Ah, well done. A strawman accusation in your first paragraph. Hint - not only do I not believe guns are bad, I’m one of those supposedly non-existent UK gun owners.
Here’s the flaw in your logic. You claim that gun control is not working in the UK, becuase it has so many incidents of violent crime. The antithical point to this is clear: Britain is a more violent nation than the US, pro rata. Britain has lower gun crime, pro rata. This could quite easily be used to infer that gun control in Britain works.
I’ll try to break this down into a logical equation.
[list=1]
[li]Gun crime is a subset of Violent crime.[/li][li]Britain has pro rata more violent crime than the US.[/li][li]Gun crime should also be more common than the US, pro rata.[/li][li]It isn’t.[/li][/list=1]Possible conclusion - this discrepancy is caused by the use of gun control in the UK.
I’m really not sure if I can use any fewer steps, or simpler constructs, to show this. By the way, as stated previously I think your example actually shows only one thing - that comparing different cultures on a statistics only basis is a great way to mislead.
Yeah, but try to tell anyone that (not only about the Second Amendment, but the Fourth and others as well) and they think you’re a conspiracy nut!
I’ve been wanting a Walther PPK for my collection. I used to have one, but I sold it so I could get something else. Guess what? You can’t buy a new Walther PPK in California!* Why not? Apparently it falls under California’s “Saturday Night Special” ban. Yeah, this rather expensive, well-made pistol, a favourite of cinema’s James Bond (he used different guns in the books) is considered a “junk” gun. It was explained to me that either Walther did not submit it for testing, or it failed the “drop test”. (The drop test checks to see if a gun will fire when dropped on its hammer.)
The PPK was designed in the 1930s. Of course it’s not going to have all of the safety features of a pistol designed decades later! People who buy them know this. But California has decided that it’s a Saturday Night Special – a cheap, poorly made gun. That doesn’t describe the PPK. And yet new sales of it are banned.
[sub]* That is, no new PPKs may be imported into California. Pre-owned PPKs may be sold, as they are already in the state.[/sub]
Here are a few examples of why someone who is a pro-gun advocate can get a little excited
when being described by some of the media. Examples like this, or this or like url=“http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/63106_kristof21.shtml”]this tend to raise
the hackles of even the most level-headed 2nd Amendment supporter. And as for Congress not
trying to pass any gun laws lately, check out this bill just introduced. One of
about eight that have been submitted in the past nine months.
And as for gun control advocates not wanting to ban guns, how about this?
“VPC is throwing a bash Tuesday at the group’s headquarters to celebrate
the paperback publication of Sugarman’s book, “Every Handgun is Aimed
at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.” The publication of the book also
coincides with the launching of a Web site, www.banhandgunsnow.org.”
Yeah, right. If you don’t think that guns are bad, why are you willing to claim that more violence, but less violence involving guns is better than less violence, with more of it involving guns? Why is it OK for a strong, healthy man to defend himself using deadly force with a ‘pointed stick’, but bad for someone weaker to defend themselves using a gun?
I’ve said that VIOLENT crime is worse in Britain than in the US, not that one particular subtype of violent crime is worse in Britain, and have pointed out that it’s been rising steadily since the handgun ban (while US violent crime rates have been dropping). There is, quite simply, no flaw whatsoever in my logic - if gun control in Britain is ‘working’ by creating a higher violent crime rate of which a lesser amount involves guns, it’s still something that I want no part of. The flaw in your logic is in presuming that I share your ‘guns are bad, getting raped by a guy who has a knife is much better than getting raped by a guy with a gun’ mentality, which I don’t.
Fine, but lengthy definitions tend to separate a thing from its purpose. For example, a deer rifle was designed with a specific target in mind. Most were single shot, bolt action, because that’s all you get with a deer, one shot. If you miss, it’s gone.
Shotguns (fowling pieces) were designed the better to bring down flying birds.
Assault rifles were designed for the killing of people. There is no one who is honest, including their manufacturers, who does not call them “military” weapons. They are not designed for “putting holes in little pieces of paper,” even though this purpose seems to “amuse” catsix. Field of fire, rapid fire weapons are for moving, breathing targets, not paper ones.
I know what I mean by assault weapon, and so do you.
Okay, you are opposed to “assault rifles”. Try this on for size: A Colt AR-15 is a semiautomatic, gas-operated rifle of .223 caliber with a detachable magazine. According to California, it is an “assault rifle”. A Ruger Mini-14 is a semiautomatic, gas-operated rifle of .223 caliber with a detachable magazine. It is not an “assault rifle”. Please explain the functional difference.
What you are essentially saying is this: If a gun is all black and ugly, it’s an assault rifle. If it isn’t all black and ugly, then it’s not. That’s hardly a reasonable basis on which to ban a gun!
Colt originally marketed the semiautomatic AR-15 (as opposed to the automatic – required to be a real “assault rifle” – M-16) as a varmint rifle. Ranchers found it very useful for controlling ground squirrels and coyotes. The Mini-14 was similarly marketed. Just because you think that these civilian rifles were meant for killing people doesn’t make it so.
Apparently you think an “assault rifle” is an ugly gun, regardless of how it functions.
Well! I don’t know about you guys, but I certainly feel safer knowing that “conspicuously protruding pistol grips” are prohibited in California.
That definition of “assault weapon” includes many competition-grade Olympic .22 caliber target pistols, simply because they “can accept a magazine outside the pistol grip.” I take it, DesertGeezer, that you believe Olympic target pistols are therefore “assault weapons”? And they’re used in “assault” situations so often and all…
The lack of logic behind SB 23 astounds me. What do they think there is about a flash suppressor that makes a gun more dangerous, or more attractive to criminals, or easier to conceal? “Sorry, Chief, they got away. We might’ve caught 'em, if only their muzzle-flashes hadn’t been suppressed.” And of course we’ve all heard victims of shootings say, “If only his rifle stock weren’t foldable, perhaps my family would have been spared!”
First of all, I want to reiterate that my definition of “militia” would be each and every individual of this country, as individuals; NOT an organized compilation of said individuals. Please don’t get this confused with groups such as the Michigan Militia, et al. Much less the various state National Guards.
So…is this “militia” doing anything to prevent the government from suppressing their rights? What evidence is there that this militia is active in combatting government suppression? Funny, I thought that’s what voting was all about (and please…it’s a whole 'nother thread about how we are destroying ourselves by voting stupidly or not at all). What specific actions would the government have taken if we did not have guns? Well, I would hope that we as a country have reached Nirvana, and that every single action that every government (local and on up) performs is solely for the purposes of enhancing the life of its citizens, giving them ease of existence, freedom from any want, 100-mpg cars that don’t pollute, free health care, etc etc etc…
Bah…it is to laugh.
I love this country, and I have faith in its systems. HOWEVER, I am also a realist, and as long as people are people, there will ALWAYS be the temptation for governments to suppress the rights of its citizens…for your own good, of course…
UNLESS THERE IS A COUNTER-BALANCE TO THAT TEMPTATION.
An armed populace.
*** THIS *** is why there is a 2nd Amendment!!!
As to gun CONTROL? There are many good arguments on both sides, which is an indication as to the controversy involved here. Control? Hell, we even have controls on free SPEECH (it’s against the law to falsely yell “Fire!” in a theater, it’s against the law to publicly slander a private citizen (and can someone tell me why it’s OK to publicly slander a public person, just because they ARE a public person?..minor hijack…), it’s against the law to lie on your gun application…all examples of how free speech is controlled, to some degree. But at the same time, there is that famous saying about how I didn’t stand up for my neighbor, etc, so when they came for me…you know the one? So where on the Slippery Slope do we draw lines? 22-caliber pistols? AK-47’s? Bazookas? M-1 Abrams tanks? (boy, the look on my neighbors faces when I drive THAT into my driveway… )
…would keep their damn dog from pooping in MY yard…
I have noticed that several people here have noted that it is illegal for convicted felons to own guns. Were you aware that people convicted of misdemeanors can also be prohibited from gun ownership? It’s true, I wonder who here knows what the crime is that will forever end your right to keep and bear arms.
As for what constitutes an assault rifle, thats easy. They are the ones that LOOK scary.
By the way, does anyone here actually own a ‘bolt action rifle’ that is single shot only?
Every bolt-action I’ve ever seen has had the capacity to carry at least 3 cartridges, with the bolt being used to eject the spent cartridge and chamber another.
A single-shot gun has to be reloaded after every round is fired.
This is why people who are not educated about guns and gun terminology shouldn’t be making gun law.
hudley: The last time I filled out a form 4473 it asked if I had ever ‘been convicted of a crime having a maximum sentence of more than 1 year in a correctional facility’.
Meaning that any crime, felony or misdemeanor, for which I could’ve been put in jail or prison for a year or more would nullify my right to own a gun. The only exception would be having the courts restore that right - which is not bloody likely. By the way, the purchase could also be denied by having 3 or more DUIs. Apparently that fit the definition of ‘habitual drunkard’.
Catsix: I am not positive, but I believe one of the standards for being classified a misdemeanor is a sentence that does not exceed one year. Anything longer is a felony. As for the drunken driving thing, I imagine that is a state issue, not a federal one. What I am talking about is a little amendment that got snuck into a bill, never was debated, but was passed into federal law that makes the person who is convicted of one very specific misdemeanor ineligible for firearm ownership. by all rights this amendment should be removed, but no politician will go on the record stating as much as they will get killed by special interest lobbies. No one wants to admit either that they voted for something that they hadn’t read.
An interesting thing about this crime is that it is very similar to other crimes, which do not carry such a penalty.
Well, apparently the US Congress doesn’t know, because their definition of ‘assault rifle’ is different than California’s, so what exactly is it that 'everybody else knows?
Let me get this straight - you do not consider an M-16 an assault weapon? You do not consider the sort of AK-47 that the Red army carried an assault weapon?
Cite, please. AFAIK, modern bolt-action rifles all have a magazine and so are not single-shot.
Unless, of course, they have a folding stock, in which case they were designed for the killing of people. After all, they’re in your assault weapons definition above.
[QUOTE]
Assault rifles were designed for the killing of people.
Bolt action rifles were designed for the killing of people, and most certainly qualify as military weapons (unless you don’t consider, for example, the German army in WWI And WWII as a military).
[QUOTE}I know what I mean by assault weapon, and so do you. [/QUOTE]
Not really, I presumed that any sane person’s definition of ‘assault weapon’ would include an M-16, but your doesn’t.
Whatever your opinion of the law, I would hope that all would agree that such far reaching legislation would be debated upon and not just inserted into appropriations legislation.
I noticed that none of the gun control opponents answered my questions about how to better enforce the existing gun laws, which they insist are just fine.
)