I note that even though Israel withstands more frequent terrorist attacks than anyone, guns are widely available to the citizens there. And in fact, many terrorist attacks have been thwarted or reduced in scale because a citizen shot the terrorist.
So if we’re going to bring terrorists into the debate, isn’t it fair to say that gun access for American citizens may actually increase the security of the homeland?
After all, if I were a plant manager, or a trucker shipping dangerous chemicals, I would arm myself if it were legal. Guns in the hands of citizens in areas of vulnerability would do more for ‘homeland security’ than all of Tom Ridge’s actions to date.
Frankly, I think the first act of the Homeland Security Department should be to create a ‘fast-track’ federal concealed carry permit for people responsible for protecting critical assets.
It’s around a pound of cure. Of course, an ounce of snake oil labeled as prevention isn’t worth even an ounce of cure, and you haven’t shown that your idea is actually prevention of anything.
I disagree. The plane that crashed in Pennsylvania instead would have reached its target, since the half dozen or so passengers who overvame the terrorists would have been shot long before they reached the cockpit.
As for the citizenship distinction I drew above, I’m under the impression that citizenship requires some fairly extensive investigation of the applicant, so it’s not simply a matter of waiting 7 years. And of course, that’s a darned long time to wait for the sake of buying a gun anyway.
Merely a rhetorical question. I wasn’t attempting to ascribe the position to you–just showing the outcome unintended outcome of that particular position.
Well, if you’re demanding that, I think it’s only fair to demand that you provide a cite that terrorists have used legally-purchased-in-the-US, legally-owned automatic weapons. Since both possitions were stated in the sense of possibility (“They could enter the country via container ship” and “They could buy the automatic weapons in the US.”), then it seems fair to hold them to the same standards.
Ridiculous! The very idea that the average American would rather make everyone as weak and as meek as them, instead of empowering themselves and taking responsibility for their own defense… oh, yeah, how it is. Nevermind then.
That’s not a forgone conclusion. Half a dozen unarmed people can still overpower a couple of people bearing handguns in the closed environment of an airplane (anyone who’s played Counterstrike can tell you that… :)).
True, but it still won’t do anything to curb patient terrorists, or domestic terrorists. Not that I’m opposing your suggestions, of course.
What sort of leap of illogic are you implying here?
We don’t have enough prosectors to enforce the current laws, therefore creating new laws, which will take even more resources to prosecute, and dilute the current resources, are the solution to this problem?
Are you still ignoring me, Minty? I can’t remember - it switches every other thread with you.
Let me ask this:
If the anti-rights activists passed the idea of NICS specifically on the promise that they’d never be used for registration or ‘checking’, and then completely broke their promise and started checking records for ‘terrorists’, what does that say about the anti-rights movement?
NICS was passed specifically with the clause that records would not be kept and used for exactly stuff like this. Your idea of ‘reasonable gun control’ seems to be to put in ‘stepping stone’ laws under promises that you’re willing to later break, to accomplish your objective one step a time.
And yet, when someone points this out - essentially, that you suggest using dishonest stepping stone measures to achieve an ultimate objective, you’ll shout “Slippery slope fallacy!”.
The only person who’s attempted to limit the discussion to automatic weapons is Beagle. (And as noted above, citizenship is a requirement for a Class 3 license.) Since that’s not my qualification, I’ll simply refer you to last month’s airport shooting. I’ve seen nothing that indicated those guns were not legally owned.
Correction: Upon further review, I see that Phoenix Dragon has also attempted to limit the discussion to automatic weapons. Not my argument, guys. Note that the original person to whom I was responding even specified “semi-automatic only.”
So if, in the future, I refer to “anti-constitutionalists” or “gun-grabbers”, you’ll understand I’m not attempting to ascribe the postion to you–just showing the outcome unintended outcome of that particular position?
Or will you have the same sort of faux morally outraged tantrum that you did when I used the terms “pro-gun types” and “anti-gun types” (or whatever the phrases were?)
You’re trying to have it both ways and frankly, it ain’t flattering to you.
All that I asked for there was for a fellow poster to employ respectful phrases for his debating opponents.* I think you might have a rather more compelling case of “having it both ways” if, indeed, I had employed such dismissive and condescending phrases against any of my opponents in this thread. That’s Beagle’s tactic, not mine.
In fact, I have not. What I did do was ask a rhetorical question of someone who drew a distinction between terrorists and intended terrorists, under the theory that “if they’ve broken no laws or committed no crime, why should they not be allowed to own a gun?” Instead of answering the question with the obvious answer–“Because they intend to commit acts of terror”–I responded with a rhetorical question of my own that pointed out the obvious problem with that approach. And when SPOOFE asked whether I was trying to say that he was happy with that state of affairs, I clarified that I was not. End of crisis, at least until you dropped by to rattle both the corpses a little more.
All in all, Fenris, I’m just not seeing a meaningful comparison here.
*For clarification to anyone who wasn’t there at the time, I was responding only to the dismissive and condescending “anti-gun crowd”–the other phrases were simply examples of the kind of rhetoric I was talking about.
He did, yes, but your later reply didn’t seem to be:
“Why ship an assault rifle halfway across the world, then take a chance on getting it past some pretty heavily screened national borders, when you can buy the same firepower at Gun World for a measley $500”
It’s a bit of a stretch to claim a semi-automatic Kalashnikov with 10-round magazines (Such as the original poster had mentioned) is “the same firepower” as a fully-automatic Kalashnikov with 30-round magazines. Individual round power, sure, but I’m sure you can see the difference.
Plus the minor fact that you could buy 20 of the full-auto ones for one in-country semi-auto short-magazine rifle. And there have been plenty of cases of people shipping in automatic weapons from other countries without them being caught (I think the automatic AKM used in the Hollywood bank robbery was smuggled in from China, IIRC).
Jeez, Dragon, if I was a terrorist who wanted shoot a bunch of civilians who didn’t have any cover, I’d want to fire semi-automatic. Much more accurate than full auto.
But I can see how my wording was misleading there, so I apologize for the confusion.
BTW, anyone know the going price of a black market machine gun? I find it entirely impossible to believe that they’re available for anything close to 1/20 the price of a legal semi-auto version.
