Positions on Guns in America - Page 2

"assault style weapons" with "large magazine capacities" - vomited directly from the catch-phrase gun grabbers. Did I mention that Cho used some of those "RESTRICTED CAPACITY" ten-round magazines that all of you said would make us all safer? Duuuhhhhh... He just bought more magazines. Sheesh.

BTW... "assault style" crap is about one thing- guns that LOOK mean. Most of the anti-gunners are woefully inept at understanding how guns work. The 94 AWB was just about "mean" looking guns. Such stupidity.

Actually, you'd be surprised how much easier it is to assault across the objective or perform CQB with a properly styled firearm.

Or he just switched to his Glock which used 15-round magazines, banned until a couple years ago.

"styled" - like it's John Edwards' hair.

You are talking like you are George Patton himself. A gun is a gun is a gun is a gun... in the civilian realm. Class III firearms are already tightly controlled. You cannot tell me one functional difference between a "pre-ban" and "post-ban" firearm. Do you think a criminal is making full use of a bayonet lug or flash suppressor? Give me a break.

... and ALWAYS readily available, even with the silly ban.

I think all semi-automatic weapons should be banned at the very least.

Doubley-so for the weapons that you purport simply look scary, but have been designed by engineers for close combat with humans in mind.

OK. You go ahead and get the criminal element to hand their semi-autos in. Then we'll talk. Criminals don't care what law you make, concerning whatever firearm. The are, uh, "criminals"

That's my point.

You are not making me any safer by not handing in your weapon, and by advocating gun ownership to others, you are actually making life more dangerous for me and everybody else.

You are actively putting more guns into our society, making it more dangerous and deadly for all parties, citizens and criminals alike.

Because the criminals tend to be the choosers of the time and the place, you will still be at a disadvantage if they choose to target you and act on the assumption that you are armed.

Murderers ignore the laws against murder, therefore we shouldn't have laws against murder.

No ruleZ, no boundarieZ, no lawZ, no possessionZ, and no territorieZ.

In other wordZ, total 100% freedomZ.

That workZ for me!

If everybody was armed, crime rates would fall:
Exhibit A
Exhibit B

I already knew about Switzerland, however, I don't think it makes a good comparison to the U.S. mainly because Switzerland has compulsory military service, so most people are properly trained in the use of firearms, and in my opinion, probably benefit from their military experience on a personal development level.

The Kennesaw example was something new however and I had to do some reading up on it. Apparently, there was a study done that disputes the decrease in crime ((link to blog that says so) but I was unable to locate the actual article online to read it.

So here's my opinion. Even if mandatory gun ownership in Kennesaw did actually reduce the number of burglaries in Kennesaw, it did not create the condition where a criminal would be forced* to prey on a member of that town. It is supposedly a suburb of Atlanta so presumably, the burglars have lots of other less dangerous suburbs to go to.

*Let us assume that for whatever reason (i.e. economic, social, greedy, lazy) criminals are "forced" to commit crime.

If a criminal were forced to prey on an armed populace, do you think that they might change their tactics? A gang member attacking another gang member expects his target to be armed and plans accordingly, a drive by is a kind of ambush. A drug dealer expects both his customers and suppliers to be armed, so is armed accordingly. What happens when drug deals go bad?

So what happens when petty criminals expect their marks to be armed and dangerous?

I don't think Kennesaw presents a very good example of how criminals will react if there is an increase in the number of ordinary citizens carrying concealed firearms.

Tactical and strategic goals change all the time, on both sides, of this debate, and for the criminals versus law abiders.

So what you have said, is just an obvious statement of the facts.

Change the rules of access (or try to), and the players change tactics/stratigy!

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Apparently it's not obvious to the gun enthusiasts who believe their right to bear arms is relevant in todays society.

Yep. No sleeves for me! <lifts Daquiri>

It's very relevant. To many of us that need guns for protection on a daily basis, thank you.

We fundamentally disagree, neither of us seems to be willing to budge. That's a good and healthy thing, other than your tack is to take my freedom and right to self-defense from my and my family. My gun DOES make you safer, because criminals who are not suicidal do not want to risk lethal force being used against them, and they do not know who is and is not armed. You're welcome.

Please go back and re-read the thread. I do not "advocate" that anyone or everyone get a gun. That's not thinking. I have a problem with you anti-gun people abridging the RIGHT to if a person so chooses.

As far as time and place... I'd rather have a fighting chance, rather than have zero chance of survival if the criminal so chooses. I refuse to be defenseless, like 32 people in Virginia we made defenseless.

Strawman.

So by the gun control rationale, we need to make more laws against murder, so that it will not happen any more. Make it double secret illegal, as I said before.

You know, it's not like exceptions couldn't be made for people who really need them.

They even make exceptions in the fascist state of Australia, which contrary to your earlier assertions is doing very well without an armed populace.

Your right to bear arms puts us all in more danger than whatever insignificant deterrent you think you pose.

So, umm... thanks for that.

Look again... crime is up in Australia, according to two Dutch researchers. The UK, also with strict gun control, is also in the top two. The US is not even in the top TEN for violent crime victimization.

So who is going to get to decide who get's to have the right to self-defense? The gun-hostile BATF? The party in power? Some LEO? Equal protection would make such a silly system unworkable.

You can get a gun in CA or NY in a system like that, and guess what it is... a prohibition that almost no one can get a gun when they DO legitimately need it. Just another failed bureaucracy. Just another scam for gun prohibition.

Yea... "insignificant deterrence" just because you say so? Show me... you'll find a decrease in violent crime where CHLs are available.

Interesting, I don't remember Australia being such a dangerous place when I lived there for 14 years, including during the Port Arthur massacre and the resulting buyback. Oh that's right, it wasn't...

NATIONWIDE SURVEYS IN THE INDUSTRIALISED COUNTRIES this is from the International Crime Victims Survey that the article you linked to was based on (you can see they have a quality website).

Because I don't have access to the 1999 data (apparently WorldNetDailyNews does though) we will have to compare the posted data to the asserted data.

The article you linked to notes "Also, they note that Australia leads the ICVS report in three of four categories -- burglary (3.9 percent of the population), violent crime (4.1 percent) and overall victimization (about 31 percent). "

But you'll see that in 1991 burglary was at 3.7% (a whopping 0.2% increase over 8 years of recession and the gun ban only started in 1996), "violent crime" which could mean only the assault and threat category, or some combination of the other stats, looks to have fallen or risen slightly. If we use only the assault and threat category for violent crime which was 5.2% in 1988, and 4.7% in 1991. Your article states that violent crime was at 4.1% in 1999 which is clearly lower than in 1991 or 1988.

I like the whopping 9.5% of "victimization" due to car damage. If only they had their guns, they could protect their cars from being keyed by malicious footy fans as they leave the park.

Would you want to disarm Miss America?
The NRA- now welcoming your grandmother.

Did you even read the article!?

Yes, she needs to be disarmed for shooting at people who posed no threat to her. She wasn't in any danger and she fired a gun at them.

That's what passes for responsible gun ownership in your class?

Based on results of the national polls (link I posted before) future doesn't look very bright for gun lovers. Perhaps you shouldn't waste your time on forums ...

I saw a truck with a FRESH 'Buy a gun piss off a liberal' bumper sticker. Apparently, you are not the only insecure gun owner.

She was no student of mine, I assure you.

Here in Texas, it's a felony to cut a wire fence and you can be legally felled for stealing property after dark. Ya know, we "uncultured savages" WITHOUT the worsening crime problems where guns are illegal, like Washington DC and NYC.

Don't like dissent? Too bad, the Second Amendment assures the First. All of them, actually.

Even some liberals acknowledge that there is a bleak future for gun control, especially in the short term. Ya see, we evil gun owners show up on election day. And we vote our issue. The AWB was one of the instrumental factors in the 1994 pounding that the Democrats took in Congress. We vote our issue. Those that hate the freedom and RKBA generally don't.

FOUR MILLION+ NRA members who show up in November? I'd say as close as many of these swing districts are, you'll rarely see widespread passage of sweeping gun law, at least for the next few cycles. It's only the liberals in EXTREMELY safe districts that even introduce these worthless gun laws. It's a loser issue for the left. That much is for sure. It is only the loony left in the northeast, illinois, and Kahleepornia that have managed to abridge people's RKBA. (Any wonder why these states have crime problems, too?) Some freshman Democrat in a rural district in Kansas or Missouri is not going there. Blue dogs and center-left Republicans are the current future of politics. Neither seems to be anxious to take guns from average people. Maybe Pelosi can take the pork wagon around again, and buy some more votes like she did before.

I have every reason to be insecure about my right, especially reading these boards. It helps keep me motivated, because I can get complacent living in a very red part of Texas. The majority of homes here have guns in them. We have not had a shooting here in 14 years, and that was no-billed by the grand jury.

Correct. And it's not solely based on the RKBA. Given equal positions on issues, the gun rights issue is the tie breaker. Maybe even twice the weight of any other issue. Its not the only issue to be considered, but to many among the most important. Again, living where I do, we rarely even run Democrats, much less liberal anti-gun types.

Yep, those damn NRA types don't want ANY sensible gun control...

So two polls, one right after the VTM, the other showing long term trends. Now notice the question asked in each pole. In the first pole MS = 47% and LS+NC = 49%. so MS < LS+NC. Do the math!

Oops, so you're wrong there, and this "poll" was taken IMMEDIATELY AFTER the VTM!

In the second (Gallup) poll, a much more restrictive question is asked WRT access to firearms. Obviously, most people feel that more restrictions are needed on gaining access to firearms, based on the specifics of of THIS particular question.

But you see, ask the question slightly differently, and look at the changing results!

Also, notice anything unusual about the trendline of the Gallup poll? Yes, you are correct, there has been a decrease in the MS column over time! So you are also losing ground there.

And the judges ruling on your "polling evidence" is: By a 3-0 TKO decision, the judges have ruled FOR THE DEFENSE!



And based on your initial response in the original VTM thread, I would have a polling question something like this:

Do you want to remove all firearms from peaceful law abiding US citizens, knowing full well that most criminals in the US will be unaffected by this action taken against all peaceful law abiding US citizens?

Often, how the question is phrased, it's context, is much more important than the polling numbers themselves.

That was the edited version of the story, apparently the people had been repeatedly stealing things from her property for some time, and selling the items for scrap metal. Doesn't make it politically correct for her to shoot out their tires, but they would have gotten away otherwise.

Interesting, your version is nonsensical:


And the "edited" version makes perfect sense:


Strange that...

I don't think there is ever a reason to fire a gun at somebody if they are not threatening your life. Perhaps I'm wrong though, a human life may not be worth as much as scrap metal (not that the "edited" article mentions anything about the man stealing and claims he was charged with misdemeanor trespass).

Hey, I just read the stories, I don't edit them!

You do have a point though, I missed that on my first read through it.

All the story says is that she shot out the tires on his truck, there aren't enough details to determine if she was firing anywhere near the person. (was he in the truck? standing near it? on the other side of the building from it?) Since she wasn't charged with assault with a deadly weapon, or reckless discharge, it's hard to say. Still not the most correct response for her to make, though.

Well, I don't advocate staying at home or avoiding puiblic places because of concealed firearms.

I was referring to the fact that it's the right to bear arms that has caused and prevents the mitigation of the gun problem in the U.S.

The version you quoted (what was the link by the way?) seems characteristic of the links Jubelum and Ra have been posting.

Apparently, gun enthusiasts feel that lying and misrepresenting the truth (especially in their oft asserted Australia example) is a valid strategy for defending their right.

This is the kind of people we are dealing with, and when all their arguments are shown to be in error, it boils down to: Wwaaaa, I want my gun and you can't take it from me because its mine! Waaaaa, I refuse to be a victim! Waaaaaa, I'm scared.

Waaaaa? My family would be dead without my gun, and I would too... you'd be scared too if you had a felon put a gun to your wife's head and tell you that she's first, and you are next. You just don't get it.

If you honestly believe that I have no right to defend my family against attack, then you are just as bad as the person I sent back to jail who tried to victimize us. You are taking HIS side in the confrontation, preferring that I not have means of personal protection.

Screw you, pal. You don't live in the real world where a gun is the last line of defense in the face of a criminal element that demonstrates time and again that they place no value on human life. My gun made the difference when lives were on the line, and if you think I'll ever give it up, you are wrong.

I'd like to think that if it came down to it, you'd defend yourself and your family, but maybe not. You might be OK with being a victim. You might be OK letting some thug hurt or kill your family. I'm not, and I will do what I can to prevent it.

Do yourself a favor and go read the other gun thread. You'll see why I think the way I do. Every day people in my line of work are robbed and threatened with death by armed criminals who kill with no provocation. What would you have me do, Aslan? Call 911 so they can send the Hearse?