3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
You mean legally-owned guns, I assume.
Of course under a complete lack of gun control, all guns would be legal, but that's not really the point.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns
Page 18 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Of course under a complete lack of gun control, all guns would be legal, but that's not really the point.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
Your position is highly flawed, because for simple recreation, gun control poses no threat, unless you think recreational firearms use should be permitted in the backyards of the nation.
PrinceofWands
Lifer
Again, it depends on your criteria...that's why the range is so broad. Lott included every single use of a gun by anyone, including simple brandishing. The FBI study included very few, but it's still enough to be many times more than the number of criminal or accidental uses.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
I thought criminals all had guns anyway😉
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
You are right in one small detail, I said 'anyone' when what I should have said was 'most people'. The right to arms was not predicated on the right to recreation, or to hunting, and therefore thoughful people do not base their support for firearms on these uses.
While shotguns can be sawed off, it is rather simple and reasonable to make this a serious crime - keeping long gun ownership relatively unencumbered should be simple. Similarly, target shooting, including with handguns can easily be protected by storing such weapons at the location where they are to be used. A number of secure transport systems are quite possible, and the end result is that if you want the gun for target shooting, there is no reason this should be a challenge, illegal, or should even involve the government knowing who you are.
Now, freely hunting with guns small enough to effectively conceal presents the only challenge, but with 300 million very creative people in the USA, I think a solution can be found.
Remember that I'm not arguing for gun control, I'm arguing that your position is rather silly. It is the right to own and carry firearms, including handguns that really are deigned to kill people, which is at issue. Therefore the 'right' to self-defense, and the degree to which the second amendment is a blanket right to carry firearms in all places at all times is the correct venue for argument, not 'recreational use'.
Yes, the right to bear arms was not intended to give us the right to hunt. However your assumption that "thoughtful" people are not anti-gun because of their recreational use of guns is just plain silly. Many gun control propositions would severely impact a hunter's right to own firearms, and this is of great concern to him or her. To say that it isn't "thoughtful" to be against gun control because of its impact on recreational gun use is quite thoughtless itself.
I could just as easily begin my argument with a similar phrase, such as "Only logical people believe that..." However this hampers argument and in the future you'd contribute to a more productive debate if you refrained from using such lines.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
You don't have a right to hunt. So while it might be inconvenient for you to be hampered in your ability to do so, it still isn't the 'right' argument to make.
Your arguing for "gun restrictions" and that is the same as "gun control". Your only fooling yourself with your word games and attempting to seperate recreational use of firearms from the right to own a gun. It doesn't matter if we want to own a gun for self-defense, hunting, or taerget practice. It's our right to do so and any laws that affect one also affect the other.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
I'm not arguing for restrictions, either. I'm arguing that the argument Farang is making is not a good one. And I'm right.
It actually does matter why you want the gun, though the reason has little to do with the gun itself. It has plenty to do with the fact that hunting and other recreational uses are not protected, which is to say that hunting could be banned, with no constitutional recourse.
In fact, while it would be a silly thing to do, any firing of a gun under any circumstances could be banned, so long as ownership itself was not banned.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Well, you can argue what you want but you wouldn't get too far trying to ban the firing of all firearms for any reason. The people can keep AND bear arms.
I see nothing in there that allows the feds any jurisdiction whatsoever in hunting or any other recreational uses?
exdeath
Lifer
A gun is a gun, period. Any gun in the right hands is capable of killing equally. I know people who can shoot and reload their 6 shot revolver faster than I can my USP 40 with 13 rd mags. Either you want to ban them all or none of them, so quit with the 'some guns are designed to kill people' argument based on what looks scary to you and say what it is you really want to say.
What is the difference between a gun whose barrel is covered in black plastic and one covered in engraved wood?
If you want to start talking about 'assault weapons' need I remind you that the DC shooter used everyone's favorite evil 'assault weapon', the AR-15. Semiautomatic, capable of using 30 round magazines... yet every victim was hit by exactly ONE shot, a shot which would have allowed for ZERO survivors had he been using a larger caliber more powerful bolt action 'deer' rifle.
It's also frequently overlooked, when people are discussing "Assault Weapons," that they are frequently used by folks like farmers/ranchers and professional outdoors people because they *are* built to get wet & dirty on a day-to-day basis and still operate well.
Traditional "sporting arms" can take a little abuse, but they aren't built for it and would require much more maintenance.
FWIW
Traditional "sporting arms" can take a little abuse, but they aren't built for it and would require much more maintenance.
FWIW
An assault rifle is indeed different from a handgun. When's the last time you took your street-sweeper shotgun down to the target range, hmm? Don't lecture your betters; you will lose. Guns have different capabilities, as anyone but a moron knows. You said, any gun in the right hands is capable of killing equally. A-nope.
So you argue that it matters why you want a gun, and that the only thing protected by the constitution is the ownership of guns, but not any particular use of them.
How does that have any relevance to what I am saying? Obviously the gun control debate is over which guns are not useful but are dangerous, and which guns are useful but do not pose as much of a threat. Thus, the uses of the guns come into play in the argument. If an AK-47 isn't useful for self defense or recreation, then it is a target for gun control. However we must protect our right to bear arms in the case of a 12-gauge shotgun, which has a mostly legitimate purpose in the form of hunting and self defense.
Recreational use of guns is half of the argument against gun control. As much as you want to write it off as thoughtless, it has just as much a place in the debate as self-defense does. Regardless of whether or not hunting is consititutionally protected, our right to bear arms is and so hunters will defend that right to make sure the tools of their hobby are not restricted. The claim that hunting could in theory be outlawed is irrelevant, as hunting is in fact legal.
By your logic self defense shouldn't be brought up as an issue either because we don't have a right to shoot in self defense, and in theory it could be made a crime to shoot at anybody for any reason.
What do you propose be the basis for the gun control argument then? It seems by your line of thinking, sticking purely to the written word of the second amendment, our rights shall "not be infringed" and every single type of arms should be made legal. Obviously this is not a reasonable position, and so obviously the various purposes of each type of arms should be considered when restricting their use.
Under a strict reading of the Second Amendment, private ownership of guns can also be banned. It only describes a right to "keep and bear", and that arguably only in service to a militia. A ban on firing of any guns under any circumstances, however, would be impossible because to give effect to the "keep and bear" language, one has to be able to fire the gun under some circumstances. Any legal scholar will tell you. Nobody has even attempted to make your argument because it just wouldn't work.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
