Again I refer you to the DC City Council’s gun control laws, which do, in fact, forbid any private ownership of handguns in the city.
Well then, even I, as a rabid, left wing , card-carryin’, fellow travelin’ pinko Stalin-lover, am against that kind of prohibition. Control does not necessarily mean prohibition or seizure. Although I can see that associating the two is useful for those who want neither.
DING! (on both counts)
I’m a bit confused regarding what the OP is means by “gun control.” Is he arguing against those who would like to see all guns banned, or those who are simply in favor of licensing, permits, and restrictions on the types of guns that may be privately owned.
To evaluate it from a utilitarian perspective, as the OP seems to be doing, what you really have to do is tally up the body counts under the different gun control regimes.
I see three possible scenarios:
[ol]
[li]All guns are banned: The criminals will most likely have the same types of guns that they do under the current system, though possibly less of them, and they’ll still be mostly handguns. Private citizens won’t have any. Result: Small advantage to the criminals, and probably a few more killings.[/li]
[li]Current system: Private citizens are able to buy all the handguns, rifles, and shotguns they want from registered dealers. After the disaster hits, the crimals are able to steal all the guns they want from the very same dealers. Result: Status quo.[/li]
[li]No restrictions on ownership: Private citizens are able to buy all the handguns, rifles, shotguns, and submachine guns they want from registered dealers. After the disaster hits, the crimals are able to steal all the submachine guns they want from the very same dealers. Result: Giant frickin’ bloodbath.[/li][/ol]
I pick #2.
In a situation like New Orleans, it’s not going to be a situation of You with a machine gune vs. Bad Guy with a pistol. If you could buy that machine gun before the hurricane, what’s to stop Bad Guy from stealing one afterwards?
You should have seen the line of hoods and rufniks waiting to turn in their guns when the city council passed that resolution! :rolleyes:
Would you let them have their way with your daughters before you left? Or would you defend them if the gang was hellbent on rape?
The anti-gun crowd has whipped up such hysteria over “assault weapons” that is not suprising to find people falling for it.
Yes.
Unlike a shotgun, a typical ghetto hood won’t hit squat with that AK, and it is not easilly carried or conceiled like the handgun. They are fairly heavy, so the AK armed hords won’t be as mobile, so I’m less likely to encounter them.
The 7.62x39 round is much lower power than typical high-powered rifle sold by Walmart. Most of the avilable ammo in that caliber is full metal jacketed, so much less likely to cause a fatal wound than hunting ammo sold by Walmart. An AK round will probably pass straight through leaving a 7.62 mm diameter wound channel. A typical handgun round will leave a 9mm or larger entrance wound, and likely expand to double that.
The 7.62x39 was developed as a military round. Wounding does more damage to your enemy’s moral and resources than killing him.
Virtually ALL the “AKs” extant in this country are not capable of fully automatic operation. Many hunting rifles sold by Walmart are also semi-automatics. The only operational difference is that the AK armed thug won’t need to stop to reload after killing you and 4 of your family members.
I think the world would be a better place if people generally didn’t use guns to shoot other people and I think this would be most likely to happen if there simply weren’t many guns in existence.
If we could click our fingers and make all of the guns instantaneously disappear, then there’s wouldn’t be as much need for new guns to defend yourself from other people who have guns; but we can’t do that - if you already have widespread public gun ownership, there’s no easy way back.
We can defend any position we like with all sorts of overblown "what if"s - What if I had to defend myself from attackers equipped with armoured vehicles? Surely I need a 20mm cannon, in case this should happen. IMO (and judging solely on the basis of new reports, which might well be slanted toward the sensational), the situation in NO was made worse by the presence of guns, trouble is, you’re stuck with 'em.
Sure, you scoff, but how many ninja crackheads do you have flying around in Stealth fighters over there in Blighty?
Huh?
That’s what I thought.
I’m not a gun dude, so I’ll take your word for it.
But scratch the AK, and insert a MAC-10 or 11.
I think the weapon of choice is irrelevant. If the most lethal weapon in the world was a jar of jelly, there would be people looting homes and shops, Smuckers in hand. I myself want to be sure I have a jar of Polaner’s Spreadable Fruit with which to defend myself, my family and my home.
Looting and pillaging is nothing new. If a hurricane wiped out a metropolis in 1000 A.D., they would be looting with spears, clubs, bows, and swords. I just want a comparible weapon available to me for my defense.
We **are ** stuck with guns. There is no magical formula to turn back the clock and make them go away. But the founding fathers were wise in using the word “arms” instead of “guns”. Eventually the concept of a “gun” is going to be obsolete, like a spear is today. When the hoods are packin’ sharks with frickin’ laser beams on their heads, I don’t want the government to tell me I can’t own a Tuna with lasers on his frickin’fins.
If they pass a law making laser-equipped sharks illegal, do you think the hoods will carry them down to the bay and let them go? They won’t.
And if they did, there would then be sharks in the bay.
With frickin’ lasers.
…on their heads.
You’ve actually made quite a strong argument as to why it is relevant - the presence of guns in the mix makes conflict situations inherently dangerous for everyone involved; adding more guns to the mix only makes it more so.
The only problem is that it isn’t your interpretation of the Constitution that is of importance, it is that of the Supreme Court. The issue was settled in 1939, the right to bear arms is collective rather than individual.
Gotta point here. Unilateral disarmament does lead, eventually, to a more peaceful situation.
I am of the same opinion.
I believe that “gun control” as it has been administered in recent history, serves only to keep legal guns out of the hands of responsible, law-abiding citizens, like yourself who play by the rules. You, a reputable, law-abiding citizen, purchased a firearm from a reputable, law-abiding seller.
Criminals are, by the very definition of the word, not law-abiding. As criminals, they have at their disposal a veritable smorgasbord (sp?) of illegally obtained weapons. They don’t have to go through legal channels to obtain what they want.
Only those of us who respect the law will obey current and future laws.
Two problems with the OP:
-
The assertion that the 2nd Amendment applies to individual citizens is a personal assumption, not a settled Constitutional fact.
-
The OP is conflating “control” with 'prohibition."
I would also say that the prevalence of firearms in New Orleans was part of the problem, not part of any solution.
I do not favor the prohibition of firearms and and I am not anti-gun but this particular OP has failed to make a sensible argument. Adding more guns to an anarchic situation does not sound like a very intelligent strategy to me.
The 1st and 4th ammendments also speak of “The right of the people”. We can’t pick and choose which are individual and which are group.
It is equally revolting to wish to restrict the 2nd amendment rights of the people as it is to restrict any of the others. I.E. “We don’t wish to restrict your speech totally, we just want to control it.”
The criminals with the guns, how did they get them? Did they go to Wal-Mart, fill out the 4473 and wait on the background check? No. They stole them. How many laws were broken by the time the criminals had the guns in their hands? Laws/control/seizure do not equal peace and harmony. Sorry.
Sounds contagious.
Guns were not added to NO. Guns and ammo were illegally stolen stores and homes.
Also, “assault weapon” has been used several times since I asked for a definition.
I’m still waiting.
On preview I have to wonder why we go round and round on this every couple of months. Nobody ever convinces anybody, it’s all talking an no listening. :shrug:
If Walmart didn’t sell guns, they couldn’t get stolen, could they?
And the 1st and 4th Amendments do not have a clause suggestingthat the right pertains to a collective entity (i.e. a militia), rather than individual citizens. In any case, your personal opinion of the Amendment is irrelevant, as a matter of LAW, the Supreme Court has never made it clear that there is an individual right to own firearms. Do not confuse your opinion for the law.
Thats quite true. And if there were no people no one would ever steal anything.
Interesting. So, if the Supreme Court decides, thats it then ehe? What were your thoughts on the Eighteenth Amendment? Will you be as glib if the courts decide in the future to re-interperate the 2nd to something less appealing to you? Will you simply shrug at that point and go ‘Oh well…its the courts. Guess they are right’?
Not that I think it will happen, but one wonders how you will feel if a future Supreme Court decides to use similar logic on some of the more cherished Amendments and re-interperate them in interesting ways…or how you’ll feel if RvW is overturned, etc. I mean…if they say its so, it must be, right?
-XT
:dubious:
To presume that one of the Amendments is a group right and the remainder are not is an interesting opinion, to say the least.
You first.
Serious question: by your reasoning, should you be able to own a bazooka, a cannon, a tank, an atomic bomb?