Why the heck should I? I’ve already said I don’t care whether a gun used in a crime is legally or illegally held. Ask Tank if you really want to know the details of the “one crime since 1933” factoid. As I recall, the perpetrator was a cop.
As for this:
But of course. So what? The point of gun control is to reduce gun violence, not eliminate every instance of it.
Hey, Johnny forgot to mention your posts, sorry. I could swear that both goblins were packing M15/M16 variants. Thanks for piqueing my interest, maybe manana, without the umlaut, I’ll do some google searching and see what I can find out. Maybe I’ll start at Brady-gag.com and see what kind’a crap-age dey got.
and hey, let’s not get wrapped around the axl with minty re legally held mg’s involved in crimes, I think he explained it halfway decent, not that I’m dictating your arguement strategy bruddah…
minty: You seem to be complaining a lot, but you’re not offering any solutions except “We need more gun control!” Better posters than I have given you numerous reasons in many threads why “more gun control” is not a solution and why it won’t work. And you keep spoting the same nonsensical cry.
Let me explain something to you. (And BF I know you said I should drop the M.G. thing.) Machine guns that are used in crimes are illegal. Okay? They’ve been illegal for three quarters of a century. Okay? But you complain that more gun control will reduce crime. If that is true, how come people are still using machine guns to commit crimes? Obviously banning them was not a solution.
The problem is that you don’t know what the problem is.
The problem is not guns. The problem is the people who use guns to commit crimes. And if you want to expand on that, then the problem is the society that fails to educate certain members of its populace so that they will fit into society. If you want to reduce violent crimes, the solution is to make people not want to or not “have” to commit them. This is not done with punishment. This is not done by regulation. This can only be done by spending more money on education. Educated people make more money than uneducated ones. Educated people commit crimes less frequently than uneducated ones. People with a decent income commit crimes less frequently than people without a decent income. Educated people with a decent income commit crimes less frequently than uneducated people without a decent income.
Passing more laws that only affect the people who are not the problem is useless. If you were really interested in fighting crime, I expect I’d see you starting threads about increasing education, providing universal health care, providing child care for working mothers, and other things that would actually lead to a reduction in crime.
Johnny, kindy demonstrate where I have said any such thing in this thread. Seriously, man, you’re just making it up, just like you were above when you repeatedly asserted that I was advocating further restrictions on automatic weapons.
I’m not in the habit of defending other people’s boogeymen.
According to Tony Snow on FOX TV, the Ninth Circuit relied on Bellesiles, “Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture.” That book is now discredited. Columbia U. last week voted to rescind the Bancroft Prize previously awarded to it. What impact will this have at SCOTUS?
Wow! december, is that for real?!?!? Those puss-nuts actually used some crap from Bellesiles book for their (help me out here, minty) for their decree??? Is the 9th just out to help lob softballs to SCOTUS?? Should the NRA start funding the 9th? Do they have the 10 Commandments on DVD?
My head is spinning…ya know, sometimes that 8th beer just hits ya da wrong way…
Okay:
Or how about:
Oh, that was very cute that you said “in this thread”; but since you have, in this thread, directed others to threads in which you have posted, then you must accept your own words from that thread.
Or do you deny that you are in favour of “more gun control”?
Shocking!
Outrageous!
Inconceivable!
And also utterly false. C’mon, man, read the damn opinion yourself instead of repeating inanities from the punditry.
So, Johnny, you feel entitled to just slam me on gun control every time you see me and the Second Amendment in the same thread? Take it to a thread where it’s to the discussion. If you’re lucky, I might even respond. Short of that, read the thread I linked in an attempt to avoid the ensuing train wreck of a hijack and take a deep breath. Or ten. 'Cause quite frankly, I don’t feel like talking about the pros and cons of gun control right now, and I sure don’t do it on your demand. I came here to talk about the Constitution, which we were doing pretty darned good at for the first five pages.
[sub]Oh yeah, “I desire legislation that places substantial impediments in the way of” using machine guns in crimes means I’m crying for “more gun control.” Sheesh.[/sub]
“Take it to a thread where it’s relevant to the discussion.”
You bring it on yourself, man.
There are many things I could compare that comment to. For the sake of the forum, I will not.
minty: Bellesiles is cited on page 4 of the Adobe extract of the 9th Circuits decision. His assertion is open to interpretation.
Volstead was repealed officialy Dec 5, 1933. The National Firearms Act, enacted to combat OC violence realted to Prohibition, was passed in 1934. Less than a year after the repeal of Prohibition.
That’s kinda like closing the barn door after all of the horses have bolted.
But The Arming of America is not cited. The opinion cites one of his law reviews articles for the wholly unremarkable proposition that machine guns were banned in response to their use in Prohibition-era mob violence.
I don’t care. He’s a proven liar. That casts doubt on anything he’s ever said, is saying, or will say.
Stupid hamster ate my post for the first time in a month. Oh well, suffice it to say that there are dozens and dozens of pro-gun sites out there that make the same point that the court cited Bellesiles for. Just google “National Firearms Act of 1934,” and you’ll find them all over the place. Here’s one:
http://www.uoregon.edu/~ocomment/ocarchive/oc97_98/oc10_97_5.html
Happy now?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by minty green *
**
That is as it should be, given their disproportionately dealy nature.
Sort of a nit:
Cite?
I know it seems intuitive, but I’d appreciate some logic or a cite as to why fully automatic weapons are inherently more deadly than any other.
I’m not doing this to be antagonistic. I’ve had extensive discussion with people into hardcore wargames, for example, as to how one quantifies ‘firepower’ and ‘killing power’, and it’s a far more complex subject than it seems at the surface.
The function of fully automatic weapons (machine gun is a specific subset of fully automatic weapons in military terms) is no more inherently deadly than other types of weapons. They have their specific military purposes, and that’s why their use is widespread, but that doesn’t prove them to be inherently more deadly than anything else.
Repost with correct formatting:
**
Sort of a nit:
Cite?
I know it seems intuitive, but I’d appreciate some logic or a cite as to why fully automatic weapons are inherently more deadly than any other.
I’m not doing this to be antagonistic. I’ve had extensive discussion with people into hardcore wargames, for example, as to how one quantifies ‘firepower’ and ‘killing power’, and it’s a far more complex subject than it seems at the surface.
The function of fully automatic weapons (machine gun is a specific subset of fully automatic weapons in military terms) is no more inherently deadly than other types of weapons. They have their specific military purposes, and that’s why their use is widespread, but that doesn’t prove them to be inherently more deadly than anything else.
I don’t see your logic.
The “only one crime” factoid is usually brought in defense against further bans against machine guns, and in that context is absolutely relevant. No one is suggesting that magic pixies have rendered every machine gun on the planet harmless - they’re saying that it’s pretty ridiculous to ban machine gun production despite “only one crime”, and it’s a perfectly reasonable position.
Unless I’m missing something, you seem to be attacking a straw man - that someone said machine guns in general were harmless and couldn’t be used in crime.
And BTW, I might be mistaken on this, but in the case of the police officer, I believe he didn’t privately own the weapon in question, but it was on loan from his department. Given that, and the fact that police are always exempt from these bans, I don’t think that particular crime should count against the otherwise perfect record of legal machine gun ownership - it doesn’t seem relevent.
To clarify, Minty, you seem to have asserted that machine guns were disproportinately dangerous and required stringent regulation. People objected saying that only one crime (or none, in my view) had been commited with them legally, and so it’s obviously not an epidemic. You replied that illegal ones are still being used, so the ‘only one crime’ factoid was irrelevant.
As this is a hijack about the about the legal gun control around machine guns (at least, I think it is), the fact that illegal guns are being used still is irrelevant to the discussion of the abuse of legally owned machine guns. If you merely mean to state that machine guns kill people, well, feel free to state the obvious - but it seems disingenuous to demonize legal machine gun ownership by association because of their illegal use.
If anything, to me, the fact that there are still illegal machine guns floating around is a case against gun control, rather than for it. Obviously the strict regulation hasn’t elimated them from the black market.
Or perhaps I just have no idea what you’re trying to say.