I cannot imagine a situation where I’d need to use a gun to protect myself. I don’t hang out with violent criminals and I don’t live in a neighborhood where it’s likely someone will try to harm me in such a way that I’d need to shoot them to protect myself. If I were in a neighborhood that made me feel that way, it would be because of the guns in the neighborhood and the neighborhood being full of people who are violent criminals.
As far as fear mongering goes, in my opinion, people saying they need a gun to protect themselves does more for creating fear than those who say we are in danger because of so many guns being out there.
[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
I’m not knowledgable about this stuff, but I got the impression that misdemeanors have less of a burden of proof and no jury, less severity, etc. Misdemeanors can be stuff like public intoxication and disorderly conduct. Often (usually?) misdemeanors are punished with a small fine, or probation, or community service hours. Giving the government power to oppress rights over such minor things with little burden of proof is a bad, bad idea. Should you lose your right to vote over a misdemeanor too?
[/QUOTE]
Misdemeanors can be small potatoes. They can also be reasonably serious, and put people in jail for up to a year of their life.
Your assumption that the government has less burden of proof is incorrect, as is the assumption that you are denied trial by jury for misdemeanors. You may be confusing civil versus criminal court.
Note that folks convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence (a fairly serious crime, for being a misdemeanor) are disallowed to possess firearms. Should that law be repealed?
How about a person who racks up multiple misdemeanor assault and battery convictions? A person who’s spent an aggregate years in jail?
I qualified my statements in this thread. I believe in limiting the number of people with access to firearms, but also expanding (greatly) the lawful use of and the types of firearms available to those who are proven to be low-risk, trustworthy, law-abiding citizens. What do I base that on? Because as I get older and think back on all the absolute untrained, irresponsible, criminal idiots I’ve known who have legally possessed firearms, I have to wonder how much better off we’d be if they had been prevented from possessing them. Don’t think for a second this puts me, with my CCW and dozens of guns and 20+ years of happy shooting experience, on the anti-gun side.
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
See the SCOTUS Dred Scott decision. “Legal” implies it can be undone or made illegal. A right can not be legislated away. The decision declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820, legislation which restricted slavery in certain territories, unconstitutional. In essence Congress had no power to prohibit slavery (a lot like pro-gun groups saying Congress has no power to prohibit guns).
To get by that it took a Constitutional Amendment to undo. Seems a fair bit past a mere law to me and more like a right.
[/QUOTE]
sigh By the time of Dred Scott, slavery was already illegal in most if not all northern states. Dred Scott did not overturn those state laws. Look, you’re just flat out wrong here, why not admit it and move on?
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
Fun book, load of horse hockey. Love to say I believed it, but… ah, no. What I’m decrying is that I have to essentially act as if I believe it, because I can’t reach a middle ground of any reasonable sort, thanks to people who want to take 'em all away. I think we need laws that increase personal responsibility. Or regulations. Like, say, if your guns are registered with an insurance company, you get a discount if you take five hours of training with an authorized trainer a year. That kind of thing.
… thing is, I havn’t seen any reasonable gun laws. I mean, pretty much ever. Except the waiting period. Again, not a bad idea, that one. But other than that? I honestly can’t think of a second good gun law out there. I mean, the Assault Weapon Ban? That was just stupid.
[/QUOTE]
I would say that the instant background check system was the most sensible I have seen. Having a decent database of felons and loonies who have lost their right to own a firearm due to either actions or mental incapacitation is a good idea, and I am glad that the NRA pushed it.
[QUOTE=Weirddave] sigh By the time of Dred Scott, slavery was already illegal in most if not all northern states. Dred Scott did not overturn those state laws. Look, you’re just flat out wrong here, why not admit it and move on?
[/QUOTE]
Have you ever read the Dred Scott case?
The case was premised on Scott having lived in Illinois and Wisconsin where slavery was illegal. The court ruled that despite this they were still slaves. Essentially the ruling meant you could go to a slave state, buy a slave, then go anywhere you wanted to with that slave…even non-slave states…and he/she would remain your slave.
The ruling made the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional and it took a constitutional amendment to overturn (see the 13th Amendment). The end result was owning slaves was a right and you could not be deprived of them by the legislature, federal or state. All the northern states had to say about it at that point was you could not buy slaves in their state.
That is even more permissive than going somewhere that will sell you a gun then taking it back to Washington D.C. where it is still illegal regardless of where you bought it.
[QUOTE=Algher]
I would say that the instant background check system was the most sensible I have seen. Having a decent database of felons and loonies who have lost their right to own a firearm due to either actions or mental incapacitation is a good idea, and I am glad that the NRA pushed it.
[/QUOTE]
Yep, that’s another sensible one. Simple, but effective.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
But for target shooting, well, I dunno, that one’s a bit hard to take, a handgun for accuracy is a lot like playing hockey with a Q-tip, or playing volley ball with a shot put, the design sort of defeats the intention. A clear case of malform following malfunction.
[/quote]
So to follow your ‘logic’ only the very best firearm/long gun should be able to be used as a sporting and target rifle. Say theBarrett 50 I asked earlier. You don’t think that you can target shoot with a hand gun?
Is thisTarget pistol acceptable. Does it bother you that it could also be used as a defensive weapon?
Could you please elaborate? I have no idea what you’re trying to say here.
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
That is even more permissive than going somewhere that will sell you a gun then taking it back to Washington D.C. where it is still illegal regardless of where you bought it.
[/QUOTE]
Yep. And it’s legal to own a hand gun in Chicago. As long as you have a permit.
But guess what? No permits are issued. So, defacto, handguns are illegal. Nice side step there on the anti-gun side. Slippery slope? Nah. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=elucidator]
I see a decline in enthusiasm on the left for gun control, at least in part because it just ain’t worth it.
[/QUOTE]
It declines a bit further every time one of the more perceptive leftists sees Dubya do something stupid and mulls on the fact that, if not for the gun control issue, Al Gore would be there instead…
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
Exactly. If someone can be a threat to you without a gun you can be a threat back to them without a gun.
[/QUOTE]
e.g. If a 250-pound bruiser can be a threat to a 100-pound grandma without a gun, then a 100-pound grandma can be a threat right back to a 250-pound bruiser without a gun.
I think this thread has reached some sort of apotheosis of illogic.
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
The premise usually given for keeping guns is fear mongering. Several here have claimed the reason for needing a gun is for self protection. Self protection from what? The vast majority of people I know do not carry a gun and somehow they have managed to make it this far just fine.
[/quote]
This is an inane argument. As others have stated, the vast majority of people I know have not needed fire extinguishers or seatbelts and somehow they have managed to make it this far just fine, too.
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
I am highly dubious of just when having a gun will protect you and without it you are done for there being no other options. When I took martial arts and was being taught disarming techniques our instructor (who understandably was quite good at self defense) said if he was mugged he’d hand over his wallet. If you are being mugged and have a gun are you going to go for the gun and hope you kill the guy before he gets you? Is killing him over the $50 in your pocket appropriate? Further I cannot see shooting someone who is stealing my TV. It would piss me off to be sure but shooting someone over it seems excessive.
[/quote]
The thing is, you don’t know the intentions of the criminal. Maybe he just wants your TV. Or maybe he wants to rape your wife and daughters, strangle your wife, and burn your house down with your daughters tied to their beds (killing them) like what happened here in Connecticut last year.
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
…My impression was if someone breaks in to your home you are within your rights to shoot them. And to me that makes sense as I cannot imagine the law expecting you to hang around and see if the intruder wants your TV or your daughter.
[/quote]
Oh, so you do realize this.
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
As such I expect the default reaction of the gun owner will be to shoot first. What I wonder is if a gun owner really would take an option to escape the house rather than go for their gun assuming either was a viable option.
[/QUOTE]
And leave your daughter behind?
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
The times where a weapon is in your possession and the ability to wield it for effect are few and far between unless you are law enforcement. Concealed carry? Do you often find situations running around your city to make use of your gun? Frankly if you do you should move.
[/quote]
Not everyone has this option.
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
By demanding legal access to guns you create an amazingly simple road for all the bad guys to get their guns. Certainly some bad guys would always manage but if guns were outright illegal they would be far harder to come by and more expensive and not generally accessible to your average thug.
[/quote]
Just like drugs are not generally accessible to criminals, right?
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
Of course there are so many guns today getting rid of them would take a decade or more to filter out and perhaps a generation to really dwindle to minimal numbers but I do not know that is an argument to not try.
[/QUOTE]
Unlike drugs, guns and ammunition stay usable indefinitely. The only people who go through large amounts of ammunition are law-abiding hunters and target shooters. I’d bet that one box of ammo (which if kept dry, does not degrade) would suffice for a lifetime of robberies and holdups (for a criminal). For a law-abiding gun owner no longer allowed to practice, one box of ammo would also last a long, long time.
On what basis do you think think that the number of guns will filter out and dwindle to minimal numbers?
