, and I mean nobody should own a gun without being properly trained as well, even for self-defense. An untrained person with a gun is a bigger danger to the ones around him than it is protecting the ones around him.
No, you are wrong. *All* guns were designed to kill, no exceptions. It's the lethality that gives weapons their authority. It's this authority itself that protects a gun owner first and foremost, the threat of *deadly* violence.
If you go for a "non-lehtal" takedown, you're out of your mind... in fact you likely won't be able to do that in a stressful situation. Matter of fact you'll have trouble even hitting your target, hence why it's taught to aim for the center of mass.
On the training issue, I agree with you.
I'm for gun-control too, as a weapon carries quite a bit of responsibility and wouldn't mind if people could only own and carry weapons once taught how to handle that. If you can fork over a $300 for a gun, passing a $20-$40 course that teaches you gun-safety and drills you on proper use doesn't seem so arbitrary. If possible I'd include a situation drills too, where people are taught how to find cover, call the police and warn the attacker that they're armed and ready use their weapon.
It should be a universal right, but just like driving an automobile it should come with requirements.
However I'm not sure whether it's the weapons itself that make the USA so much deadlier. Most homicide with firearms are committed with handguns and all the various kinds of "assault weapon" (a pure BS. concept) or "magazine limits" won't change those as most Saturday night specials fall right outside these regulations.