Can anyone explain to me...

[bshole]

Gun control isn't about making us safer (like the politicians say). Its about disarming us to make way for future tyranny.

You may find this surprising but a significant portion of the population supports and wants gun control. In many instances, politicians are simply responding to the wishes of a majority of their constituents.

Given that the government has tanks, drones, missiles, large caliber machine guns, mortars, aircraft carriers, bombers, fighter jets and nuclear arms.... it is really really difficult to believe that we could protect ourselves from government tyranny with the weapons we have. In terms of real military capability, we are completely disarmed already. When the constitution was written, owning a gun was about all you needed to match the governments firepower.

If you really believe in protecting yourself from tyranny, you should be arguing for free access to tanks, nuclear weapons, bombers, etc.... for anybody who can afford them. This would be the more intellectually honest argument.

 

[WackyDan]

You may find this surprising but a significant portion of the population supports and wants gun control. In many instances, politicians are simply responding to the wishes of a majority of their constituents.

Given that the government has tanks, drones, missiles, large caliber machine guns, mortars, aircraft carriers, bombers, fighter jets and nuclear arms.... it is really really difficult to believe that we could protect ourselves from government tyranny with the weapons we have. In terms of real military capability, we are completely disarmed already. When the constitution was written, owning a gun was about all you needed to match the governments firepower.

If you really believe in protecting yourself from tyranny, you should be arguing for free access to tanks, nuclear weapons, bombers, etc.... for anybody who can afford them. This would be the more intellectually honest argument.

Tired argument from your side.

- You would have to assume that 100% of the military would follow orders and fire on their fellow citizens. While Federal agencies and local law enforcement may do that in relation to putting down a cult they deem a threat (See Waco), - when there are larger insurgencies the military will have to be leveraged.

- Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt.... Good example of how insurgency and small arms/IEDs can win the day. So much for your theory.

 

[Moonbeam]

Tired argument from your side.

- You would have to assume that 100% of the military would follow orders and fire on their fellow citizens. While Federal agencies and local law enforcement may do that in relation to putting down a cult they deem a threat (See Waco), - when there are larger insurgencies the military will have to be leveraged.

- Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt.... Good example of how insurgency and small arms/IEDs can win the day. So much for your theory.

What's the difference between him think any would not when you assume any would?

 

[BurnItDwn]

Universal Background checks I think will have some impact to keep people who legally can not own guns from getting them.

Limiting the size of magazines potentially could slow somebody down on their killing spree. If they can only fire 8 rounds between loading a new magazine, and if it takes 3 seconds to load a new magazine, then it might make for a couple less bodies in a mass killing.

Overall, I think limiting magazine size or banning certain types of guns is the wrong way to go about it, but, universal background checks is a smart, common sense, move that should have happened back when the Brady bill was passed.

 

[bshole]

Overall, I think limiting magazine size or banning certain types of guns is the wrong way to go about it, but, universal background checks is a smart, common sense, move that should have happened back when the Brady bill was passed.

Do you think ending the war on drugs would be effective at reducing the overall homicide rate? I don't think mass murders show up statistically in the overall murder rate. I think we average about 15,000 murders a year... of that number aren't less than 100 victims of mass murder events? I haven't researched this but I would be willing to bet that at least a 1000 of those murders were over drug turf.

 

[OverVolt]

You may find this surprising but a significant portion of the population supports and wants gun control. In many instances, politicians are simply responding to the wishes of a majority of their constituents.

Given that the government has tanks, drones, missiles, large caliber machine guns, mortars, aircraft carriers, bombers, fighter jets and nuclear arms.... it is really really difficult to believe that we could protect ourselves from government tyranny with the weapons we have. In terms of real military capability, we are completely disarmed already. When the constitution was written, owning a gun was about all you needed to match the governments firepower.

If you really believe in protecting yourself from tyranny, you should be arguing for free access to tanks, nuclear weapons, bombers, etc.... for anybody who can afford them. This would be the more intellectually honest argument.

Lets just say I don't agree and I'm about 99.9% sure that I'm right :awe:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/22/syria-mayadeen-army-base_n_2175807.html

For example.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Do you think ending the war on drugs would be effective at reducing the overall homicide rate? I don't think mass murders show up statistically in the overall murder rate. I think we average about 15,000 murders a year... of that number aren't less than 100 victims of mass murder events? I haven't researched this but I would be willing to bet that at least a 1000 of those murders were over drug turf.

I think that would reduce violent crime by a VERY significant amount.
If we treat drug addiction as a medical problem, rather than a criminal problem, and if we can get rid of the black market associated with the drugs, it will do a lot to help people.

Crime as a whole would probably drop very steeply.

 

[Sureshot324]

The proposed gun restriction laws are not going to accomplish anything, but I honestly think a ban on any concealable weapons (hand guns) could make a big difference.

Hand guns are used in the vast majority of gun crimes. Yes those crimes could still be done shotguns/rifles, but it would be harder and that's the key. Organized criminals would have no problem illegally obtaining all the hand guns they want, but other criminals with no black market connections would have a considerably harder time. That includes all the school/college shooters.

For home defense and the 2nd amendment, larger weapons do just fine.

 

[Lithium381]

The proposed gun restriction laws are not going to accomplish anything, but I honestly think a ban on any concealable weapons (hand guns) could make a big difference.

Hand guns are used in the vast majority of gun crimes. Yes those crimes could still be done shotguns/rifles, but it would be harder and that's the key. Organized criminals would have no problem illegally obtaining all the hand guns they want, but other criminals with no black market connections would have a considerably harder time. That includes all the school/college shooters.

For home defense and the 2nd amendment, larger weapons do just fine.

how many of those handguns are used by the legal owner in the perpetuation of the crime? How do you propose citizens protect themselves when they're out and about? Or should they live in fear and simply stay at home with their "larger weapons"? Are we really going to just give the country to the criminals?

 

[marincounty]

how many of those handguns are used by the legal owner in the perpetuation of the crime? How do you propose citizens protect themselves when they're out and about? Or should they live in fear and simply stay at home with their "larger weapons"? Are we really going to just give the country to the criminals?

Are you in fear when you are out and about without your gun?
Where the hell do you live, Oakland?

 

[Sureshot324]

how many of those handguns are used by the legal owner in the perpetuation of the crime?

A lot are (see school shootings). In some states it's ridiculously easy to legally obtain firearms. Many are stolen/borrowed from legal owners (kid takes his dad's gun). If there were no legal owners to steal from, this would be a lot harder. Of course many are also purchased on the black market, but this isn't so easy of you don't have the connections.

How do you propose citizens protect themselves when they're out and about? Or should they live in fear and simply stay at home with their "larger weapons"?

How many people actually legally concealed carry a firearm? Out of those that do, how often does pulling out their concealed gun actually save their lives? I'd venture to say this is an extremely rare occurance, and nowhere near the number of lives that can be saved by significantly reducing the number of hand guns that are out there.

I know there is the whole freedom issue, but we restrict freedoms all the time if it makes sense to do so. I believe I can safely drive 120mph in certain situations and it would sometimes be very useful to do so. Should I be free to do that? If banning handguns would save millions of lives then it's worth restricting those freedoms.

 

[bshole]

If banning handguns would save millions of lives then it's worth restricting those freedoms.

Ok, like I said before there are less than 15,000 murders a year, you are not going to be saving millions of lives. Another question, is the life of gang-banging drug dealer == life of middle class suburbanite? A sizeable fraction of those murders are violent sociopathic criminal on violent sociopathic criminal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

 

[WackyDan]

How many people actually legally concealed carry a firearm? Out of those that do, how often does pulling out their concealed gun actually save their lives? I'd venture to say this is an extremely rare occurance, and nowhere near the number of lives that can be saved by significantly reducing the number of hand guns that are out there.

Millions. Last number across the US I saw was north of 6 million and that doesn't count the states that don't require permits for concealed carry. Defending oneself with a firearm is not rare, just rarely reported because defending oneself with a firearm does not mean that you had to discharge your weapon. Nor does it make the news and it isn't treated as an event worth notice even when reporting said defense to the police as a crime wasn't committed.

You are not going to take away my right to defend myself with the threat of or use of lethal force. Case in point... Last September a drug abuser was out in the road in front of my house waving a baseball bat at me threatening my life. I wasn't carrying as I was simply digging fence post holes in my side yard. Had I been able to level one of my firearms at him, even with out discharging it, the message would have been sent. Instead this same prick managed to harass my family for 6 weeks after his arrest. It wasn't until one of the officers stopped over my house to review video footage of the daily harassment and I had to legally declare to him that I was carrying out of fear for my family that they intervened and dealt with the kid who instead of the misdemeanor charges for threatening my life while brandishing a weapon (YES A FUCKING misdemeanor) was now facing multiple felony charges for intimidation and criminal stalking. Hint... I couldn't even get a restraining order filed after the threats with the weapon because here in NC it has to happen more than one time.

The whole thing was resolved. The kid ended up doing the right thing to avoid felony charges. Point is... The police took over 1/2 hour to get there after the call to 911 from my wife. Point is the legal system is set up against the plaintiff in criminal cases. I couldn't get a restraining order? Are you fucking kidding me?

I am now carrying 24/7 even in my own yard thanks to that day and anywhere I legally am allowed. Nice neighborhood, nice town... shouldn't have to and it is a shame is has to be that way, but you or I, as well the gov't can not control random acts of violence as to where and when they happen. The police certainly can not be there in time. For law abiding citizens, we deserve the right to have at our disposal the tools to defend ourselves.

 

[bshole]

I couldn't imagine going through life so paranoid that I felt the need to carry a gun on me at all times. My deepest sympathies go out to those who do. That is definitely no way to live.

 

[WackyDan]

I couldn't imagine going through life so paranoid that I felt the need to carry a gun on me at all times. My deepest sympathies go out to those who do. That is definitely no way to live.

Who said anything about being paranoid. It's called being prepared.

You seemingly do not own firearms and maybe have never handled them. I can respect that you might not want to... But my respect ends when you start calling those of us that own them as well gone through the process to conceal carry "Paranoid".

 

[bshole]

I own an S&W Chief's Special 45, a Remington 700 in 270WSM caliber and a 30-30. I have shot more animals than I care to remember (mostly with a bow). I believe it is illegal to have a gun in the house that is not locked up. My guns are therefor locked up. If somebody ever broke into my house, by the time I got down to the safe and got it open, I figure he would have shot me. For home protection, my guns are pretty much useless. So yes I have guns and I do use them. With kids in the house, I feel better having them locked up.

I can sorta of understand where you are coming from though. I feel unprotected without a cell phone on me 24/7. A couple of years ago, I cut off what looked like a gang banger in a McDonald's parking lot. I was with my daughter. Anyways he starts screaming at me in the parking lot and would not stop. I drive off the parking lot and he is following me in his car. After a few blocks of this, I got worried, picked up the phone and dialed 911. When he saw that, the guy took off like a bat out of hell. I wonder what would have happened if I brandished a gun? Would he have left or would it have caused him to pull his own gun?

So I suppose I shouldn't be thowing stones at those who feel vunerable without guns when I feel vunerable without a cell phone. Of course, I am much much more worried about the car breaking down than about somebody shooting me.

It is prudent to remember this, it won't be the government who takes away your guns. In the end, it will be your fellow citizens. Right or wrong... our government pretty much does what the majority of the voters tell it to do. It isn't some great conspiracy of evil totalitarians attempting to take over the world who are coming for your guns. Much of the impetus is coming from widely publicized mass murders in the white community and rampant gun violence in inner city ghettos.

Am I worried about the government coming for my guns? Hell no! Just how would they manage the wildlife population without hunters? It's a nonstarter. It is not going to happen. It is just a bunch of fear mongering used by the NRA for fund raising purposes.

 

[MtnMan]

It's going to take a long time to disarm Americans, but it has started.

We know that past and present presidents view the Constitution as that "god damn piece of paper". Bush was just too f'-ing stupid to be much of a threat, this one is smarter, and that is a real threat.

 

[Sureshot324]

Millions. Last number across the US I saw was north of 6 million and that doesn't count the states that don't require permits for concealed carry. Defending oneself with a firearm is not rare, just rarely reported because defending oneself with a firearm does not mean that you had to discharge your weapon. Nor does it make the news and it isn't treated as an event worth notice even when reporting said defense to the police as a crime wasn't committed.

You are not going to take away my right to defend myself with the threat of or use of lethal force. Case in point... Last September a drug abuser was out in the road in front of my house waving a baseball bat at me threatening my life. I wasn't carrying as I was simply digging fence post holes in my side yard. Had I been able to level one of my firearms at him, even with out discharging it, the message would have been sent. Instead this same prick managed to harass my family for 6 weeks after his arrest. It wasn't until one of the officers stopped over my house to review video footage of the daily harassment and I had to legally declare to him that I was carrying out of fear for my family that they intervened and dealt with the kid who instead of the misdemeanor charges for threatening my life while brandishing a weapon (YES A FUCKING misdemeanor) was now facing multiple felony charges for intimidation and criminal stalking. Hint... I couldn't even get a restraining order filed after the threats with the weapon because here in NC it has to happen more than one time.

The whole thing was resolved. The kid ended up doing the right thing to avoid felony charges. Point is... The police took over 1/2 hour to get there after the call to 911 from my wife. Point is the legal system is set up against the plaintiff in criminal cases. I couldn't get a restraining order? Are you fucking kidding me?

I am now carrying 24/7 even in my own yard thanks to that day and anywhere I legally am allowed. Nice neighborhood, nice town... shouldn't have to and it is a shame is has to be that way, but you or I, as well the gov't can not control random acts of violence as to where and when they happen. The police certainly can not be there in time. For law abiding citizens, we deserve the right to have at our disposal the tools to defend ourselves.

If you had pointed a gun at that druggy, you would have ended that particular confrontation, but you would also have pissed him off. Violence breeds violence. Whatever feelings of aggression he had for you have been multiplied. You might have felt better taking control of the situation, but you would not have been any safer.

In Canada the rate of gun ownership is not much lower than in the US, but the rate of hand gun ownership per household is about 6 times lower. The rate of firearm homicides per capita is also about 6 times lower. It is next to impossible to get a concealed carry permit here. You can own a hand gun, but you can only legally have it in your home or directly on route to a firing range, and it must be locked up at all times. That explains why so few people have them, since they're pretty much useless except to collectors and target shooters.

Now I know many would chalk that up to cultural differences, etc. and to some extent that's true, but that doesn't tell the whole story, since in most other ways Canada really isn't very different from the US at all. 6x less handguns around = 6x less people getting killed by them. Makes sense.

 

[WackyDan]

If you had pointed a gun at that druggy, you would have ended that particular confrontation, but you would also have pissed him off. Violence breeds violence. Whatever feelings of aggression he had for you have been multiplied. You might have felt better taking control of the situation, but you would not have been any safer.

In Canada the rate of gun ownership is not much lower than in the US, but the rate of hand gun ownership per household is about 6 times lower. The rate of firearm homicides per capita is also about 6 times lower. It is next to impossible to get a concealed carry permit here. You can own a hand gun, but you can only legally have it in your home or directly on route to a firing range, and it must be locked up at all times. That explains why so few people have them, since they're pretty much useless except to collectors and target shooters.

Now I know many would chalk that up to cultural differences, etc. and to some extent that's true, but that doesn't tell the whole story, since in most other ways Canada really isn't very different from the US at all. 6x less handguns around = 6x less people getting killed by them. Makes sense.

I'm not saying you are wrong or I'm absolute in my assumption as to what would happen. The only thing that kept him from swinging was the fact that I picked up a spade shovel, and my neighbor who was helping me casually started walking across the lawn with an iron pick we were using to chop roots. Without those, he would have been on my property and it would have been ugly for both of us. Escalating by brandishing one of my firearms would more than likely have sent a clear message that he picked the wrong neighbor to fuck with. It would have also changed the police response and that of his parents.

I'd rather have the option and not use it as the saying goes.

 

[WackyDan]

I own an S&W Chief's Special 45, a Remington 700 in 270WSM caliber and a 30-30. I have shot more animals than I care to remember (mostly with a bow). I believe it is illegal to have a gun in the house that is not locked up. My guns are therefor locked up. If somebody ever broke into my house, by the time I got down to the safe and got it open, I figure he would have shot me. For home protection, my guns are pretty much useless. So yes I have guns and I do use them. With kids in the house, I feel better having them locked up.

I can sorta of understand where you are coming from though. I feel unprotected without a cell phone on me 24/7. A couple of years ago, I cut off what looked like a gang banger in a McDonald's parking lot. I was with my daughter. Anyways he starts screaming at me in the parking lot and would not stop. I drive off the parking lot and he is following me in his car. After a few blocks of this, I got worried, picked up the phone and dialed 911. When he saw that, the guy took off like a bat out of hell. I wonder what would have happened if I brandished a gun? Would he have left or would it have caused him to pull his own gun?

So I suppose I shouldn't be thowing stones at those who feel vunerable without guns when I feel vunerable without a cell phone. Of course, I am much much more worried about the car breaking down than about somebody shooting me.

It is prudent to remember this, it won't be the government who takes away your guns. In the end, it will be your fellow citizens. Right or wrong... our government pretty much does what the majority of the voters tell it to do. It isn't some great conspiracy of evil totalitarians attempting to take over the world who are coming for your guns. Much of the impetus is coming from widely publicized mass murders in the white community and rampant gun violence in inner city ghettos.

Am I worried about the government coming for my guns? Hell no! Just how would they manage the wildlife population without hunters? It's a nonstarter. It is not going to happen. It is just a bunch of fear mongering used by the NRA for fund raising purposes.

We're of similar mind then. The difference being that I lock my .38 in a small push button safe that is good enough to keep the kids out but convenient enough to have at in seconds. Why the .38? Due to it's point and shoot interface being friendlier for the wife to handle... .38 is safe with HKS speed loader and that should do the job if needed.

People are unpredictable... as I found out and as you found out. I have found the older I get when I do come upon one of these clowns they are a multiple of crazy compared to the last... Just not worth it to be ill equipped and by that same logic, I'm not willing to make a mistake that will cost me my freedom, career, family, etc.