Erm, Catsix - who is your response aimed at?
The absence of guns? Not going to happen, not even in the U.K., obviously. Where you get the rising violent crime rates is when you have an absence of law-abiding, peaceful citizens that can legally protect themselves with guns. Like in Washington, D.C. for example.
Gary, you should admit that the restrictions that went into effect in the U.K. in 1996 certainly did not make it a safer place, by any stretch of the imagination, as is evidenced by the rising violent crime rates involving guns.
** WOOO HOOOOO!!! **
This is turning into some kinda FUN thread!!! I’m learning lots of information on the definition of bullets, guns, calibers, stock lengths, type/size of magazines, M-1 vs Ruger Mini-14 vs AK-47 vs AR-15…
I just wish that important issues such as this wouldn’t get all bogged down in minutae. But the devil is in the details, I guess.
Now, then:
DESERTGEEZER
Personally, I like what was stated earlier, in that “well-regulated” in 1776 terms translates to “well-functioning” in todays terms. A minor point, perhaps, but crucial. I think that if our Founding Fathers were talking about a militia in terms of, say, todays National Guards, they were have put into place immediately the mechanisms for the creation/maintenance/control etc of said militia. I don’t see that, so I don’t believe that’s what our Founding Fathers had in mind.
Absolutely! Voting is my preferred way of determining the direction our country is heading, and always will be. (And yes; I turn 50 this year…sigh…and I have voted in every election from local on up since I turned 18. It’s one of the few things about my life I’m unconditionally proud of). But when a government decides to ignore the votes of its citizens (please, again…no conspiracy thread hijacks here), an armed citizenry is the best way to regain control of our lives and rights (remember, we didn’t gain our freedom through voting in Parliament. We FOUGHT for our freedom…btw, with a bunch of individual militiamen “standing in their doorways”).
ITR CHAMPION
Also granted. I’ve never argued otherwise. But that’s here in the good ol’ US of A…where (despite what seems to be otherwise), the government LETS us demonstrate and publicly lobby for change. Freedom of assembly, speech, and so forth. BUT WHAT HAPPENS IF/WHEN THE GOVERNMENT DECIDES TO IGNORE THOSE RIGHTS?? If someone were to try to become a dictator and suspend your civil rights?
The 2nd Amendment is in place, IMHO, specifically to guard against that from happening and to give the citizenry a means (however hard/limited that means might be) to recover those rights. Yes…if the army were to take over Main Street, a bunch of people armed only with shotguns and deer rifles (hell, let’s give them the much-maligned assault weapons, too) would have an almost impossible task facing them. But at least they could try. If they weren’t armed, though?
Kiss your ass goodbye, because they would have no chance whatsoever.
Again, ** THIS ** is what the 2nd Amendment is for.
Oh, and this:
Since I think that the Founding Fathers were intent on providing the citizenry with the * physical * means of guarding their freedoms, the argument that they were referring to an organized, * state-run * militia becomes nonsensical.
i.e…In order to protect the rights of the individual against the State going wild, let’s set up a State-run militia to protect those rights. But then, the State-run militia would be * under the control * of the said running-wild state. What kind of protection is that? It would be like an abusive husband being given the right to live with his wife…to protect her from him.
Think of it like a separation of powers. It is the individuals final check against the government taking away their rights.
Hey Johnny, I don’t know why mini-14s survived the “assault weapon” ban. Perhaps Bill Rugers cooperation in crafting the “high capacity” magazine ban was the reason. I don’t think it was because Mini’s lack pistol grips, because there was an AK varient without a pistol grip which was banned along with the rest of the “evil AK series”.
Barking Spider: Just an illustration that the law is arbitrary.
You neglected to answer the question put forth. Please try again.
Ohh, big words coming from a guy who keeps inventing arguments and claiming that I made them.
Your pointed sticks comment; if you think that defending oneself with one means of deadly force is good, why not another?
No, you’ve invented a claim and shown the flaws in it, which is the very definition of a strawman argument. I presumed that you were acting out of an honest difference in basic assumptions rather than simply lying about what I said, but perhaps that was not the case. You see, I pointed out how the violent crime rate in Britain was high, and rising after the great pistol ban. You then went on to talk about the percentage of violent crime involving guns, which you claimed was a flaw in my logic, yet had nothing to do with what I said. Either you feel that crime involving a gun is so much worse than other crime that you simply assumed that I agreed with that, or you were being dishonest by pretending I had made an argument I never made.
You’ve neglected to point it out. There would be a flaw in my logic if I had made the argument you refuted in your previous message, but I never made the argument you were arguing against.
Oh gosh, it’s such a great leap to look at what happens to violent crime rates each and every time a country or other political unit implements heavy restrictions on firearms ownership and use and conclude that there may just be a relationship. It must be entirely coincidental.
It’s impossible for me to retract a claim I never made. For someone who keeps whining that I’m accusing them of lying, you seem to have a hard time responding to statements that I’ve actually made. Your comments about ‘absence of guns’ is really strange since we were talking about the UK, where there are quite a few guns, just not in the hands of law abiding citizens.
Rather than go into a complex analysis of your previous statements, I’ll simply ask you. Do you think that people in general (not just yourself) should be allowed to possess firearms and use them in defense of themselves and their homes? You may be strong enough to defend against a typical criminal, but not everyone is.
Also, I’m wondering - how many criminals would have to use guns in the UK for you to consider it anything other than ‘very few’?
Who are you talking about? I certainly wouldn’t accuse you of lying, but what you stated isn’t an accurate categorization of me.
LOL! Yes, of course. I’ll be sure to take notes, I really need advice on how to defend gun rights from someone who was part of the successful campaign in Britain.
That’s not the worst thing.
To my knowledge, Sarah Brady hold a concealed carry gun permit in California.
Seems illogical, right?
You have to realize that most anti-gunners are convinced they are of the superior, elite ruling class. The laws they enforce on us common folk in no way should extend to their greatness. They are better than us. They deserve protection, through professional body guards. They don’t need to obey the silly gun laws. Those are for us ignorant common folk.
Just a technical nit: .308 is not an intermediate caliber. It is a full power rifle round. The m14 is also not an assault rifle, it’s a Main Battle Rifle, in the same category as such things as the FAL or german G3.
SenorBeef: I have a correction to the Sarah Brady story. Apparently she did not violate Delaware law. But it’s still interesting that she’s buying a gun for someone. (I think I mentioned that in the Ninth Amendment thread.)
I had not heard that Brady holds a CCW permit. I did hear that either Diane Feinstein or Barbara Boxer has one.
Nitpick: I think the .308 Winchester (7.62mm NATO) round is considered an intermediate round. It is smaller than the then-standard “full power” .30-06 and 7.92 Mauser rounds, and was developed to give the rifleman a strong round with less recoil like the 7.92 Kurz.
**
I may be mixing those people up, but I’m pretty sure I’ve read that it was Sarah Brady that had one. It would seem that they all do.
No, actually, it was designed to be ballistically equivelant of .30-06 but a shorter case, using newer gun powders and such for a smoother charge. A shorter cartridge with the same powder energy load is more efficient and lighter.
The US ignored the intermediate cartridge route after WW2, working on an improved garand, thinking it was perfectly adequate for modern warfare and doctrine. They had to standardize for a new .30 caliber round for NATO, and developed the 7.62x51 catridge to be basically equivelant to .30-06. It may be slightly less powerful, but only by a small amount, it certainly isn’t considered intermediate. (7.92x33 or 7.62x39 are examples of intermediate .30 cal cartridges).
We didn’t give any credit to intermediate rounds until looking into the .223. We went directly from full power .30 to small caliber high velocity intermediates. We didn’t make the .30 cal intermediate round step that most countries did.
SenorBeef, it is indeed Diane Feinstein who had (I think it has since been revoked) a CCW. And it appears that Delaware is not going to pursue Sarah Brady’s transgression. Gee, I wonder if ol’ Joe Suckalewski had done that, would he receive the same hands-off treatment?
I’ve just been through the entire thread again, and I think my head is coming loose! 
This thread could have been broken up into at least a dozen separate threads, but when the topic is as general as “Gun Control” and the general issue such a hot button, I suppose that’s to be expected. The whole thread is a like a giant hijack of a hijack of a hijack… but it’s hard to see how that wouldn’t happen…
I’ll try to address each of you separately, realizing that this is going to be like trying to build a sand castle a grain at a time while the tide is coming in.
Spiny Norman:
Ms. Kahn’s rant (the one referred to in the OP) stated, “Germany established gun control in 1938,” to which you replied “Well, wrong. The Weimar Republic established not gun control, but in effect, a gun ban, in 1928. Before the Nazi take-over. Ah well, what is one drop of misinformation in a raging torrent?”
Actually, you were right that the Weimar Republic acted in 1928, but I think your calling it, even in effect, an outright ban is a mistake. It was registration of all personal weapons. I know this may undermine any future argument of mine for registration, but that registration law was ignored by the NSDAP (later popularly known as Nazis), and when all semblance of a (small r) republican German government collapsed ten years later the Nazis used the registry to disarm their potential enemies. If you think our government may collapse in similar fashion, then maybe registration is a bad idea, but I don’t see that happening.
Sweet Willy:
There’s that word “militia” again. As to what it means, I’ll try to deal with that down the thread a piece.
SPOOFE:”Boiled down, most of the rhetoric in this thread assumes, as the college girl’s article linked in the OP does, that gun control equals gun confiscation. That just is not the case.”
My first answer to this was going to be that HCI says specifically that their goal is to control but not ban firearms. But as later posts have pointed out, that’s just a softening of their earlier hard line position, because the public reacted to their former stance. That they would soften their position should calm your fears about a gun ban, though, because clearly most people do not want all guns to be confiscated. They just want to see incidents like Columbine stop. That said, even though HCI is, as you say, “a leading authority of gun control advocacy,” there is no more reason to fear them than you might think gun controllers should fear (your term was “be wary of”) the NRA. They are just one group. They have the ear of liberal gun control advocates, but so far, no arm on Congress. Like the NRA, they are
vocal. But Congress still makes the decisions.
**Johnny L.A.:
**
I hate you. Okay, I don’t hate you, but I think you know that a definition of “assault rifle” is about as easy as a definition of “pornography.” I don’t remember which Justice of the Supreme Court said it (no doubt, somebody out there will inform me), but I can’t define it exactly…but I know one when I see one. I know now that doesn’t do for purposes of the boards, but, geez, if the several states and the federal government can’t agree on a definition, what do you want from me? I linked earlier (or was it later) to the California law just out of desperation, because I don’t agree with all of it either. To me, an assault weapon is one that is more powerful than is necessary for varmints or game (to kill a rabbit or a snake, or even a deer you don’t need a bullet that will pulverize a cinder block), and too fast for target shooting. And before you tell me you can shoot targets with rapid fire weapons, too, I’ll ask you, to what end? Target shooting
is called “practice” isn’t it? What are you practicing to shoot?
**
So, you’re saying that the things California says constitute an assault weapon are “cosmetic,” but that I hate assault weapons because they’re ugly. Which is it? See what I mean about definitions? It’s a quagmire, and the argument just bogs down. I
shall, however, try again. A weapon (like any kind of machine pistol) that is useful in war, but has no legitimate purpose outside of war (and don’t tell me you buy automatic pistols or
“field of fire” rifles to shoot only targets, please) IMO is an assault weapon. Obviously my opinion differs from yours, and since “official” definitions vary from state to state, and the states don’t agree with the federal description, my opinion is
as good as yours (and vice versa). My original objection to the OP was that it seemed to say that regulation of firearms was the same as confiscation, and I don’t think it is. Then I fell into the trap of trying to answer all the tangential arguments that proceeded from that. That the thread got this long proves that it’s impossible to do that. I’m tearing my hair out over it…wait…it’s too late for that!
Don’t you mean unless you’re a dealer? How many handguns can you shoot at one time? Is any gun more than a tool? Do you need guns or do you just love ‘em? Sorry, but the intensity of the pro-gun argument begs the question.
I do believe in the Second Amendment, but the entire amendment. You seem to accept only the part after the comma. As to the Fourteenth Amendment, I assume you mean “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.” As I stated before, I don’t think unlimited possession of firearms [ i]is* one of those privileges, because of the part of the Second Amendment before the comma. If the privilege or right were
not already abridged by the time of the Fourteenth, it would not have been modified when it was first codified.
**
No, the remark about “becoming a criminal” was intended to convey that if I perceived that the federal government was trying to confiscate all privately owned guns, I would then resist. To quote myself, “I haven’t seen any such effort on the part of the
government, however, though conspiracy theories abound.”
As to the New York law you refer to, I thought that applied only to handguns. Since arms” isn’t defined in the Second Amendment, the states (and cities to the extent their own state constitutions allow) have the right to define them for constitutional purposes. So I am opposed to confiscation of everybody’s guns except the guns of people who have been convicted of violent crime (including domestic violence…another thread if you want to argue that one, please), or deemed by legally constituted authority to be mentally unsound (knowing what an awful separate argument that may incite). Beyond that, if I were god, there are groups I regard as “bad” that I would restrict. But since I’m not the ultimate authority, I accept that, as groups, they have the right to guns (as I would narrowly define them), and that they may only be deprived of that right as individuals if they become felons, or crazy, as already provide for by law. Which groups are none of your business, because it’s my fantasy and I’ll oppress whomever I like in my own mind. 
**
God, Riboflavin, you’re tough. You really task me. I can’t give you a list of EXACTLY which kinds for the same reason that the states don’t all agree with each other or the federal government on definitions. I’ve given you as much as I can.
You don’t have to accept it.
**
I said they needed improvement. But EXACTLY which childproof locks I don’t really know. (Bet that made you feel all warm and fuzzy.) As for childless people, I think an exception should be made. Replicas are usually just for display aren’t they? If you have ammunition for them, there should be some way to lock them if children are about. As for storing guns in a manner inaccessible to children, I don’t think that’s really possible. You know how resourceful kids can be when they want something.
**
I see nothing vague about fingerprint resistant handles. They seem to me to appeal only to criminals. If you use a gun only for legal purposes, you’re not going to mind leaving a fingerprint on the handle. Accessories like silencers (already illegal, as far as I know) and trigger enhancements of the type I saw advertised in Guns and Ammo should not be available. One called HELL-FIRE says it allows you to empty a thirty-round clip in three seconds. The same ad has a trigger enhancement called
TAC-TRIGGER which it says “shoots 600 to 900 rounds per minute, no technique required.” I assume it’s legal, though, if they advertise it openly. Does even the NRA say there’s a legitimate purpose for such a thing in private (non-military) use?
**
**
The “no technique” statement in the ad above is telling, since it seems to weigh against the idea that rapid-fire weapons might be wanted for target shooting. Target shooting is about technique, unless you’re ready to admit here and now that shooting that requires no technique but makes lots of noise and lots of holes very fast just gets you off. Sorry if that’s argumentative, but all your shouted EXACTLYs are sort of like poking someone in the shoulder with your finger. After a while that’d piss anybody off.
**
Sorry, I meant one at a time, not single-shot. I’m not a gun person, as you may have already surmised.
**
They all seemed right on target to me (forgive the gun analogy…I couldn’t resist :D), but then, we’ve already established that I’m on that side.
**
I don’t approve of any lobbying, whether VPC or NRA. But that’s another thread.
**
The Second Amendment might support that idea if it were not for the Fifth Amendment, which says:No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia…, which seems to make the Militia an organized group by making it analogous to land or naval forces (plural). If it referred to individuals as militia, there would be no need to include them in the exception to the grand jury rule. And then there’s this…The Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 (enumeration of powers of Congress) says: To provide for calling forth the Militia to
execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repeal Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress… This sure sounds like an
organized body of men, not individuals. And it speaks of officers appointed by the states and of discipline prescribed by Congress. If individual citizens are militia, why doesn’t the government arm them and provide training for everybody according to Article 1, Section 8?
**
**
Yeah, you’re right about the bolt action not being necessarily single shot. I already conceded that one to Riboflavin. As far as making laws is concerned, I don’t want to do that. But I do want someone more knowledgeable to do it, which is why
I vote but don’t run for office.
**
Maybe. As I outlined above, the Constitution says (by my interpretation, at least) what militia means, in Article 1, Section 8 and in the Fifth Amendment. I don’t think the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms. But it
doesn’t deny them either. The Ninth Amendment provides for unenumerated rights, and the Tenth Amendment says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. So I think if you own a gun in this country, your ass is covered. Now as to what kind of gun, that seems to be up to the states, or to the Congress, if it decides it is.
**
**
In the light of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution (cited above) I think “well regulated” means just what it sounds like.
And finally:
Ex Tank
You don’t like being thought of as an “ignorant, dirty, vicious redneck, ” but you don’t mind calling people who disagree with you “hand-wringing, bed-wetting hoplophobes.” I think name-calling on either side just brings the level of argument down, don’t you? 
**
“A select-fire weapon of carbine length that fires an intermediate cartridge designed to fill a role that combines the features of a battle rifle and a submachine gun”.
I bet you could take that definition to any army in the world, and they’d agree with it.
It’s not an ambiguous term.
**
You are uneducated in this area. Assault rifles typically fire a round far less powerful than normal hunting cartridges. A .30-06 hunting rifle is far more capable of “pulverizing a cinder block” than any assault rifle.
**
Yeah, that makes sense. There aren’t any shooting competitions that feature accuracy of rapid fire.
**
Target shooting can be practice, recreation, or competition. Are you saying that if one “practices” with a rapid fire weapon, they are training to kill cute little kids? Well, all these bolt action rifle target shooters are practicing assassinations…
**
He doesn’t mean that the “comestic” features make it beautiful, but that they merely change the appearance, rather than the function of a rifle.
**
Only if we force convoluted definitions for the latest ‘evil weapon’ of choice.
**
Yeah, and bolt action rifles are only bought to practice assassination.
What are you implying? That we’re all training to slaughter people, because we have semiautomatic weapons?
**
Do you need to speak freely on this forum?
**
Many guns have textured grips for the purpose of better handling. Woops! Fingerprint resistant handles! Ban them!
**
No, simply regulated and taxed.
**
The NRA probably has no position on it. And to be quite frank, the NRA isn’t the end-all to gun owners. Frankly, it seems to me that they only stick up for the hunters. And handgun owners.
**
There are special techniques one can use to maximize the rate of fire of a semiautomatic weapon. What they’re saying is that those techniques aren’t necesary.
And just so you know, no one really uses those types of trigger mechanisms, because they don’t work very well.
**
That doesn’t stop you from telling us what sort of devices and guns should be banned.
SenorBeef already covered these points, but since they were addressed to me I’ll answer them myself.
First of all, SenorBeef’s definition of “assault rifle”, “A select-fire weapon of carbine length that fires an intermediate cartridge designed to fill a role that combines the features of a battle rifle and a submachine gun”, is correct. The key words are “selective fire”. Selective fire means that the firearm may be configured to fire one and only one round for each pull of the trigger or more than one round for each pull of the trigger by means of a selector switch. Assault rifles, having automatic capability, are illegal in many or most states. Federal law imposes restrictions on ownership. For example, the potential owner must undergo a federal background investigation, comply with storage regulations, and pay a $200 transfer tax in addition to living in a state where they are permitted. It can take months to get an automatic firearm, short-barrelled rifle or shotgun, silencer, etc.
It is the stated position of many oponents of personal firearms ownership that they want to ban all guns. Over the past 20 years or so, they claim they never said that (even though it’s been documented – I’m sure someone will have a cite ready), and that they only want to ban guns that “criminals use”. Miami Vice was a popular television show at the time, and it frequently portrayed drug dealers using automatic firearms. Since there are semizutomatic versions of many of these, the banners latched onto that.
But how do they ban them? In California, they first tried to ban them by name. Of course, the Colt AR-15 Sporter became the Colt Sporter. When that ban didn’t work out the way they imagined, they decided to write a ban that was based solely on cosmetics. There is no functional difference between the AR-15, the Mini-14, the M-1A or the M-1 Carbine. All are gas-operated, magazine-fed rifles. And yet only the AR-15 is banned because it “has a pistol grip”. Their criterion for banning it is that it looks bad. Several manufacturers created thumbhole stocks for their rifles. I can tell you that this made the rifle less safe. For example, a Heckler& Koch HK-91 with a pistol grip has a safety that can be operated with the shooter’s thumb. With a thumbhole stock it is impossible to switch the rifle to its safe condition with the shooter’s thumb. What it comes down to is that the banners ban guns based on how they look, not how they operate.
You said, “but I know one when I see one.” The 103rd Congress has this to say:
“The result of this media and political campaign has been to convince the American public that felons with assault weapons are running amok.” How many criminals use “assault rifles”? Accorting to the senate report:
I don’t know if you’ve ever seen what you percieve as an “assault rifle” in real life. They’re fairly big. The dreaded “AK-47” (the generic term the Media apply to various rifles) is close to a yard long. These are hardly concealable! Criminals tend to like things they can hide. As reported in the Seante quote above, these “assault weapons” are not the “weapon of choice of criminals” as the banners would have you believe.
So if the firearms are not functionally different from ones that are not banned, and if they are not the “weapon of choice of criminals”, why ban them? Because they can scare the public into supporting their goals. It’s a case of “We’re the elite and we know what’s best. If you don’t agree with us, then you are uneducated proles. If you don’t care, then we’ll scare you into “doing something”.” Some people say, “Well, we’re not banning all guns; just those evil ones!” And then they go on to ban other guns, which has happened here in California. For example, the Walther PPK, the gun of choice for cinema’s James Bond, can no longer be imported here. Is it an “assault weapon”? No. Is it a “Saturday Night Special”? No. But try to go to a gun store and order one. They’ll tell you, “No. It’s on the banned list.” Before, banners tried to ban broad classes of firearms. When that didn’t work, they started nibbling at the edges. When you nibble at the edges, you eventually get to the centre.
Your opinion may be as good as mine, but that’s a very dangerous way to make laws. Laws should be based upon facts, not opinions.
You also say that these firearms have no practical purpose. That is incorrect. As I stated before, the AR-15 was marketed to civilians as a “varmint rifle”. Ranchers loved them for predator control and for killing vermin that indanger their herds. The .223 Remington round used by the AR-15 is ideal for such a purpose, and the ability to fire multiple rounds without losing your site picture is useful when you have a target that is running fast and jinking around. (Note: I generally don’t support killing animals like this. I’m not a vegetarian, but I think that predators have a natural right to eat. On the other hand, I recognize that ranchers have a different perspective and it’s not up to me to tell them how to live.) There is a sport called “combat shooting”. I seriously doubt that people who engage in this sport are “practicing to kill people”. It’s just a fast-paced shooting game. Hey, some people like the sport of “cowboy action shooting” and some people enjoy long-range target shooting. Freedom of choice allows people to partake of their particular hobby. While one person may like to fire a target rifle (which some people would have you believe is a “sniper rifle”), others like to practice quick shooting. It’s a perfectly acceptable sport, and it requires a semi-automatic, high-capacity rifle and/or pistol.
And then there are people like me. I don’t hunt. I don’t control predators or varmints. I don’t engage in combat shooting or target shooting. I just like informal target shooting. If I choose to use an AR-15 for that, then it’s my own business. I happen to like the “feel” of military-type rifles. I like the history behind them. I like the way they function as machines. I have no intention of using them to harm any living creature. I don’t intend to use them for protection, nor to overthrow a tyrannical government. Heck none of my firearms are even loaded, nor is the ammunition accessable! If you look at the statistice, I believe you’ll find that less than one-tenth of one percent of the privately held firearms in this country are involved in a crime (including just being in the same house where someone is using drugs). And as has been shown, less that one percent of that less than one-tenth of one percent are “assault rifles”. I really don’t think there is a problem with them.
Desert Geezer: not one bit at all. Neither family, friends (all over the country, quite a few here on the Straight Dope, no less) would characterize me as “ignorant, dirty, or vicious.”
“Redneck” would be stretching things a bit, as well.
However, the various terms and the manner they are employed by certain people, as well as the emotional natures of their appeals for everything from more restrictions to outright bans and confiscation betrays them.
I note that you have overlooked my first post on the first page of this thread, in which I condemned the editorial-rant disguised as an argument that started this thread, and instead focused upon one sentence expressing my admittedly unflattering opinion concerning the actions and motives of legislators and government agency administrators in response to two specific posts by two specific posters that were also using unflattering characterizations.
After 29 years of being painted as some sort of evil boogeyman by the people and groups proposing more gun control towards what I firmly believe to be an endgame of total bans and confiscations, I don’t really give a rat’s ass.
Call me paranoid if you will; I have 29 years of closely observed legislative history and social trends (as I believe I have at least partially demonstrated in that second post) from which to base my conclusion.
And you don’t have to be a lawyer, engineer, doctor or poli-sci graduate to come to that conclusion; to denegrate those who come to this conclusion w/o certain professional qualifiers (as certain people even in this thread are wont to do) is the height of intellectual arrogance and pure class elitism.
Perhaps the impact (perceived significance) of these events are magnified by our proximity to the issue. But if this is so, then we are no more guilty, paranoid, or extreme than the pro-choice or free-speech advocates are to their issues when social and legislative trends begin encroaching upon those respective “bones.”
That fact that we gun owners are quite often caricaturized in meida and the popular press, lambasted in the public arena by special interest groups, and harassed by federal agencies over administrative minutia whereas pro-choice and most free-speech groups are not in and of itself speaks of a certain degree of hypocrisy regarding the entire pro-control side of what can only be jokingly referred to (quite often with bitterness) as a “debate.”
Beware the government getting involved in anything, as it’s going to be standard issue “one size fits all” without any recognition of the subtle nuance that accompanies the real world.
Guns are inanimate objects. People are not. Expecting Americans to be self-sufficient and accountable for their own actions are the hallmarks of a rockwellian past that is History. Since the gov’t can’t or won’t deal with crime and criminals constructively, they attempt to control firearms. It won’t work (obviously) but it’s politically correct. “Just make the Evil Guns Go Away and Everything Will Be All Better.”
9-11 is due in part to the feminization of our society, the terrorists did their homework, at least.
"Being against violence, we let Hollywood bathe children endlessly in moist brains-on-the-ceiling violence, treated with loving sadism. Then with an almost prurient squeamishness, we expel kids for playing “violent” boy games – meanwhile encouraging girls to go into combat.
The nation has become a milkshake of confusion, hostility, and sexual antagonism, always disguised as something else. Note that while the schools punish little boys for playing soldier, adventure movies now routinely show women slugging men, kicking them in the crotch, or becoming naval commandoes. The opposition isn’t to violence, but to masculinity. "
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
I wouldn’t characterize you that way either, ExTank. As far as I know, you’re an absolute prince ( in the most democratic [small d] sense of that word, of course). But I don’t enjoy hearing myself and those (admittedly) few on this thread who think the same called bedwetters because you don’t agree with us. Do you really think that improves the level of discourse?
**
Okay, okay, your feelings were hurt. But you seem to have overlooked my first post (a little after yours, also on the first page) in which I said *Boiled down, most of the rhetoric in this thread assumes, as the college girl’s article linked in the OP does, that gun control equals gun confiscation. That just is not the case. * I went on to say that I am against confiscation, that I own guns myself, and that I would resist (I said, unadvisedly, “become a criminal”) if I perceived that the government was trying to confiscate (read ban) all guns.
The word “control” seems touch a lot of people’s hot buttons. The word “regulation” is no better. Somebody in this thread (or possibly another…please don’t ask me who, there are over 100 posts so far in this thread alone) complained, rightly, that the government seeks to control guns without controlling the people who abuse them (that is, use them for criminal purposes). That’s a good point. What I argued is that the gun lobby seems to resist any attempt restrict who can possess guns.
If I admit that better enforcement of existing laws and tougher sanctions on criminal use would be a leap in the right direction, will you give up the idea that I am attacking you? I have tried, perhaps clumsily, to back up my assertions. You disagree with my conclusions. I get that. It’s okay by me.
Liberals are just as interested in doing what’s right as you are. We just disagree sometimes on what is right. Personal vituperation on either side doesn’t help. If I’m wrong (and I’m not saying I am) I mean well. Let’s be friends.
“Hello, I must be going.” --Groucho Marx
Oh, and just a note…
And this has no bearing on my opinion whatsoever - I still support civilian ownership of military arms 100%, even if they have no sporting value, but…
The office of the department of civilian marksmanship program hosts some of the biggest and most prestigious marksmanship competitions in this country. 2/3rds of those competitions use the “ar-15 assault weapon”.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by DesertGeezer *
More kids died on school time from football than from firearms, even in the year of Columbine. Columbine involved kids breaking multiple laws. If they really wanted to stop incidents like Columbine, they’d press for enforcement of existing laws instead of new laws, and press for an end to the restrictions on teachers and principals carrying concealed weapons so that there would be someone on hand capable of defending the innocent kids. If they were really concerned about child deaths, they’d be focusing on the more common causes of death instead of the incredibly rare ones. “Incidents like Columbine” are useful tools for them to achieve their goals, but not in any way related to their actual motivations.
The actual definition of ‘assault rifle’ is trivial, but it doesn’t include the guns banned by the so-called ‘assault weapon’ laws because it requires the guns to be capable of fully automatic fire.
So, despite your protestations to the contrary, it’s just a cosmetic definition? You don’t even know the differences between the words describing different actions possible on a rifle (bolt-action versus single shot, for example), so how are you going to tell functional differences by sight? I’ll dig up pictures of an AR-15 modified to be bolt-action and a full auto M-16 and let you try to distinguish which is which, if your ‘tell on sight’ ability is so good.
We want you to state what it is that you’re in favor of banning. If you really think an object should be illegal, shouldn’t you at least be able to tell us the basic characteristics of said object? And as I go through your points
The AK-47 uses a cartridge a bit weaker than the .30-06 typically used for deer hunting, and the .223 used by the AR-15 is much weaker, to the point that it is generally considered inadequate for normal-sized deer (though not for the smaller deer common in Texas). And if you try to tell someone who hunts bear that an AR-15 is overpowered, you should prepare to be laughed at.
What are you talking about? The only rifles under consideration for ANY of the ‘assault weapon’ bans are semi-automatic, which means they only fire one bullet per trigger pull. Look at the CA regs or the federal law on them - they don’t include any fully automatic weapons at all. If you pull the trigger and more than one bullet fires, the gun is a fully automatic gun (or machine gun) and not a semi-automatic gun.
Considering that AR-15s are incredibly popular among high-power rifle competitors because of their accuracy, you’re going to have a hard time convincing me that they’re ‘too fast for target shooting’, especially when pretty much all competition formats include some rapid fire.
You certainly can, there are a few machine gun target shooting competitions, and shooting accurately with an actual automatic weapon takes quite a bit of skill. But what’s the relevance? We were talking about ‘assault weapons’, and none of the assault weapon bans deal with ‘rapid fire weapons’, but with semi-automatic (ie one shot per trigger pull) weapons.
Target shooting is called target shooting. If you’re practicing with a rifle, most likely you’re practicing to shoot in competitions. Why do you have such a hard time comprehending that some people shoot guns for fun? There are an awful lot of privately held guns out there that have never and will never be used to shoot at a human being. Pretending that anyone who shoots at paper is just getting ready to go mow down a schoolyard full of kids is patently absurd.
You need to look up the definition of ‘cosmetic’ in a dictionary - there’s no contraditction at all in the way ‘cosmetic’ and ‘ugly’ have been used here. It’s being used in the sense of ‘regarding appearance’, as in 'I think that tiger guy is pretty ugly, I have no idea why he would want to get so much cosmetic surgery done to look like that.
See, here’s your basic problem again - all of the assault weapon bans that I’m aware of (which includes the CA, NY, NJ, and federal ones) apply to weapons OTHER THAN machine guns; that is, weapons which can only fire one shot per trigger pull. You keep going on about ‘field of fire’ weapons, yet what the bans (including the one you cited) affect are ‘single shot’ (by your use of the term’ weapons.
Though this isn’t related to ‘assault weapon’ bans, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but there are a lot of people who own machine guns who have never shot at a person with them. In fact, I’d challenge you to find a single instance of a machine gun registered under the 1934 National Firearms Act which was ever used in a crime by its owner or with the approval of its owner.
You can put your fingers in your ears and insist that no one enlighten you as to the reason why they want a particular firearm. It doesn’t change the fact that there ARE in fact, people who want machine guns to shoot ‘only targets’, or even just to hold as a collector’s item.
Your opinion is based on gross ignorance, and is certainly not as good as those based on actual facts. If you believe that ‘field of fire’ weapons are the only ‘assault weapons’ that should be banned, then you should oppose all of the ‘assault weapon’ bans, as none of them affect a single weapon which can fire more than one bullet with a single trigger pull.
Well, two if you fire one in each hand, like people do in Cowboy Action Shooting (a fairly popular sport). Anyway, what does the number of guns you can shoot at once have to do with how many you might want to buy? In a free society, the basis for passing a law is not ‘why shouldn’t we pass this law’, but ‘why should we pass this law’. What purpose does the ‘one a month’ rule serve? It’s certainly clear that it hinders collectors (who might find more than one gun they like in a given month), people who want to get into any of several shooting sports (such as bullseye, which takes 2-3 handguns, or cowboy action, which takes 2 pistols), people who want to learn how to shoot (who are generally better off buying both a .22 and a pistol in a ‘real’ caliber so that they can practice cheaply), and others. It’s also unlcear that it serves any other purpose - what benefit is it supposed to provide?
The fact that you’re in favor of a ‘once a month’ law is a symptom of precisely the problem that I keep talking about; rather than tell us a single reason for implementing the law, you start attacking those of us who oppose it. Since you don’t give any reason for being in favor of the law, why should we believe that you’ll find a reason not to support a ‘one a quarter’ law, then later a ‘one a year’ law?
Tell me which interpretation of the 2nd you’re using then, since I can’t tell whether what you think of it is even reasonable without more information.
You thought wrong - the NYC (note that that is NYC and not NYS) laws contain a provision requiring a license given at the whim of the police commissioner.
You’ve just contradicted yourself - in the first part of the paragraph, you stated that anyone who has been convicted of any violent crime (and specifically included misdemeanor domestic violence) should not be allowed to own a gun, yet in the second part you state ‘felons or crazy’. For crimes, do you really mean the second comment ‘only people convicted of a felony’ or the first ‘people convicted of any violent crime, including misdemeanors’?
The fact that you actually can’t even tell me what gun control you support is another symptom of the ‘incremental’ problem I keep trying to point out to you. If you can’t even tell me what sort of limits there are to the bans you’ll support, how am I supposed to believe that you aren’t going to be fine if they ban everything but muzzleloaders (which still wouldn’t be a total ban, BTW)? Sure, you favor letting people have guns, but you also favor banning guns based either on appearance or your lack of knowledge of their function (assault weapons), restricting how many guns one can purchase without a reason (once-a-month), banning ammunition and accessories based on scary names (‘cop-killer’ bullets and ‘fingerprint resistant handles’),
You know, at this point I have to wonder if you’re even thinking about what you’re saying. In the very same paragraph, you’ve both said that childproof locks should be required on guns, but that it’s impossible to store guns in a manner in which kids can’t get to them. Which is it? If I store my guns in a safe, how in the hell is it possible to make a childproof lock that will fit on the gun but not one that will fit on the safe? (Note that gun safes are an incredibly common way of storing guns, it’s not some obscure method that I pulled up as a trick, though the safes are usually intended to protect against adult burglers intent on getting into them and not small children who are curious.)
Childproof locks suffer from the problem that they’re not needed on the gun; one can more effectively and (by any estimate I’ve seen) more cheaply secure guns from children by putting them into a safe. The ‘childproof locks’ also compromise the gun’s function, rendering them much less useful for self-defense, target shooting, or hunting. Also, gun safety courses are a highly effective way to prevent children from shooting themselves, but I don’t see any of the people allegedly concerned ‘for the children’ advocating THOSE. Of course, more kids die each year from swimming pool accidents than gun accidents, but I’m not even going to get into why you’re so much more concerned about guns than swimming pools.
Oh, and the only kind of replicas I’d be interested in are ones that actually shoot, which are AFAIK far more common than nonfunctional replicas.
But, as usual, you can’t give me anything but the scary-sounding name of them for a definition.
That’s not relevant. Since you can’t or won’t tell me what ‘fingerprint resistant handles’ actually are, I’ll have to guess. I suspect that they are actually the rather common handles with some kind of texture on them to help provide traction, or some kind of polymer grip designed for greater durability which incidentally doesn’t take fingerprints as well. I’m sure you can see how someone using a gun only for legal purposes might want a grip that doesn’t slide or one that is more durable - I don’t think someone would be able to get a fingerprint off of the handles of 2 of my guns, yet I didn’t buy them for ‘fingerprint reduction’.
I also don’t see what good a ‘fingerprint resistant handle’ would do someone using a gun for illegal purposes; they’re still going to leave fingerprints on the magazine, shell casings, slide, trigger, and other non-grip parts of the gun. If someone doesn’t want to leave fingerprints on a gun, they can just wear gloves instead of getting some ‘fingerprint resistant handle’. And gloves aren’t at all illegal.
Why should silencers (really suppressors) be illegal? They’re trivial to make (aside from various improvised ones, a permanent metal one is maybe a half hour of work with the proper tools) so having them illegal doesn’t do much to stop a crook that wants one from having one, and they have a clear and very useful legal purpose - they reduce the sound from the gun, which helps prevent hearing damage and reduces the amount of noise to disturb neighbors. There are numerous countries with generally more restrictive firearms laws than the US which actually require the use of silencers when shooting for exactly this reason!
Heh - so, you think that information from the NRA is too biased to be useful, but that ad copy from guns and ammo is god’s honest truth? From the ad copy I found with a web search for ‘hell fire’ and trigger and “TAC trigger” and the reviews from people who tried them, they’re simply a way to seperate suckers from $30 or so. I note the weasel words “The rate of fire is determined by the adjustments made to the HELLFIRE assembly. Full auto is possible with the right adjustments.” - if you make an adjustment that makes your gun fire more than one bullet per trigger pull, you’ve made a machine gun (that’s the BATF’s standard), so doing so would, in fact, be a felony.
From reading reviews from people who have tried them, they’re pretty much a spring that helps bounce your finger back onto the trigger, and require you to use an odd grip. They let you shoot a bit faster (though not faster than using a light trigger and training your finger to jerk quickly) and horribly inaccurately for a little bit, then break.
I don’t know that the NRA has a position on them, if they did it would be ‘these are a ripoff’. Such ‘enhancements’ certainly don’t have any military use - the military would simply use an automatic weapon instead of goofy devices that put a spring in to bounce your finger more quickly.
:rolleyes seriously, you only make yourself look foolish when you go on a full-fledged rant based on ad copy filled with sky-high claims, especially in Great Debates. You’re exhibiting exactly the kind of behaviour that I was talking about before - you get all worked up over something that sounds scary and want to ban it without even knowing what it actually is.
A semi-automatic gun also fires bullets one per trigger pull, so your definition of ‘single shot’ would include them too.