Kerry vs. second amendment

The BBQ Pit
101

I appreciate the delicious irony of your choice of the word “obsession” in a discussion of gun-ownership. Well, I hope it was deliberately ironic, otherwise I am giving credit where none is due.

Well, part of it, yes. For example, the part of my last post that would appear to stand up to some scrutiny (given that it hasn’t been addressed) is that having a gun to hand does not encourage the kind of reflection that in a non-threatening situation (i.e. when not faced with an intruder but with one’s spouse, with whom one has suddenly flared up) might spare human lives.

My understanding is that a large number of gun deaths relate to the killing of one’s family members in the home. Are you saying that if no guns were to hand all those homicides would still be committed?

102

Interesting point Roger, and it actually illustrates one of the whole gun control/crime control conundrums.

Using various sources such as the Uniformed Crime Reports or perhaps the Bureau of Justice Statistics can paint a picture that isn’t definitively clear, or one that is perhaps easy to read something into that isn’t there.

But what I see a lot of “Unknown”

If you look through Crime in the United States - 2002, at Table 2.12, you’ll see that the majority of killings are under unknown circumstances.

A casual perusal of Table 2.10 will also show that firearms account fopr about 2/3 of all homicide, and that handguns lead the pack at 3/4 of all firearms homicides.

Yet rifles and shotguns (the category into which the so-called “Assault Weapons” fall) lag far behind Knives/Cutting Instruments by almost 2:1; They are roughly equal to Personal Weapons (hands, fists, feet) by about 1:1; and only outpace Blunt Objects 4:3.

You can also see that the proportions have remained fairly consistent throught the period covered. The big wild card is “Firearms, Type Not Stated.” Obviously, such a large number could effect any of the categories quite significantly.

It is this uncertainty, acknowledged by law enforcement and honest legislators that make a good number of the gun rights advocate’s say “Whoa! Hold on a damned minute!” whenever gun control advocates talk about banning some particular hobgoblin from their fevered dreams

You will also note from these numbers that the United States kills more people without firearms than most other countries.

The real kicker:

Bolding mine, as I readily admit absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But absence of evidence is also no call to be enacting further restrictions.

If you use the Center for Disease Control for any stats, be advised that they (and most medical research) count suicides right aslongside homicides as violent crime. The Law Enforcement agencies tend not too; that is, they count suicides separate from homicides.

They, like most anyone with common sense, figure out that if someone truly wants to kill themselves, they’ll find a way gun or no gun.

103

DOH! :smack:

Roger, I was responding to this post.

104

I’m waiting for blowero to come in and claim that ExTank’s post is one giant strawman. He’s obviously figured out he’s unable to show me any examples of machine gun induced homicides in this country. Even after he bitched about the “illegally obatained” restriction. Well, I’ve removed that restriction, and he still can’t show me an example.
Another irony I’d like to point out, is on California’s gun restrictions. California law made it difficult or impossible for individual officer’s to buu semi-auto assualt rifles for use on patrol. So while some might call the Hollywood bank robbery and example of the “Evil of guns” because the criminals had machine guns. I think it is an example of “evil anti-gun legislation”. The cops were so out gunned. They had pistols and shotguns against machine guns. Not until SWAT showed up, did any officer effectively engage with a rifle. Some officers even when straight to a gun shop to “borrow” some rifles. WTF!
In Tampa, at least one of the first couple officers on seen would have pulled out his personally purchased semi-auto carbine (assault weapon) and engaged the suspects.
The officers didn’t need a machine gun. Any semi-auto rifle would have been just as effective against defeating the robbers’ armor and neutralizing the situation. But for some reason, California feels these semi-autos are even too dangerous for cops to buy.

105

It’s always good to see someone from a foreign country to ignorantly hangs onto preconceived notions about americans like this.

Can’t say as I’ve never picked up a handgun in order to end one’s life. How can anyone respond to such bald-faced bullshit?

Yes. If someone is going to kill, they’re going to kill. We’re talking about crimes of passion. Crimes which occur in the split-instant. Crimes in which someone will pick up a knife or a stick, or a bat or a rock or a car and kill someone in the heat of passion.

But please, continue to hang on to preconceived notions of people and places and situations you know nothing about. It’s so original.

Sam

106

Sam, I’ve been asking questions so that I understand more about the situation. Sure, I ask those questions with the preconceived idea that something has gone awry in the USA, when so many guns and ammo are in circulation. But that’s how things work in real life.

As it happens, I enjoyed shooting at clay targets when I was over in KY last year. I can understand the pleasure people get out of the activity. But I did feel different when I was handed a handgun (no idea what type, but pistol with a big kick) and fired off a few bullets.

If I kept one by my bed, on my person, or in my car - having been trained how to use one properly - I would feel most uneasy. I also don’t think I should be allowed to do so.

Is this really bullshit?

107

Rah-gher, you gotta go with your feelings on this one. Maybe it’s not right for you! Will you use this ‘feeling’ to deny it to others for whom the feeling is valid? I hope not. By extension, beause homosexuals reject heterosexual encounters, should we all?

I, since my VietNam service, used to sleep with a 38 under my pillow. When my son was born, I got a quick-access, but safe gun safe to keep it in. I was glad to have it safe, but loaded and ready, on several occasions.

Right now I have no guns. I voluntarily divorced myself from ownership and possession, to see what difference it made in my life. Thankfully, the local criminal organization still believes I’m protecting myself with handguns; I haven’t been hit in years, though close neighbors have been.

For the record, the guns are in stasis, at a FFL dealer, until I decide otherwise.

It’s an experiment. Yes, I’m nervous. I want to know how safe I am with and without guns. I want to be able to deliver intelligent testimony having been on both sides of the fence. Right now I want my guns back, but my agreement is until the Gun Show in May.

I don’t want to be driven by false assumptions, and I’m going out on a liberal limb to discover how safe we are with “police protection.” So far, so good.

Not so good for my elderly neighbors, who got stripped of their valuables and tied up and minimally abused. I don’t know if a gun would have helped them; 9-1-1 certainly didn’t.

How do we protect ourselves as well as our infirm citizenry against predators? I don’t have “the” answer, but I know of an interim solution that has worked adequately for scores of years:

Train ALL Americans in firearms safety. Just like we train them in traffic safety, sexual safety and all other forms of safety.
Allow those who qualify to either own or carry firearms, based on their test performance and background checks.
Remember the best defense is a good offense.
Remember that the rights of law-abiding citizens supercede the rights of criminals.

Do what you must to preserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (on a collective scale.)

Support you beliefs.

Ciao! Be well.

Sssssssnake

108

Fuck you very much. Thanks so much for the dismissive high-horse you ride along in your narrow life.

If you were trained, whatsoever, you would not feel uneasy. If you knew how to properly use a handgun, you would have no reason to feel uneasy around a gun. You honestly remind me of my wife. She has never had contact with handguns before getting involved me. Simply being around an unloaded firearm, she becomes most uneasy. Those who aren’t trained always feel uneasy around a weapon they don’t know.

Just because you seem to think you shouldn’t be allowed to possess a handgun(and I have a fucking hunch that you as a person ought not to as well), does not mean that it is right for an entire population. In fact, I’d say you were dead wrong. It hasn’t helped Australia, hasn’t helped England, and never helped Germany.

To paint all gun owners as “obsessive” as you did previously is pretty disgusting, and I take extreme offense at someone who doesn’t understand shit about me, my people, my country, my culture or my society making such assertions. You have missed the mark, sir.

Sam

109

[QUOTE=ExTankIt’s The Pit. You don’t like what I say? Then bite my hairy white ass.[/QUOTE]
Oh, so you’re being a prick because you can be one in the Pit? Glad we straightened that out.

110

One reason I think the matter of citizens having guns is important is that America gives leadership to the world. People take note of how things are done there, and why.

The US is able to operate the right turn policy at red lights because the drivers are generally disciplined and acutely aware of conditions when driving in (sub)urban areas. In China (including Hong Kong), the skill levels and general awareness/education of people (pedestrians as well as drivers) are insufficiently developed to allow this. So, maybe the USA works well with the laws on guns it has. It has the checks and balances to control the worst excesses of its lethal weapons (cars and guns included).

Coming from a background so different to that in the US guns-wise, and yet so similar in most other ways, I just find it difficult to comprehend the particular situation regarding guns. By engaging in these discussions, I am better able to work out how much of my thinking is subjective and irrelevant to the US, and how much might be more in the way of principles that any country that cherishes human life would do well at least to consider.

111

Sam, I think you misunderstood me on a couple of things. First, I didn’t call you, or other gun owners, “obsessive”. I responded to your (I took it as) tongue-in-cheek comment about my “strange obsession” with guns/America by alluding to the fact that it’s usually the gun-owners who are branded as having an obsession with guns. For the record, I don’t think you’re obsessive about guns.

I was acknowledging that I have preconceived ideas about guns. When I said “that’s how things work in real life”, I was referring to the fact that people who take stances on issues often do so starting from preconceptions. (Whether those preconceptions are misconceptions is another matter.)

112

My God - it’s the gun-blog talking points regurgitation pile-on from hell. Have fun with your circle-jerk. :stuck_out_tongue:

113

You can be such a moron sometimes, and yet sometimes you seem so reasonable.

Thanks for the clarification, Roger.

Sam

114

minty:

Originally posted by roger thornhill:

It’s non-value laden questions and statements like roger’s that brings out the nice guy in me.

Stuff like this…

Originally posted by blowero:

Originally posted by Larry Mudd:

Originally posted by Zebra:

…well…it’s what The Pit is for. When I get this kind of belligerent ignorant shit in Great Debates, I (and other pro-gunners) pretty much have to smile and swallow it and give nice, civil answers unless we want to get smacked down by the Mods.

But here, in The Pit, I don’t have to take it. Here, in The Pit, I can let the smug, insufferable pricks know exactly what I think about their fucking dumb-ass questions, and more importantly, where they can shove the High-Fucking-Horse they rode into this thread on.

You’ll note that in this thread and others that real questions asked by the honestly curious get civil responses.

Hell, other pro-control advocates and I have agreed to disagree and yet have been civil to one another for several years. Probably because (as you well know) that my personal positions on gun control aren’t almightily different from the more rational people, and it’s the polarized, politicized nature of the issue at national-level which I do not trust, I cannot trust, I will not trust, and thus puts me in a fairly “hard-liner” camp.

But in the mean time…get bent. :stuck_out_tongue:

115

You know, when you trigger-happy types calmed down a bit and actually started making points and so on, I was briefly swayed.

If you could just get away from that “Pry it from my cold, dead fingers” bullshit (note to people inclined to anti-government chest beating: if they wanted to, *they would) you might actually convince me.

116

Really Not All That Bright:

First of all, we are calm. Otherwise lead would be flying.

Secondly, get rid of the “ban 'em all” crowd; we are mostly counterweight to them.

Third, :something: Opal.

Fourth, get the American judicial system (preferably the Supreme Court) to actually acknowledge that the 2nd Amend. exists, and that it means what it says.

Lastly, (since this is The Pit) get a smaller handle, douchebag!***** :slight_smile:

*****[sub]The last comment was entirely in jest; any resemblance to an actual insult is purely coincidental.[/sub]

117

Just a few facts. Easy to verify facts.

Some folks seem to think that assault weapons shoot a special, or more powerful cartridge. That’s not the case. Not at all.

On average, the .223/5.56mm M-16/CAR-15 round is less than half as powerful as your average hunting round.

Some stats—

.223 specs

Muzzle energy - 1282 ft/lbs.

.30 ’06 specs -

Muzzle energy - 2736 ft/lbs.

30-30 specs (Lever action rifle cowboys use in westerns) -

Muzzle energy - 1902 ft/lbs.

From - http://www.remington.com/ammo/ballistics/ballistics.htm

118

No. Why would I need evidence of this? I’ve made no such claim.