Mostly this is true because of the locations. Big cities have strict gun controls typically, not that these controls work mind you, but they have them. Big cities also tend to have a more blue collar, democratic bent. Conversely, the republicans are suburbanites and rural denizens, typically those places have a less stringent set of gun laws, and tend to bend toward the republican way of thinking
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that for a person unused to firing a gun in a life or death situation, aiming for the thighs would be the percentage shot to go for, because even if you pull your shot up with the recoil or in panic, you’d still have a better chance of hitting your target. Is this a false assumption?
Here’s the thing, first, the “regular” gun you’re talking about is just as dangerous as the so-called assault weapon. The gun I mentioned in the old Rifleman series is a typical hunting rifle, yet in his hands, it became a deadly-fast weapon, the same things would be true of any firearm. The argument about nomenclature, though annoying and nitpicky is necessary because though the weapons are cosmetically similar they do not have the same capacity as the real deal. It’s akin to buying a ferrari body and putting a VW bug engine in it.
That said, I don’t think people NEED a 40 round magazine. I think some of these things have gotten out of hand. Still and all, banning a gun because it looks like another gun is just silly. The .50 caliber is a great example. Yes, it shoots FAR and hits hard, but it’s a 20 pound 3 foot long hunk of metal that fires one shot at a time and costs between $4,000 and $12,000. Not many people knockin’ over banks and liquor stores with that thing, yet BAN IT! Is all we hear :rolleyes:
The ownership of firearms is at once a fundamental American right and an incredible responsiblity. I do not believe that the government should make the choice of such a responsibility for a decent, law abiding citizen.
In theory this makes sense, in practice though, the legs are narrow targets and can withstand impact that the belly cannot. Typically, a person elevates a weapon upon firing, however in this case, we can assume that the cop was firing around the corner, placing the gun on it’s side to fire, thereby mimimizing his exposure. Doing it this way, the gun would elevate away from the suspect. I’m making a TON of assumptions here, but this seems the most reasonable to me.
Let me put it this way: it would appear to me that far more “excess mortality” has been caused by governments than by private citizens. I mean - shit, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia…even America, during the Vietnam War and in Iraq - how many innocent people did those countries kill? But I never hear anyone proposing that governments be disarmed - only private citizens. The deaths of American citizens by gunfire is a drop in the bucket compared to the deaths of innocent people all over the world killed by government soldiers and government bombs.
But would you propose that all governments give up their weapons? Would you propose that the US Army and all of the armies of NATO bury all of their rifles in the ground? Would any person who advocates gun control for private citizens also advocate gun control for governments?
I’m guessing, no, and the reason why is that a nation needs to be able to defend itself if it’s attacked.
That same concept applies to individual people in America.
I don’t know whether or not I’ll ever be robbed or attacked by a criminal who intends to kill me. I certainly hope not. What I DO KNOW is that no gun bans are going to keep those criminals from getting guns. Didn’t work in DC, didn’t work in LA, didn’t work in NY, won’t work anywhere. And I’ll be damned if I am going to leave myself vulnerable to those people. Your life and those of your children - the right to protect them - is more important than any number of gun deaths (the majority of which are criminals shooting each other.) I am more than willing to tolerate the excess mortality from guns to know that I am protected (and that excess mortality is child’s play compared to car accidents and death caused by gorging oneself on fatty foods and being a lardass who dies from diabetes.)
I know that there will always be criminals. I know that there will always be crazies. Just like there will always be evil regimes and dictators in the world, and every country needs to have a strong military to defend themselves if need be. Same concept, on a smaller scale. I want to be able to protect myself. And as I said, a gun gives me the same protection at 23 that it does at 90 - even when I’m old and weak, I can still defend against strong, young, angry thugs if I need to.
Gun bans do not stop criminals from getting guns. Just like alcohol bans didn’t stop people from getting alcohol, and the weed ban doesn’t stop people from getting weed.
I feel like I’ve explained this about as clearly and logically as I possibly can. If you still can’t see where I’m coming from, well, that’s your problem.
I disagree, someone who wants to kill people will make it a point to get firearms despite the fact they’re illegal.
Too bad you’re completely incorrect; In no particular order.
- Home & Personal Defense
- Hunting
- Target / Sport
Actually, by definition, in a country deemed free, you have to make the opposing argument; the onus resides entirely on you.
Allow me to explain, in a free country, we do not have to define why we should be allowed to own anything; in a free country, you have to define why we should not be allowed to own something.
Yes, entirely.
You’re completely incorrect in your thinking of how aiming a firearm works. You don’t ‘pull up’ with recoil. Most, the vast majority, try to compensate for it by pushing forward/down. This, however, only serves to force the bullet lower, because by the time the recoil has any effect, the bullet has left the barrel. Recoil does not effect the trajectory of the bullet, at all, in the vast majority of firearms.
I think SuntanTigerTamer is a believer in autocracy or something. In the GD thread about guns, he/she said that nobody needs a firearm to defend themselves because “that’s why we have the police and the military.”
FUCK THAT. Relying on the police and military - that worked out great for my family all over Europe who were killed when the Nazis took over. Sorry if I’m “Godwinizing,” but it’s a hell of a lot easier to Godwinize when I have great-uncles and cousins who I might be able to meet and hug and talk to today if it weren’t for their government, who did a great job of protecting them.
I will look after myself. Your life, and everything you love, can all end in a heartbeat if someone comes along who is more determined to destroy it than you are to defend it. I will take care of my own life. You can dial 911 and cower in the corner when a rapist breaks into your house - have fun waiting for the cops to arrive.
By the way, you don’t have a Positive Right to being protected by the cops.
You don’t need a gun for self defense, silly, the cops will protect you! But, even if they don’t, it’s not their fault, because that’s not their job!
Police Officers are there to investigate crimes, after they happen, and to attempt to prevent crimes when possible. But the reality of the situation is that in LA there are 4 million people, and 9,800 police officer, in New York City there are 18 million people, and less than 40,000 cops.
You really think their job is to protect you from crimes, all the time? No, their job is to prevent crimes when possible, and investigate them after the fact.
What a load of lethally retarded and criminally self-indulgent–and just plain dishonest–bullshit this thread is extruding out my monitor.
Gun nuts, and your ridiculous insistence on flapping the Constitution in the faces of the sane in order to obscure the fact that you have absolutely zero rational arguments on this subject, please join me in the following thought experiment.
I have a time machine. I set the dial for “Founding Fathers” and, beads and blankets in hand, persuade the Signers to climb on into my shiny ship and return to the present with me. On the way back, I ask them to contemplate the implications of the following amendment–James Madison to act as chair, of course:
When we arrived, I would take them on a tour of a couple inner-city neighborhoods; I’d let them witness a couple shoot-outs between cops and criminals; I’d take them to a few funerals of accidental shooting victims. I’d set the dial for Columbine and for Virginia Tech. I’d show them some examples of the ever-escalating arms race between the police and gangs. I’d give them as much time as they wanted to learn how the world has changed since the day they ratified that sentence–a day in which the “New World” they were living in was still largely wilderness with multiple threats–both known and unknown–and very little (to no) organized protection from those threats.
When they had satisfied themselves that they had sufficiently “caught up” with the times, I would ask them to debate whether, given the chance, they’d make any edits in that sentence.
Now, are all of you NRAers seriously going to try to look me in the eye and tell me that you believe their response would be, “Nope, leave it as is. This is pretty much how we pictured it. Yay NRA!”
Seriously? You think if you could as the Signers “Is this really what you intended as the result of that one sentence?” they’d say Yes?
Seriously?
Why do you people keep trotting out that dishonest bullshit about the wording of the 2nd Amendment when no sane person could possibly believe that Madison et al. meant it the way the NRA interprets it?
I would think the Founding Fathers would be smart enough to notice that the criminals in DC and NY and LA are able to get guns despite them being forbidden from legally doing so. I think they would be quite happy to allow law abiding citizens to own guns to defend themselves from the criminals.
The Founding Fathers and most other historical figures in America up until the Industrial Revolution lived in a world where guns were everywhere, and everyone knew how to hunt and shoot from an early age. There was none of the ignorance of guns, and the consequent fear of them, from people who didn’t know anything about them and had never used them and only learned about them from movies and television and a few sensationalistic news reports. So back then, guns were an accepted part of life. Nobody in the day of the Founding Fathers would have bought a single word of the anti-gun crowd’s argument - because the whole anti-gun movement only exists due to the general public’s ignorance about guns.
ETA- I DO think that if you showed the Founding Fathers all the thousands of grisly automotive accidents that happen every year, they would insist that cars be made illegal, and that we go back to riding horses. It’s better for the environment, too.
I’m not an NRA member. But the wording of the 2nd is clear. The average Joe should be able to keep firearms. SCOTUS interpretes it the same way.
Don’t like it? Amend it.
Thanks, Argent. Not only did you make my point for me–the different contexts in which the Signers wrote that line, and in which we live–but the insanely amusing illogic of your parting analogy clearly demonstrates just how ill equipped you are to have this discussion with sane people.
(Although you did pass over–no surprise, mind you, just beating the horse–sorry, pointing it out–one more time: responsibility for the flood of guns that washes up and down the streets of the cities I’d show the Signers can be laid at the apathetic feet of the people who have used the Signers’ words as a disingenuous shield to hide behind. The state of this country today (as regards this particular issue) is due almost entirely to the ambiguity of that sentence. Arguments about horses and barn doors don’t wash: yes, actually, you can put the horse back in the barn. No one said it would be easy, but with effort and time the situation could be–should be–tackled. But to use the American firearms *holocaust *as an excuse to condone unregulated private shootouts as preferable to finding a law enforcement system that works–like pretty much every other first world country has done–is lethally dishonest and does little more than expose your personal priorities.)
Some gun massacres have been stopped or limited by armed bystanders. If lawful and responsible carry was more common, you wouldn’t have these situations where a gunman walks into a roomful of helpless targets and starts shooting. This proposal however infuriates those who don’t want to live in “Dodge City”, and who are certain that more armed citizens would just mean more impulse shootings. And it would require a significant percentage of the random public- 1 in 20?- to be publically armed at a given time.
This. The problem is that once guns become delegitimized enough, a tipping point is reached: the only people who will still own them then will BE the cranks and nuts.
They’d probably ask why we don’t hang all the gang members and career criminals. When told that our system of criminal justice prioritizes protecting the rights of the accused, they’d be as likely to change that instead.
I would love to read just one debate where nobody on either side speaks for the Founding Fathers beyond what they wrote. There is more than enough there to argue about without trying to read minds and motivations across 200 plus years.
Excellent answer. But then the Founding Fathers would be wrong, too. This country is so completely different from that which existed at the end of the Revolutionary War as to be completely unrecognizable. Therefore, it falls on our shoulders to look at the state of the nation NOW, and decide what the best course of action is. No one is saying burn the Constitution, we’re just saying let that baby breathe.
We have obviously come to very different conclusions on what the state of the nation is now, why it is that way, and what can be done about it. However, I feel like your side hamstrings any progress by sticking your fingers in your ears and loudly proclaiming that guns can’t possibly be part of the problem because they are inanimate objects. No one has come through this thread and said that complete disarmament of the American populous as a whole will halt gun violence. We have said that the strengthening of these gun-laws is a step in the right direction, as is greater firearms education, and increased personal and parental accountability. All of these things together could change the violent direction that this country has been heading in regards to workplace/family/school shootings. Saying that having less guns in the country wouldn’t lead to less gun crime makes no sense, though. If there are guns available, they will be stolen/purchased illegally and used to commit crimes. That’s how it is. Is your own personal desire to own those weapons worth the potential cost to society?
And if you say yes to the last question, then a more selfish stance I cannot imagine.
And this is why, unfortunately, we will soon have gun laws in the US similar to those in Europe, and the Lisseners and Tiger Tamers of the country will finally have their way. Sad but true. Once upon a time, people had enough common sense to blame the outlaw and not the gun. Not so anymore.
Are we nominating funniest posts of the year yet? Or is it still early?
I wish I could see the following social experiment carried out: pick a modern midsized city, and nickname it “Gun City”. Under a state “posse comitatus” law and by city ordinance, every eligible able-bodied adult would be required to own a firearm and demonstrate they know how to use it. (Those who didn’t would be paid to relocate). In other words, pretty much what the Militia Act once specified. Then we could see just who was right: the gun banners or the gun advocates.
Tiger Tamer, people dying are people dying. It doesn’t matter how they die, it just matters that there’s a family somewhere that doesn’t have them anymore. Now it is a fact that more people die in auto accidents than by gunfire. And it is a fact that we do NOT need cars in America. Anywhere you need to go, you can get to by walking, by biking, or by taking public transportation. Even in the winter, when it’s cold - bundle up. Even in the rain - wear a raincoat. You need to haul something big that won’t fit in your car? Call a government-subsidized and licensed moving service that will transport it with a truck.
The cost of human life - not just by accidents, but by pollution - and the harm to the environment too - from automobiles is utterly enormous. Far greater than any spree-shooter’s wet dream.
And as I said before, cars are not necessary to society. We could make do without them. It would require a LOT of restructuring and a lot of people sucking it up and sacrificing convenience, but it could be done.
Should we ban cars too?
Like I said, dead people are dead people. If you’re interested solely in preserving human life, you should go after cars, and also fast food. But guns are so much easier to villify, because they’ve been marginalized in our society and those who own them are painted as kooks by anti-gun zealots.
As to “my own personal desire to own these weapons, and their cost to society” that you asked me about: here’s my answer. Any law abiding citizen without a criminal record should be able to buy a gun at a gun shop. No waiting periods. (What if you’re being stalked by an abusive ex-husband? What if you need the gun ASAP?) Anybody with a clean record should also be able to own so called “assault weapons” - there should be no restrictions on cosmetic features of guns, just because they’re “scary.”
In other words, exactly the way the gun laws are here in very friendly, VERY safe Bloomington, Indiana.
If those gun laws, as I just stated them, are costing society something, maybe we need to work on fixing society and not banning guns.