Concealed guns in national parks? Loaded weapons in wildlife refuges? Whaaa?

Great Debates
401

I wasn’t clear. In that sentence I was referring to grenades, which are commonly carried by individual soldiers. Nuclear weapons are not carried by individual soldiers.

Since grenades are ‘area weapons’, even though they are commonly carried by individual solders I do not count them as ‘arms’. Since they are carried by individual soldiers, and in a civilian militia situation citizen-soldiers might be expected to have them, then by a strict reading of the Second a case can be made that they should be legal. On the other hand, AFAIK no civil militia has ever been expected to show up to a fight with such things; ordnance being issued by the military.

So by a very strict reading of the Amendment, an argument can be made in favour of grenades. By no reading of the Amendment can nuclear weapons be allowed. As I’ve said, my reading of the Amendment is that it says ‘arms’ and not ‘ordnance’. As an individual weapon a grenade might be considered an ‘arm’. But since it is an area weapon, I personally don’t think it counts.

402

One reason is the one you gave. The other goes to the level of not wanting a nanny state; I’m saddened by suicide, but only the person should have the choice on whether to live or die. It’s certainly not my business, nor is it the government’s. If they ask for help, I’m more than happy to try to help, but once they decide to shuffle off the mortal coil, I have to respect that decision.

Yes, we come do different conclusions. I just don’t see the lives lost as a significant factor in this.

I propose that when you guys are coming up with your handgun ban that, at the very least, you establish a way to gather more complete data–as we discussed earlier, as things stand now we only have the prosecution data available. If we could establish a scientific way to evaluate the defensive uses of guns, that would be a useful data point in the cost/benefit analysis. My guess is that it would be a hinge point, really, because I sincerely believe there to be far more defensive uses than accidents/homicide/suicide. In many of those incidents, the gun is never even discharged (and hence, no lost life) because of the deterrent factor.

If we did that and you guys still came to the current conclusion, I’d disagree, but I would feel like you had the most complete data set available to you.

Since you’re still here and, on the whole, have tried to elucidate your argument based on evidence, I’m willing to take this at face value for you, personally. But I do think there is an element of unfamiliarity/fear with a lot of the folks on your side of the aisle. It’s like because folks see guns as a detriment to society, they then see guns as ‘scary’ or ‘icky’ and, thus, don’t ever want to see one or pick one up, which I think is harmful, as it doesn’t give them the opportunity to have any practical experience. Most people who have that practical experience don’t seem to regard guns as any particular danger.

I’m not sure about you, Early Out, but take Brown Eyed Girl as an example. She doesn’t seem to have any practical experience with guns, so (understandably) her system of value is based on things like Columbine or the tragedies we all read about or see on the news. To have only one side of the coin available to the masses–ie death statistics and a media that sensationalizes everything from Swine Flu to idiots on rampages with a gun–is somehow incomplete, I think.

Apologies to you, Brown Eyed Girl, for using you as an example; I’m honestly not trying to place a value judgment on you here. If you’re still popping into the thread and want to add your thoughts, feel free. :slight_smile:

403

¿Que?

You don’t honestly believe that the government wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights do you?
I assure you, it is quite the opposite - the government is written by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not the other way around.
Before any other incorrect assertions about where I believe rights come from, please consult this old thread. I think the “where rights come from” idea is a bit of a hijack in this thread, so I recommend starting a different thread if you want to continue this.

404

I assume, then, that you’d make the same distinction with regard to shoulder-fired missiles - individual, but area, so not included.

But if I accept your definition of “arm,” my conclusion is that the Second Amendment produces a result so appalling, we have no choice but to repeal it. It places weapons of stunning lethality in the hands of people who I don’t think can be trusted to handle them.

Arming the citizenry made sense when weapons were far less capable, when the lawless frontier was often within walking distance, and when an invading army would be arriving on foot. The weapons are now much more lethal, we’ve entrusted law enforcement to professionals, and an invader isn’t going to come marching up the lane, wearing bright uniforms.

405

Yes. By my distinction area weapons are excluded.

My definition of ‘arm’ is a firearm, sword, knife, and such. What ‘arms’ are you saying are ‘appalling’?

406

OK - so this is part of the problem. Both extremes fail to see that there might be people in the middle (i.e. people who support the right of individual arms ownership but disagree on public land policy regarding firearms.)

Do the extremes really believe they need to create more enemies by pretending everyone is on one end or the other of the spectrum?

407

If it were always a rational choice, I might agree (terminal, painful illness, for example). But it’s usually not. If the suicide is mentally unhinged, even if just temporarily, society needs to treat it as a public health problem, not a decision to be respected.

Somehow, I think you might want to rephrase that. I’m pretty sure I know what you mean, but you see how that sounds, right? “What’s a few dead people, among friends?” :smiley:

Truth be told, I don’t, either. I don’t think I’ve ever even handled anything other than a BB gun (and that, probably 45 years ago). But if someone handed me a pistol, I’d ask politely whether it was loaded, and ask to be shown where the safety is, and then I’d be perfectly willing to try it out. I’ve just never known anyone who even owned one.

I suppose that’s why I have so much trouble getting into the heads of the pro-gun crowd. I’ve gone through several decades of life, knowing large numbers of people, yet have never encountered any gun owners, not in my family, among my friends, among co-workers, or among neighbors*. None of them has ever been the victim of a crime that would have been prevented by a gun, and none has ever been the victim of an accidental shooting (no surprise, there). I suppose that’s sort of an “anti-anecdote,” but at a certain point, it begins to become “data.”

  • I’ll revise that - one neighbor got into a dispute with the homeowner’s association over an overly-tall fence he was building (the rules were *very *clear). When informed that the association would cut the fence down to size, if necessary, he said that they’d better not, because he “…had a gun, and knew how to use it.” Not exactly a sterling example of the value of arming the rubes!
408

Assault weapons, for a start. These don’t belong in any suburban bedroom. Ever.

409

Could you give a definition of what constitutes an “assault weapon”?

Regards,
Shodan

410

This is going to spark a lot of responses, I think.

“Assault weapon” is a misnomer, because it’s essentially meaningless. I hate to go back to this, because I know it gets repetitive after a while, but there is no functional difference between a civilian M4 (shortened, semi-automatic version of the M16) and a Winchester .243 deer rifle. If you put the two side by side for a visual comparison, the M4 looks nastier/meaner because of its black polymer construction, but in terms of functionality, it makes no difference whether there’s wood grain or plastic.

I think what you’re trying to get at (and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) is the concept of semi-automatic and/or the ability to have a standard capacity magazine with these weapons. And that seems logical on its face, but upon examination–and familiarity–becomes just as meaningless.

Just as an example, my pistol is designed for a 12 round magazine. Under the Clinton-era Assault Weapons Ban, standard capacity magazines were illegal to manufacture or import, so the P99 came with 10 round magazines. When the ban ended, the 12 round magazines became available again. Functionally, it makes no difference. I carry standard capacity magazines because I’d like as many rounds available as the gun can carry, but even if I was limited to 10 round magazines, it’s trivial to drop a 10 round magazine and insert a new one.

Even with revolvers, which do not have magazines, speed loaders make it very easy to reload. I’ve seen some people do it so fast that it made my head spin.

Basically, “assault weapon” is a term applied by people unfamiliar with guns in general, and for guns that look military. Nevermind that a pretty standard deer rifle functions exactly the same–it’s an aesthetic judgment.

Something else is that the weapons that tend to be vilified, like handguns or the Uzi, Tec-9, or whatever, are actually more difficult to use (in that it takes more skill to actually hit anything with them) than guns used for hunting or sport. If you were willing, I could take you into the back pasture here and have you hitting a target with a 30-30 deer rifle right away. Once you got used to the noise and the recoil, you’d be hitting the bull’s eye. But it would take more time to get you accurate with a handgun. As much as I shoot, I still can’t make one ragged hole in a paper target like I’ve seen other pistol shooters do.

I see it a lot like the thugs that shoot pistols sideways because it looks ‘cool’. You’re practically guaranteed not to hit anything, and almost assuring yourself a misfeed or a cartridge in the eyeball.

And vis-a-vis my statement on deaths, let me elaborate on that for a second. I do think that the loss of innocent life is tragic. But the way I look at it, there’s nothing more or less tragic in the manner of death. If my statement sounds like “what’s a few deaths,” then we have to apply that across the board. Cars get us from point A to point B, but a lot of people die because of them. Those deaths are as tragic as gun deaths; no more, no less. It’s as you say, we’ve evaluated the risk versus the reward, and we have, as a society, basically said we’ll write off the lives lost in automobiles. We’ll write off the swimming pool drownings.

Your argument is that those things aren’t designed to kill, I know, but whether they were or not, to the people that aren’t breathing anymore it makes no difference. The swimming pool thing, especially, is interesting because it’s purely a luxury and the ones most likely to die in them are young children. We (society) have put measures in place, such as the codified requirement of a gated fence around swimming pools, but at the end of the day we’re forced to trust the pool owner or the parents to act responsibly. Same way I’d hope that gun owners could be trusted to act responsibly. Most of us do.

My seeming callousness, as far as I’m concerned, isn’t all that different than the way we accept other needless deaths from other causes. What’s a few drowned children when we consider the enjoyment of millions of people? That sounds horrible, yes, but it IS the decision society has made.

411

I feel sad that you wasted all your time crafting that logical and thought-out response to the question of “assault weapons” knowing that it’s going to fall on deaf ears. I’ve done the same thing myself, probably 400 times. At this point I’ve given up trying to argue with people who know as much about guns as the Pope knows about strap-on dildos. These people literally know nothing about firearms and every time you correct one of their ignorant statements, they’ll just change the subject, because that’s all they know how to do.

412

For the sake of convenience, start with the definition in the now-expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

But it’s like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall, alas. Every time someone comes up with a definition, the manufacturers wriggle around the definition, and produce something that’s arguably not covered, but is just as unsuitable for home possession - not really useful for any sporting use (going out and playing with a .50-caliber is not a sport), and wildly excessive for any conceivable self-defense application.

How about, “any weapon whose only conceivable utility is to enable some whacko to gun down large numbers of people in a short period of time, simply because he thinks the world has been picking on him?” Or how about, “any weapon that allows a couple of bank robbers to hold off dozens of police officers for almost an hour?”

413

I’ve talked till I’m blue in the face about this, too, and I realize that I’ve probably changed zero minds, but it’s all in the name of fighting ignorance. I’m pretty opinionated, too, but there have been times where I’ve had my mind changed (waterboarding as torture, for example.) So I don’t really mind.

What I really wish, though, is that we could all just get together and actually go shooting, or at least put a gun in the hands of some of these folks. Again, might not change any minds, but it would hopefully remove some of the stigma.

414

Once again, you are wrong.

You need to do some research. The North Hollywood bank robbers were using automatic rifles.

415

Heh, that’s about all they’re good for. I can’t hit shit with one o’ dems.

416

Well… You see where this is going, don’t you? You’re not going to like it, I suspect.

If there’s no way to categorize or control access to firearms in a way that keeps them out of the hands of people who will use them to commit mayhem, maybe we have to decide that hunting doesn’t provide any particular benefit to society, that’s it’s just a luxury, a hobby for one group of people. There’s no actual *need *for private individuals to possess rifles.

I’m not actually proposing this, but every time the pro-gun folks throw up another roadblock to reducing the proliferation of lethal weapons, they push the opposition further and further to the other end of the spectrum. Make it impossible for anyone to propose a reasonable compromise, and that’s the result.

417

Every time the Anti-Choice folks throw up another roadblock to the legitimate ownership of firearms, they push the opposition further and further to the other end of the spectrum. Make it impossible for anyone to propose a reasonable compromise, and that’s the result.

The thing of it is, gun owners have already compromised and compromised and compromised. You keep asking for more and more and more.

418

You mean this one?
(

It was a meaningless pile of shit. You’re the one who values it, though. So go on ahead, dive into that pile of shit and hold up the nuggets you find especially needful. Please explain why and cite any proof you have.

419

Well, yes. At the end of the day, a gun is a gun is a gun, and at this point there’s not a lot of reasonable compromise available. I’d love to have a fully automatic rifle just for shits and giggles, but outside of a lot of paperwork and expense, that’s not going to happen. To me, that’s a compromise in and of itself–fully automatic weapons aren’t available to the general public.

We’re probably at loggerheads here, with the general principle being something like this: “The proliferation of lethal weapons makes society less safe” versus “The proliferation of lethal weapons acts as a deterrent and allows the individual to be responsible for his own safety.”

And that, I think, stems from the differing perspectives of government. On the one had, you have people willing to place their unwavering trust in the system for protection. On the other, you have people unwilling to abrogate that trust from their own individual power.

Not to open up the Founding Fathers’ intent debate again, but by any measure they tried to go out of their way to assure that the government be subject to its citizens and not the other way around. I share their belief that these rights are self-evident, given by God–not granted by a government. The gun control debate is symptomatic of this way of thinking. To accept this line of thinking is to accept that the rest of the Bill of Rights is useless without the citizenry having the teeth to enforce it. The 2nd Amendment is the only guarantee of the others. Does that result in a few crazies getting their hands on arms? Unfortunately, yes. Our freedom to cross state lines and participate in commerce, unfortunately, sometimes results in lunatics bombing federal buildings, or training in flight schools to hit financial centers. But that’s the price of the American way of life: with great freedom comes great responsibility, and, alas, some risk.

You know how heated debates can get about “national security” and the measures used to obtain that end. Even though none of us, I’m sure, has ever had our government waterboard us (or known anyone who has,) the principle remains that there are some measures that we simply cannot take, even if they do result in saving lives.

420

Well-put, and probably best left there.

There’s just one thought I can’t shake loose: the U.S. has one of the highest rates of private gun ownership in the world. It also has one of the highest rates of gun-related deaths in the developed world (though we don’t hold a candle to some places in the developing world like South Africa, Guatemala, or Columbia, thankfully). I can’t believe that this is just a coincidence, or that the solution is to *reduce *the restrictions on gun ownership.