Do you support ANY gun-control laws?

[TexasRifleman]

Nice. 1860 Army in .44?

Yes. Sold at Cabelas. To felons, and gang members, and people who talk to themselves.

Use in crime? Apparently zero, they don't show up anywhere.

Why is it that a VERY large powerful handgun, with no regulation whatsoever, has a zero crime rate usage?

Is it because they are hard to shoot? No, it's a well known technology for what, couple hundred years now.

Expensive? $250 for a pistol with starter kit, ready to fire. Hmm

Inaccurate? Not hardly, go look at some the guys in the BP subforum.

So if felons are on the lookout for unregulated firearms, ready to start shooting innocents at the slightest availability of guns, why then do these have NO reported use in crime?

You mean gun laws don't have anything to do with it? That CANNOT be possible

 

[BhmBill]

So, why is this thread still open?

Dunno.

 

[TexasRifleman]

So, why is this thread still open?

They said they were getting some "evidence". Don't want to be accused of not giving them a chance.

I figure we're getting close though. They have all left.

 

[Justin]

So, why is this thread still open?

Well, personally, I'm awaiting the brilliant argument that will convince me I'm better off without a firearm.

Never mind that in a given year I send 10K+ rounds down range, have been safely handling guns on a pretty much daily basis with nary a negligent discharge, have an exceptionally high quality of life due to my enjoyment of competitive shooting, plinking, and occasionally hunting, and am completely capable of defending myself with a firearm.

Surely there's a statistic or argument that once I am exposed to it will prove that I am a danger to myself and all those around me. I profess that after being exposed to this argument, I will be overcome with guilt and will commence to melting my collection down into scrap metal which I will then use to build a postmodern sculpture espousing the superiority of being disarmed.

 

[BhmBill]

Surely there's a statistic or argument that once I am exposed to it I will be convinced to melt all of my arms down into slag and fashion them into a postmodern sculpture meant to convey vibes of peace and happiness.

As stated earlier, some firearms are beyond even a experienced shooters comprehension or control.

Who are you trying to convince here, sir? me or yourself?

 

[CoRoMo]

So, why is this thread still open?

It's cool...

We've got the preacher talking to the choir and all the demons seem to have left the building.

 

[Pack]

So, why is this thread still open?

You never know. Those in favor of sustaining current restrictions and passing more may change my/our minds.

In all seriousness, though, it's always good to spar like this a little bit. Someone for or against you may make an argument you were unaware of, articulate one you know of in a decidedly better way, or force you to do the same.

Choir preaching or not, I've definitely learned from the whole exchange.

I do agree, though, it's flirting with having run its course.

The silver lining of "agreeing to disagree" with people who are truly anti-gun (I'm speaking generally, as I certainly haven't been around long enough to slap the label on anyone here), is that at the end of the day and with politics aside we're the ones who are armed.

 

[texas bulldog]

i voted "no" when there were only three pages in this thread, but didn't post. that was only about 24 hours ago. damn, guys. y'all really outdid yourselves this time.

 

[CoRoMo]

Boy, this thread is really going.

Understatement of the thread?

 

[JohnBT]

"some firearms are beyond even a experienced shooters comprehension or control."

Oh golly gee. Sheesh. Now I think I've heard it all.

John

 

[Justin]

John, he was being sarcastic.

 

[BhmBill]

John, he was being sarcastic.

Thank you, lol.

I was indeed, sir.

 

[razorback2003]

Gun Control Laws Supported

I can support the following gun laws:

1. Convicted Violent felons prohibited from owning firearms.
2. No carrying a firearm when intoxicated or high on drugs.
3. If you are a clean individual, you can carry a firearm wherever you wish. In this day and age, it is easy to tell who is a violent felon and who is not by the police running a name check.
4. People can buy and sell whatever kinds of firearms they wish from single shot 22's to select fire MP5's.
5. Those who misuse firearms to murder or assault will be punished severely with long prison sentences carried out on prison farms or death penalty. The law abiding should not be punished for the few idiots in this country.

 

[BhmBill]

1. Convicted Violent felons prohibited from owning firearms.

they are.

2. No carrying a firearm when intoxicated or high on drugs.

you can't.

3. If you are a clean individual, you can carry a firearm wherever you wish. In this day and age, it is easy to tell who is a violent felon and who is not by the police running a name check.

You suggest the police just stop and question everyone who is carrying and make them submit to a background check? Major violation of the 4th and 5th amendment.

4. People can buy and sell whatever kinds of firearms they wish from single shot 22's to select fire MP5's.

they can under federal law.

5. Those who misuse firearms to murder or assault will be punished severely with long prison sentences carried out on prison farms or death penalty. The law abiding should not be punished for the few idiots in this country.

Too bad?

 

[TravisB]

Spend a lot of time in South Central L.A. do you?

Actually, yes, I have. I also lived for years in the most densely populated area of Los Angeles, the Rampart area, which was an equally violent place. I heard many gunfights, sometimes more than one a night when the gang wars would heat up. Not once did I hear any machine-gun fire.

It's hilarious that many here believe that pointing out that the gangs carry ILLEGAL weapons is somehow an argument against laws that have the effect of restricting the number and circulation of weapons. Some sources of gang weapons include: House robberies (i.e., formerly legal weapons likely originally purchased at a gun store), gun-store robberies (i.e., weapons you would find at a gun store), and straw buyers (at a gun store).

There isn't some magical fountain where gangs get their ILLEGAL weapons. There isn't a mountain of machine guns at Florence and Normandie, and the gangs simply turn their noses up at weapons like that. If automatic weapons were in wide circulation the way that, say, Glocks are in wide circulation, the gangs would have them, and use them. There is no gangbanger looking to have less of an edge on his rivals.

Raise the bar all you want, put your hands over your ears, go "la la la la la I can't hear you," whatever floats your boat. It will still remain an objective fact: Gangs and other criminals don't get their guns from magical sources.

 

[gvnwst]

I voted no, but that has a string attached. Some laws i could see as being benifical, but they would have to be changed slightly. Of course, there may be a law that is currently in place that i do not know of, that i might support...

 

[TravisB]

The shootout lasted about a half an hour, on public streets, and yet citizens did not run and hide, they wanted to watch. Regardless of the firearm type used, it's pretty stupid to stand out on a sidewalk for half an hour watching the cops in a blazing gun battle.

Amazing what a blind obsession with believing gun control never works can lead to.

You need automatic weapons to be no big deal.

Therefore you need to deny any casualties in the North Hollywood shootout.

Therefore the civilians are responsible for getting shot.

Do you have a source on how many of the injured civilians were irresponsible lookie-loos?

If not, I'll assume you just made it up.

 

[TravisB]

Debating private ownership of WMD's is, at best, mental masturbation, and at worst a distraction from actually moving the goals of the RKBA community forward.

You do realize that you posted this objection in a thread in which more than half of the poll respondents approve of literally no gun control, right?

The ICBM/WMD issue comes up specifically because many of these respondents won't say whether they draw a line at all. When you make the guns bigger and bigger and bigger and still they say, "Yep, should be freely available to any citizen who wants one," well, it isn't absurd to end up at missiles.

It's absurd that some people literally won't draw a line at all, I'll grant you. But the absurdity in these people's twisted heads, not in the line of questioning that reveals it.

 

[TexasRifleman]

You need automatic weapons to be no big deal.

Therefore you need to deny any casualties in the North Hollywood shootout.

No actually I don't need them to be no big deal.

The fact that the Hollywood shoot out is the only major crime committed in the last oh, what, 60 years with machine guns pretty much takes care of them being no big deal. Criminals are not interested in using them. Not because they are hard to get, but because they don't really lend themselves well to criminal activities. Same reason there are almost no crimes committed with rifles of any kind. They are hard to conceal, expensive, and too heavy to carry around. Full auto or semi, the crime rate with rifles of ANY kind is tiny compared to handguns. Machineguns are just not attractive to criminals.

In the entire history of the things their use in crime was relatively small, even back in the days of prohibition. The gangs in Chicago & New York over a period of oh 5 years or so, a couple in Texas (including Bonnie and Clyde) and you pretty much have the entire criminal history of machine guns right there.

And then you post that machineguns are not available to the LA area gangs.

Since through out this thread I've posted reference evidence, and you have posted NONE, here is some more.

Here, no machineguns available to LA gangs. Nope, not at all. Well, except for these 119 last July, and several hundred every year around the country.
None of these by the way were legal machine guns stolen from lawful owners, these are all illegal conversions.

As UPI reports, Federal agents announced that they had rounded up 38 reputed Los Angeles gang members and associates on gun and drug charges. The arrests were made after an undercover agent bought fully automatic (machine guns) such as AK-47s and M-16s from the gang members. A total of 119 guns were confiscated during the investigation and an alleged drug trafficking ring was broken up as well.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/07/24/LA-gang-gun-runners-busted/UPI-44301216927133/

There isn't some magical fountain where gangs get their ILLEGAL weapons.

Really? Sounds like the FBI and ATF might disagree with you on that one. But again hey, you are just making it up as you go so it's not surprising you miss a few facts here and there.

Me. I'll keep posting references and evidence. Still waiting for you to show ANY.

 

[TravisB]

"Well, personally, I'm awaiting the brilliant argument that will convince me I'm better off without a firearm."

Has anyone in this thread even proposed this idea? Reference? Quote?

 

[HOME DEPOT GEORGE]

One thing we need to remember when we talk about pre 1968 laws and countries where there are full auto weapons fairly prevalent, first there was a different mindset in the pre 68 era and the drug problem was a LOT different and was really limited to inner city areas for the most part. When the cocaine epidemic started in the 80's and 90's it changed everything and if at that time you could still walk in to a gun shop and purchase a gun without a backround check the death rate would have been a lot higher even if most of them would be gangbangers anyway and no big loss. Second in countries like Iraq,Pakistan etc where most people have access to full auto weapons the difference is the treat criminals the way they should be treated,steal-we whack off a hand kill or rape someone you get killed don't pass go,no ACLU,no appeals no second chances. In the US if someone hoses down a crowd with a full auto weapon first he'll be arrested and then his family and friends will tell the press how he was a good boy then he will get a lawyer for free then if he is a minority the aclu or southern poverty law centerwill get involved and try to show how his civil rights were violated because the handcuffs were too tight and in a year or two he might go to trial if the prosecution doesn't offer him a deal and in the snowballs chance in hell he's found guilty and gets the death penalty again the ACLU comes back into the picture and if the planets align right the sentence might be carried out about 25 years after the crime was actually committed. If we could treat criminals they way they should be treated I would support the pre 68 laws but until then it looks like the criminals have more rights than we do.

 

[TravisB]

The fact that the Hollywood shoot out is the only major crime committed in the last oh, what, 60 years with machine guns pretty much takes care of them being no big deal.

I'm glad we agree that laws restricting the circulation of automatic weapons have resulted in their relatively infrequent use in crimes.

 

[TravisB]

In the US if someone hoses down a crowd with a full auto weapon first he'll be arrested and then his family and friends will tell the press how he was a good boy then he will get a lawyer for free then if he is a minority the aclu or southern poverty law centerwill get involved and try to show how his civil rights were violated because the handcuffs were too tight and in a year or two he might go to trial if the prosecution doesn't offer him a deal and in the snowballs chance in hell he's found guilty and gets the death penalty again the ACLU comes back into the picture and if the planets align right the sentence might be carried out about 25 years after the crime was actually committed.

Can you name a single instance where a mass murderer who "hosed down a crowd" was treated anything like this by the justice system?

 

[TexasRifleman]

I'm glad we agree that laws restricting the circulation of automatic weapons have resulted in their relatively infrequent use in crimes.

Says the guy with no reading comprehension. See that's what happens when you don't read everything and only grab bits and pieces off the top.

Problem is that others reading this read posts in their entirety and they see your continued lack of honesty in your posts.

Still waiting for you to post something to back up any of the claims you made, any evidence at all that you didn't simply make up on the spot.

2 days now we've been waiting.

 

[TravisB]

TR,

Apparently you missed this in my post:

Do you have a source on how many of the injured civilians were irresponsible lookie-loos?

If not, I'll assume you just made it up.

Am I making the correct assumption that you just made this up?