Let's have some fun, shall we?
Lets analyze this for a moment, and we will do so by examining the text of another website:
If we didn't already know what the source was, we would have every legitimate, academic prerogative to presume that they were just plain making it up. Go back to grade school.
We're not going to dispute that one. Nobody worried about their abusive ex-husband walks around with a rusty musket.
A rusty musket is more effective than a paring knife. It will go bang, it can make you dead.
Actually much of the effort has been to keep guns and weapons that are considered "too dangerous" off the streets. Things like rocket launchers, grenades and other items usable by terrorists. Besides, who carries a grenade or an automatic sub-machinegun like a Mac 10 around for self-defense?
If I could carry a Mac 10 or a submachine gun, I would (I don't know what a Mac 10 is, but it sounds like fun!). That said, none of the things they listed were manufactured after 1986. They said, essentially, nothing at all.
Okay, so apparently anti-gun activists are NAZI children now. That is going to take a big leap of faith to believe. Also, I have NEVER heard of any laws trying to prohibit shotguns, which is primarily a weapon for hunting deer, elk, bears. I could however see laws prohibited automatic assault rifles (like the kind the military sometimes use) because their purpose is not to shoot deer but to go on a shooting spree (aka, to go postal).
Interesting factoid: In so far as I am aware, no legally owned class 3 weapon, as licensed by the BATFE, has ever been used in a violent crime. Automatic weapons were not developed for massacring civilians and there is no evidence whatsoever to even so much as imply that that is even a marginal application for the weapon. In other words, just because a chicken has wings doesn't mean it migrates to Mexico for the winter.
The reasoning for this was simple: Magazine clips that contain 10 bullets are more useful to people who carry automatic weapons (which are illegal in most states). You just hold down the trigger and the handgun keeps firing, a bit like a machine gun, which means the criminal in question has the ability to fire many rounds at a police officer quickly and easily, and is more likely to hit the target as a result. Thanks to the 10 bullet limit the person runs out of bullets a lot faster. Since that law has been in place officers in many American states have seen a dramatic drop in the death of police officers due to automatic weapons.
No, I'm afraid that semi-automatic weapons do not work that way. Having a high magazine capacity doesn't magically convert a black rifle or pistol into a machine gun. And for the bit in bold, the restrictions on automatic weapons have been in place for seventy years -- a dramatic increase in violent crime followed and did not end until the '90s. If she is referring to the assault weapons ban, I would LOVE to see her sources!
Those changes were only less reliable for people using automatic weapons. The new magazines were designed specifically to jam up frequently when used in an automatic gun.
You know, I'm not seeing what this author's problem is. By her definition, the vast majority of police officers are carrying around automatic weapons. Therefore, you'd think, the criminals are vastly out gunned.
Precisely. Criminals are the ones who use automatic weapons and therefore are willing to pay more to find the old standard magazine clips.
No, no, no, no -- everything with a capacity in excess of 10 rounds is an automatic weapon, therefore nearly every police officer is carrying one, not just the criminals. Are you moroning in circles?
True enough, but only if the criminal in question can find the old magazine clips and use them in an automatic gun. Taking the old standard clips off the market completely and destroying any that are found would be the ideal solution.
Sure. It would make sense. But then criminals would begin to appreciate accuracy and begin training. That isn't a good thing.
Exactly. And criminals love it when they can change clips quickly and easily. It makes it easier to fire back police officers. Using clips with less bullets means criminals will run out of bullets sooner. Please note that police officers and the military still have access to the old standard clips.
Or reload.
Actually anti-gun activists are usually motivated by a death in the family, usually a loved one who was killed by a school classmate, by an irate co-worker or even an ex-lover. Its not a matter of control, its a matter of trying to prevent the same type of deaths happening to someone else. Imposing gun control laws is just one way people are trying to voice their opinion that the system isn't perfect and needs to be fixed. Not all guns need to be removed. There will always be need of guns for the purpose of defense, but defensive weapons do not need to be AK-47s or M4A1 assault rifles.
Here is an interesting story. There once were two men who loved the constitution and dedicated much of their lives to preserving it in its entirety and ensuring that it applies to the citizens of the United States of America appropriately. One was named Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The other a certain President Charlton Heston. They once marched together. The other day I was pretty bummed out about a certain hero passing away and I mentioned it to a co-worker. She, a specialist in teaching tolerance and deterring prejudice in the education system, responded: "Good." As in, good that he is dead.
Prejudice comes in many forms, but it is always recognizable by an inherent disrespect for humanity.
And as for defensive weapons never needing be patterned after scary assault weapons, just go watch
Red Dawn. That isn't meant as an argument, it isn't to convince anyone of anything, but for the love of God, just go watch television for a while. If, by some miracle you actually can recognize that America isn't some magical island that is indestructible and purely good and happy in every way, and the possibility of invasion is plausible, then count your blessings that the freest nation also has the largest standing (albeit unregulated) military in the world -- the people.
Apparently anti-gun activists are just like rapists and wife-beaters, in addition to being NAZI children. Wow. We agree rape is more about power than sex, but so is high-powered machine guns and assault rifles. Its not about self-defense. Its the feeling of POWER when you pull the trigger on a Sig or an Aug and shoot the target with armor-piercing rounds.
And?
That kind of extreme power is addictive and a bit like the first time you sit behind the wheel of a really fast car.
Lord almighty, she is right! Ban fast cars, they're too much fun!
You can feel the power in the palm of your hands.
I'm lost, is she still talking about guns or did she get off on some tangent involving servicing one's more primal needs?
That is exactly why, in the hands of a responsible citizens, machine guns are not dangerous.
You feel safe and dangerous at the same time and it gives you an adrenaline rush. Protection? Bah! For the brief instant you are the angel of death and have the power to take lives. It is a power-trip and there is no doubt about it.
What an active imagination she has. I think she stole this from a comic book I once read.
Some weapons are specifically designed to be used covertly. Weapons like the Colt M4A1 assault rifle (military issue) come with detachable silencers which can pick off enemies at distances without even a whisper.
Wrong.
Such weapons are banned because they are designed specifically for assassins, snipers and government agents.
Wrong -- ie. they aren't banned, they are strictly regulated.
They are not the kind of thing you want your wacko next door neighbour owning. Piss off your neighbour and he could shoot you 30 times from 200 yards away and nobody would even hear the gun fire.
I'd rather have a wacko next door with a fully automatic, suppressed rifle than someone who can't even imagine the concept of utilizing such a weapon without becoming "the angel of death" and who believes the soul purpose of the weapon is to "go postal." At least there is a fifty-fifty chance that the devil won't convince the wacko to kill me.
The person who wrote the website we are criticizing is extremely paranoid. Next he'll tell you the government is out to brainwash you or something like that.
She finally got something right. Unfortunately, the thing that she is right about (ie. the public education system) is the reason why she cannot imagine a world that wasn't spoon fed to her from the mass media.
I mean, at what point in social studies did you learn about the vast genocides of indigenous peoples?
None. Every year, the same thing: "The Indians called corn maize."
Give me a break. It isn't like that article was particularly worth tearing apart, but geez, these people are hitting awfully low below the belt when they claim that the want for women to brandish a legitimate means of protecting themselves is pro-gun propaganda. It isn't. It is pro-women's rights propaganda -- indirectly, that right corresponds to the right to keep and bear arms.
I'm not going to bother with the rest of it. I've got more important things to do.
)
)
