My views on gun ownership

[morganm01]

You can speak freely, but that doesn't mean you can scream FIRE in a theater without consequences,

oohh no he di'int.:banghead:

But we ARE still allowed to walk into a theatre without having our vocal cords removed aren't we. If there was a fire we would be lawfully able to yell "fire" wouldn't we. That analogy doesn't hold true for guns.

In many states you MAY NOT leave your home without your gun stowed away and locked up making it perfectly useless in case of a fire.

 

[schromf]

Ghost,

Sorry I went back and read what I posted, it wasn't clear I admit. The jury really did get stuck on the search warrant issue ( or lack of serving it ). The first shots were fired by his son who saw armed men approaching a very rural setting. I would have to dig on facts whether the son fired first or the Feds, but I seem to remember it was the son who was killed.

This case started a poop storm in our state, first the feds never bothered notified local law enforcement, then did afterword during the standoff. Our state senator introduced legislation at the federal level because of the Feds actions.

There was also some sympathy on the jurys part, due to the family members the Feds killed, and then the lying by the several of the agents totally discredited the feds case, it went downhill from there.

 

[Solo]

Not a common shotgun, either, SAWED OFF-- condemned even by the NRA as illegal. I mention school shootings because the purpose of outlawing assualt weapons is not to eradicate most crimes, but to prevent the most violent crimes from happening.

Hold on... if an illegal shotgun and an illegal pistol were used in violent crime..... an illegal assault weapon will not be?

Can you give me one example in which you will be attacked by more than 3 men at your home?

Road rage incidents, muggings, rape.....

 

[Justin]

How they facilitate a school shooting? Are you joking? Let's say the kid has 50% accuracy, for argument's sake. Tec-9 he kills 18 people per clip, say 2 seconds to aim and 1 second per shot, 3 seconds each, he goes through a clip in 1:48, killing 18 people.

*yawn* Tec 9's are notorious for jamming with maddening regularity. You forgot to factor for that. Also, the magazines and magazine well tend to be poorly fitted making it difficult to reload the weapon with anything approaching efficiency.

With a .38, let's say he takes the same 2 seconds to aim, same 1 second to shoot, so 3 seconds. But let's say it takes 30 to reload his weapon. Takes 18 seconds to empty the gun, killing 3 people. Plus 30 to reload. 48 seconds to kill 3 people. That's 7.5 people compared to 18 in 1:48.
I'd say there's a serious advantage to the Tec-9.

Bad fallacy. Jerry Miculek can reload a revolver than most people can reload an auto loader. Heck, I don't even like revolvers or shoot them very often, but I can reload one in about 15 seconds without the aid of moonclips or speedloaders.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Oh... And unlike some Democratic Presidential candidates, I HAVE been a hunter all my life. If my interest in guns had anything to do with hunting, I would be much more interested in the right to keep and bear the recurve bow or the atlatl.

I know it pains your argument that I revert to the Second Amendment, but it ain't about hunting pheasants.

 

[mpd239]

Justin: So we shouldn't make the gun illegal due to poor quality? Bad argument.

Also, the average person planning a shooting rampage probably isn't as skilled at loading a revolver as you are.

Even at 15 seconds, the Tec-9 is still more efficient.

 

[Solo]

Justin: So we shouldn't make the gun illegal due to poor quality? Bad argument.

Why should poor quality guns be made illegal?

 

[Warbow]

mpd239 wrote:

Raven: Tec-9 is capable of holding a 36 bullet clip...

You make it sound as if the Tec-9 has some special feature so it can use high-capacity (holding more rounds than standard capacity) magazines. That's not the case. All handguns are capable of using magazines which were made for them, whether they hold 10 rounds or 100 rounds.

 

[Justin]

So we shouldn't make the gun illegal due to poor quality? Bad argument.

So long as the design isn't prone to catastrophic failure, no. If someone wants to buy an ill-fitted jammomatic with the ergonomics of a yak in heat it's no skin off my nose.

 

[Graystar]

Can you give me one example in which you will be attacked by more than 3 men at your home?

Check Australian news. After all guns were banned, home invasions rose by 21% and started involving groups of men.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

But the most violent crimes, like school shootings, often have involved weapons such as the Tec-9. (Columbine shootings involved a Tec-DC 9.)

School shootings have DROPPED since 1992, the first year in which "school shootings" were tracked.

 

[Justin]

Can you give me one example in which you will be attacked by more than 3 men at your home?

Firearms ownership does not need to be justified based on what might or could happen. America is a free-market economy. Neither I or any other gun owner should have to justify or rationalize choice in firearms any more than the number of cylinders under the hood of a car.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Can you give me one example in which you will be attacked by more than 3 men at your home?

Can you guarantee that no more than three evil men will ever attack someone at the same time?

 

[Drjones]

No less obscene is the argument that any law that would make us all a little safer -- say, banning cop-killer bullets

Sir, frankly and with no offense intended, but that you quote the above as some sort of evidence for your argument shows just how truly unarmed you are for a debate about firearms and the Right to Keep and Bear them.

There is no such thing as a "cop-killer bullet."

Never has been.

It is PURELY an invention of the leftist anti-gun lobby.

I'm beginning to see, and I hope you are, how thoroughly indoctrinated you have been by the left-wing media.

Do you realize that you know absolutely NOTHING about the technical aspects of firearms?

So you trying to tell people (including us) how things should be is EXACTLY like you walking into the office of the best neurosurgeon in the country and telling him what to do. (Assuming of course that you have no knowledge of neurosurgery.)

There is NO difference.

Please understand: I'm not trying to mock you in any way, I am simply stating a fact.

You should hang around here, learn a little bit about guns, maybe actually shoot one, and THEN try to form some opinions.

 

[mpd239]

"You make it sound as if the Tec-9 has some special feature so it can use high-capacity (holding more rounds than standard capacity) magazines. That's not the case. All handguns are capable of using magazines which were made for them, whether they hold 10 rounds or 100 rounds."

Raven asked for comparison of .38 and Tec-9. .38 aren't capable of using magazines.

Graystar: I never advocated a total gun ban, this is like the ninth time I've said that.

"America is a free-market economy. One does not have to justify choice in firearms any more than the number of cylinders under the hood of their car."

Ok, Justin, then why can't I legally buy cocaine?

 

[Solo]

Ok, Justin, then why can't I legally buy cocaine?

Some of us think you should be allowed to do so. The government disagrees.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Can you give me one example in which you will be attacked by more than 3 men at your home?

I appreciate your spunk here, but are you really arguing that no one has ever been attacked by a force of more than THREE men?

 

[Drjones]

Also, I think that a good proportion of the citizenry in the US is incapable of safely owning a gun. Whether or not you'd like to admit it, having a device so capable of human destruction in a home is a tough decision to make-- and it's yours to make, I never denied that. So yeah, I think that gun ownership acts as a general deterrent to crime regardless of whether or not a specific individual owns a gun; but I don't think that necessarily justifies increasing gun ownership (there has to be an optimum level somewhere, what it is I have no idea), because many segments of the population cannot responsibly own a gun.

1) What does one have to do, what criteria must one meet in order to be "capable of safely owning a gun"?

2) Who gets to decide what the criteria should be?

3) Since you claim to believe that owning firearms is a basic human right (at least I think you do), how can you demand that people meet a certain criteria before they are allowed to exercise what is supposed to be a right?

4) Do you agree that if one has to pass a test of some sort in order to do something, that it is no longer a right, but merely a privilege, which can be revoked at will of the issuing authority?

5) This is a serious question: Many members of the media have shown themselves unworthy of our trust and guilty of misleading the public. Most notably, and most recently, Dan Rather.

How would you, mpd239, feel if I proposed that one had to pass an honesty, ethics, and morality test in order to get a license to practice freedom of speech?

I await your response.

 

[Warbow]

mpd239 wrote:

Raven asked for comparison of .38 and Tec-9. .38 aren't capable of using magazines.

And? The Tec-9 is just one of many handguns which have high-capacity mags made for them. What's so special about it that it deserves the "assault" label?

 

[Justin]

Ok, Justin, then why can't I legally buy cocaine?

Because of a bunch of puritanical prudes in DC. Are you saying that the cure for reduced freedom is to reduce it even more?

 

[Drjones]

Not a common shotgun, either, SAWED OFF-- condemned even by the NRA as illegal

Can you tell us exactly what makes a SAWED OFF shotgun so much deadlier than a non-SAWED OFF shotgun?

 

[mpd239]

"I appreciate your spunk here, but are you really arguing that no one has ever been attacked by a force of more than THREE men?"

Of course not. I just don't think it's practical to envision that type of situation.

Uh, DrJones, could you stop reading my posts in such an ahistorical context? I never said that people incapable of owning guns safely shouldn't be allowed to purchase them. A previous poster had said that more widespread gun ownership would further deter criminals, and I responded that many Americans can't own a gun safely, and so there would be a tradeoff. Theoretical, not talking about a policy enforcing safety tests.

"Are you saying that the cure for reduced freedom is to reduce it even more?"

No, I'm saying that there are pragmatic limits to total freedom in a democratic republic based on law and order.

 

[Justin]

I say poe-tay-to, you say pah-tah-to.

As a social utilitarian, the burden of proof is on your shoulders to prove that encroachments on personal liberty will actually have some sort of net benefit.

And even then I'd still disagree with you because your epistemology is fallacious.

 

[Solo]

Of course not. I just don't think it's practical to envision that type of situation.

Ordinary people are attacked by groups of men fairly often (ie, Austrailia, England). As they say, it pays to be prepared.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

mpd239:

You speak interms of "statistics" and a "balance" in society.

What if your optimal societal balance is such that your purchase of a gun is the next to set the gun ownership off balance? "Statistics" show that if you buy a gun, gun ownership gets pushed beyond the XX% that "experts" have deemed as "safe" in our civilized society.

You find this out the day that your wife was violently threatened by a car full of gang members she somehow "dissed" who you fear might be bringing in reinforcements. They know where you live.

Tell me how you convince the Police to post a 24/7 guard. Tell me how you can afford a bodyguard. Tell me why that bodyguard only gets 10 rounds. Tell me how many days the Police or bodyguard really give a rip about your life.