whoops, I mis-pasted. There is a little more to the law. Here it is again:
Jeff, please note the reference to “large capacity feeding devices”. Yep, that’s right, they are already out of manufacture, though not, thank goodness, illegal.
whoops, I mis-pasted. There is a little more to the law. Here it is again:
Jeff, please note the reference to “large capacity feeding devices”. Yep, that’s right, they are already out of manufacture, though not, thank goodness, illegal.
whoops, I mis-pasted. There is a little more to the law. Here it is again:
Jeff, please note the reference to “large capacity feeding devices”. Yep, that’s right, they are already out of manufacture, though not, thank goodness, illegal.
Mr Zambezi
Like this site? http://www.hi-vel.com/Welcome/Main/Armor_Piercing_Ammunition/armor_piercing_ammunition.html
Note their disclaimer –
No federal licenses are required to purchase any merchandise in this catalog. However, it is the buyer’s sole responsibility to check state and local ordinances as to the legality of ownership or possession of the products ordered. By placing an order, the buyer represents that the products ordered will be used in a lawful manner. You must be 21 years of age or older.
Forgive me for being confused. Perhaps their ‘armor piercing’ bullets are a marketing stretch and are really no such thing. I’m not into guns enough to separate the ‘real’ from the ‘false’ in this instance.
I also seem to remember reading about a kind of bullet the disintegrated into hundreds of tiny, razor-like shards upon impact. While this type of bullet probably can’t penetrate body armor it is what I had in mind when I wrote ‘cop-killer bullets’ above. Supposedly some surgeons were reluctant to operate on people hit with this ammunition as it had a habit of ripping through their surgical gloves and skin exposing doctor and patient to whatever diseases the other may carry. Not a happy situation for either party. I’m looking for references to this but no luck so far as I have no idea what this ammunition was called if it indeed ever existed.
As for assault weapon I’m sorry if this is a meaningless category. I thought ‘gun’ was a catchall phrase and assault weapon was a distinct group within that overall group…sort of like minivan is to car. Call them whatever you like. I’m not the person to define what counts as an overpowered weapon but things like automatic weapons are probably over-the-top (even if they are already outlawed…I understand it takes a minor amount of knowledge to convert a semi-auto weapon to full auto [shave down the firing pin?]). The NRA, law enforcement agencies and the legislature can get together and decide among themselves what is ‘too’ much gun (people shouldn’t have the right to autocannons for instance).
Mr Zambezi
Yes, it would. If the gun was registered upon initial sale (after manufacture) then police could trace a captured weapon through the pipeline till it reached the criminal. The person responsible for selling the weapon without proper registration would now be guilty of a crime. If the penalty for this offense were high enough that guy would think twice about selling it to a ‘bad’ guy and would probably charge considerably more for the risk he is taking thus making guns more difficult for criminals to obtain for reasons described in my post above. Also, if the criminal were caught wiht an unregistered weapon that could be an added charge to whatever other crimes he had committed thus putting him away for longer. If he only threatened someone with the weapon during a robbery he might get several years in jail, add to that the ‘unregistered weapon’ charge and he could go away for a decade or more.
I’m not looking for the outhright banning of all guns. Far from it. But it does seem to me that some regulation is in order. We are allowed to drive cars but the governement says a Formula 1 car is not legal for city driving and I think that it’s perfectly ok for the governement to restrict my choice of vehicles in this manner. They should be able to do the same for guns.
No, they’re not out of manufacture. They can be imported. The MM march had a ban on the import of these items as part of their agenda. You can find mention of it in the following article-- http://www.msnbc.com/news/406533.asp
How can we both be right? Another loophole? Their illegal to manufacture in the US but we can buy them from overseas? Hell, if we’ve gotta have them at least American workers should get the chance to profit from their manufacture (seriously).
A clarification about the Federal Large Capacity Feeding Devices law:
It prohibits all magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds which were manufactured after the law was passed. The law was passed on September 13, 1994. No 11+ round magazine manufactured before this date is made illegal by means of this Federal law. The high-capacity magazines that are being “legally imported” are those manufactured before 13-Sep-1994.
This does not mean that some States haven’t banned magazines larger than 10 rounds outright, however. California’s new “Assault Weapons” law (SB 23) prohibits all large-capacity ammunition feeding devices, regardless of when they were manufactured.
A perfect example of Washington law making. “Assault weapons” made before 1994 are legal to buy sell and trade. Clips of 11 rounds or more are legal to import, buy sell and trade, but “You should still be able to import high-capacity magazines as before the ban, but there are some serious problems here-namely, there’s no way for ATF to know if a foreign-made magazine was made before or after the ban. If you’re planning on importing high-capacity magazines, contact ATF for the latest information.”
Do so at your own risk. In essence, if teh mfg date is post 1994, you may have some ‘splainin’ to do.
AS for the "armor piercing bullets, They may very well be. THe first draft of the '86 legistlation would have banned all copper coated bullets. A “cop killer” bullet was a normal bullet with a steel core and a hard jacket. The teflon just saved the gun barrel.
But even if they are selling illegal stuff, the gov’t is unlikely to do anything about it. That it why the NRA supports stiffer penalties. Nail the criminals, not the law abiding.
Could be the Glazer Safety Slug: a casing filled with pellets. THe police also developed this to avoid richochets in populated areas. There are a lot of UL’s about bullets, and I am not sure if you are referring to a real or imaginary one. A hollow point would probably be more effective though.
One more stat:
Or at least, I thought high-capacity magazines manufactured in other countries were illegal if they were made after 13-Sep-1994. Darn it, which section of the U.S. Code is this in?!
http://www.recguns.com/IIG4.html#sec922w
18 U.S.C. sec. 922 (w):
I just pulled it up. It sounds to me like the import is very, very limited. Well, I’ll be damned. Can a million moms be wrong? YOu tell me.
Sounds like no importing either. ARRRRRRGH, more anti gun propaganda!
Uh…I have never heard of anybody accidently killing themself with a dirty pair of pants or a wrinkled blouse. Besides, it is possible to learn about laundry in H.S. The class is no longer called “Home Ec” but it’s the same idea.
So, where are they old enough for the responsibility? When do children stop being dumb animals and start being people intelligent enough to make decisions?
Wow, that one quote alone is enough for anybody to push education for children. I know I would feel more comfortable if more people knew if a gun was loaded and if the safety was on.
Because children are always told not to touch guns, and they still do it, ignorantly.
Makes perfect sense to me
Obviously there are some guns in this country somewhere, or this would not be an issue. It’s logical to assume that somebody will encounter a firearm in their life. And when it happens, they should be prepared. It doesn’t matter where one lives, since guns are not outlawed. Therefore, there’s going to be at least one gun in every town/city in the country.
So you find education and basic safety rules disturbing?
So much for fighting ignorance.
I forgot to mention the ‘disposable guns’ Mr. Zambezi challenged me on. Again, I do not follow guns so I may have bought into some more UL on guns.
I meant my disposable gun a little more narrowly than Mr. Zambezi implied. From his standpoint anyhthing is disposable from diapers to aircraft carriers. In general I thought a gun could last several generations in working order if properly maintained. The guns I was thinking of are a bit shorter lived.
From what I understood some guns were made that were incredibly cheaply built. They could either unload one clip (say 8 bullets) in rapid succession or had 2 barrels and could pop-off one bullet from each barrel. After that the gun would be thrown away. The cheap construction meant the heat and pressure from firing the weapon destroyed the barrel of the gun (or warped it so as to be useless for further firings).
Obviously they aren’t very good weapons and are meant for close in work only (i.e point blank). They had a few points to recommend them. 1) They were (are) insanely inexpensive compared to a ‘regular’ gun. 2) Because the barrel warped police could not perform ballistics tests on the weapon since it couldn’t be fired again making prosecution more difficult. 3) Since they were made largely from plastic they could more easily slip through metal detectors (depending on the sensitivity setting of the detector).
I may be talking out my backside here but I’m not making it up (even if someone else did and I bought into it). I’m not that clever unfortunately.
You’re getting just a bit nasty. But to answer the question, I think I should be the one to judge when my hypothetical children are mature enough to handle adult responsibilities. I would certainly be better qualified to make that decision about my own imaginary children than you are.
Children are not always told not to touch guns. I do not recall ever being told not to touch guns by my parents. There must be many parents who never think to mention the issue to their kids, and many more who do nothing more than just mention it. There will of course always be children who will disobey their parents. This also applies to children who have received instruction in the handling of weapons. Teaching a child how to handle a gun does not mean that the child will be obedient.
The only encounter I ever had with a firearm was when my father tried to shoot me. That was when I was two years old. I couldn’t sleep one night and wandered into the living room to get one of my toys. I knocked something over and woke my parents. My father thought there was an intruder in the house and got his gun, thinking he was going to use it to protect his family from a dangerous assailant. My father was a serviceman and was trained in the use of firearms and followed all the usual gun safety procedures. None of that would have kept him from shooting me. All the gun safety training in the world, on his part or mine, could not have stopped him from shooting me. Luckily my mother could. She had better night vision and perhaps sharper wits and realized what was going on before my father could pull the trigger. My father died a few years later and my mother got rid of his guns. I have not been faced with one since.
I don’t expect this little anecdote to convince anyone else to give up their precious guns, but it is (understandably I think) quite convincing to me. I believe that the very idea of gun safety is a fallacy and that the only way to really be safe is to never touch a gun at all. I do not attempt to force the entire country to comply with my beliefs, but I have the right to live my life and raise my children with respect to them.
I’m getting a little tired of your straw man tactics. I said “It is the idea that this training should be forced upon young children against their parents’ wishes that I find disturbing.” Why do you think you or anyone else has the right to put a gun into my child’s hands against my will? A woman I am aquainted with moved to the UK because the American gun culture made her fear for her children’s safety. Until very recently I thought this was rather extreme of her. That was before I became aware that there were people like you looking to require children to learn how to handle guns in elementary school. I would leave the country too before I let anyone force a gun into my child’s hands or let anyone put my child in a room with other children who are handling guns.
Why can’t you understand that gun safety rules is not tantamount to operating a weapon? Learning what the safety is is not the same as target practice. You don’t even need to touch a real gun to learn that, you can just look at pictures.
I’m sorry you had such a negative experience with weapons. However, adults owning a gun for self-defense, and making a mistake is different then a child who goes snooping through their parents room/closets/whatever and finds a gun. There’s even a larger difference when the child who finds the gun doesn’t know exactly what it does, and wants to find out. Also, the child might know what the gun is, and what it does due to movies/television, however a gun safety/education course might teach a child that tv and movies are NOT real life, and that guns should be treated with respect and not taken as playthings.
Why do you think I want to put guns in anybody’s hands? I will say * again * gun education and gun safety is not the same as placing a gun in a child’s hands. In sex ed, you don’t get to actually experience sex, or touch a real penis or vagina. Why would gun education be any different?
JEFF42: One, those “armor peircing bullets” you posted the link to, are indeed, armor piercing. However, they mean light steel armor. A high powered rifle round, like those listed, is not stopped by a “bullet-proof vest”. One original attempt to ban “cop killer” bullets, defined those as any round capable of penetrating a vest. Since that meant nearly every deer rifle in the country, it was pretty stupid & did not pass. ther never were any “cop killer” bullets. One company DID make bullets (only, not the entire round) that WERE specifically designed (in a pistol caliber) to penetrate body armor. These were sold to POLICE DEPTs only, on confirmable letterhead. Some idiot Politician made a big deal of this , and made up “cop killer” bullets, altho none had ever been used to kill a cop. Now, even cops can’t buy them. Great.
- There are NO such things as “disposable” guns. The closest thing to your idea was the single-shot “liberator” pistol, dropped to resistance groups during WWII. They are rare collector items now. There ARE some cheap “Saturday Nite Special” pistols, which are pretty bad. The NRA would like to get rid of those pieces of crap, too, but every SNS law proposed does not “separate the wheat from the chaff”, and bans good solid safe guns too.
The antigun lobby has been spreading some might good “big lies”. Goebbels would be proud (HE was in favor of banning civilian guns too, you know, as well as his boss.). 
I said in my very first post on the subject that I thought programs to teach children about guns were fine and dandy, it is the idea of mandatory gun handling lessons that I object to. You have said again and again that children should be taught to handle guns. I don’t see how you can teach someone to handle a gun without having them handle one. I think that to try to do so would lead to the worst possible scenario – children thinking that they know how to safely handle a gun when really they don’t. I have never claimed that children should not be taught anything about guns, and I have contradicted your previous attempts to make it look as though I had. I haven’t even said that other people shouldn’t be allowed to teach their own kids how to handle guns. The only thing I have raised an objection to is the idea that it would be a fine thing to require all children to learn how to handle a gun.
What they have in common is that they could both be prevented by simply not owning a gun. Other people are free to own all the guns they like, but I at least have the comfort of knowing that there is no chance that I will ever shoot my children or that a child will find a gun in my house.
Again, as I said in my first post in this thread I have no problem with gun education programs in general. I even supported the idea of mandatory gun education programs provided that they do not involve teaching children how to handle guns. I have never suggested that children should be brought up in total ignorance of anything involving guns, despite your best efforts to force those words into my mouth.
Because your description of what you would want taught in a gun education class made it sound different. You’re the one who wants mandatory gun handling lessons in public schools. Until this post you have not claimed that gun handling can be taught without actually handling a gun (something which I don’t believe anyway), although I think I have made it very clear that it is the forced handling of guns by children that upsets me.
Tracer
Tracer posted this two pages ago. I agreed with him then, and I still agree. This is exactly what needs to be taught in school You’ll notice that all of these points have to do with handling a gun. You’ll also notice that it would not be recquired to actually pick up a gun and using it to learn these rules.
I don’t see how a kid can learn about using birth control without actually USING it in class, but obviously, it can be done.
Good for you. But you must remember one thing. It’s * your house * Your children are going to, GASP!, leave your house one day, ie going to a friends house whose parents own guns. And the big bad world is going, GASP!, have guns in it.
What exactly was my description. I have said repeatedly, “Gun education is NOT target practice, or loading and cleaning skills.” Other then learning the rules I have already agreed with once, and quoted again, what description have I used?
Daniel:
Two points are worth making here.
-
There’s never been much of a movement among criminals, that I’ve ever heard of, toward wearing body armor. There’s obvious reasons why they just wouldn’t bother with it, if you think about it. So the police’s need for the bullets is pretty minimal - especially as they can always get their hands on rifles, if need arises.
-
The pro-gun side frequently brings up the black market as a reason why gun control can’t work. Seems to me that, if these bullets were manufactured, some of these bullets might be smuggled out and sold on the black market; the surest way to keep them from being used against the police is to keep them from being made in the first place.
Mr.Z:
I haven’t gone back through microfilms of newspapers from 1985-86, but my recollection is that the NRA fought the ban on cop-killer bullets, tooth and nail. They may have eventually drafted their version of the bill, to minimize the ground they would have to give up, or for one of any number of other reasons dictated by the politics of the moment. But their drafting of a version of the bill in no way indicates that they supported the legislation in principle before it was clear that it was going to be passed with or without them.
Care to place a side bet on the accuracy of my recollection?
I downloaded this thread last night so I could type out a reply when I had the time. Everything after that–and there seems to be quite a bit–will have to wait. Besides, this post is long enough as it is. My fault for not keeping up.
You’ll be thrilled to know, however, that I’ve figured out how to use the codes. (Hey, I’m sometimes lucky I can figure out how to turn computers on–this is a major accomplishment.
To business…
RTFirefly wrote:
I’ll agree to the extent that they are different, and even that tough punishment would be more effective against #2. I would disagree that such wouldn’t “touch” #3–I think it would make a significant difference. In the current climate, there is a lot of what I’ll call “what the hell, it’s not really my fault” attitude, which makes it that much easier to let yourself go and shoot/stab/bludgeon somebody who sets you off. I think if tougher penalties were enforced, it’d make even #3s hesitate more.
I would agree that laws and punishments of any sort would not affect the true crazies–which might be yet another catagory–but I would also consider them the rarest of the lot.
This sounds fine, except it obviously isn’t being done. You seem to be saying better to leave the kiddies ignorant that have NRA and its existing program come in–this strikes me as reminiscient of no sex education in schools unless there’s a minister to tell the kiddies they’ll go to hell if they don’t wait for marriage.
Unfortunately, as I’m sure you know, it’s only part “bushwa”–perhaps it’s not part of your agenda, but it’s certainly part of some peoples’. Michael Dukakis’, for instance–when Governor of Massachusetts, he made a statement to the effect that he wanted to eliminate civilian ownership of firearms completely. One of the people Dukakis told this to was Roy Innis, head of the Congress Of Racial Equality–I suppose the Governor thought Innis, a black man, would be sympathetic. Innis was not sympathetic–he was a member of the NRA (nowadays he’s on the NRA Board of Directors), and it blew up in Dukakis’ face when he ran for president in 1988. But consider the fact–a man who had stated that he wanted to disarm everyone completely was governor of a state and a major-party presidential nominee. Do you think that’s likely to make gun owners more or less likely to suspect that “they’re coming to take away our guns[?]”
As for propaganda, yes, NRA puts out propaganda. Why, would you like you and Handgun Control, Inc. to have the propaganda field all to yourselves?
I’m delighted to see your support for this, even if the statement is a red herring to draw attention away from the fact that you want to pile more laws on top of the ones that either don’t get enforced or don’t work.
I suppose this is a debate for another thread, but together with your other comments it shows me that you are doing precisely what I talked about earlier–grasping for reasons to not punish offenders, and then claiming it’s all the guns’ fault. This is what the term “ass-backwards” was coined for.
I see…the State of California decides to mandate registration of semi-automatic rifles, then decides to make them “retroactively illegal,” as you put it (which is my understanding of the matter, though I’ll confess I haven’t looked into it in any depth)…and it’s the NRA’s fault for not cooperating in the first place. Man, I’d hate to be a rape victim with you on the jury.
Then why were some of the Marching Moms hyped about gun accidents? And, yes, I’m sure you’d like to drag suicides with guns into the debate. But that too is just a scare tactic, an attempt to come up with a larger number with which to frighten the uninformed. Suicides–be they from gunshots, falls, or holding their breath until they turn blue–are irrelevant.
I also note that your hoped-for formulation includes gunshot deaths inflicted by the police, and by others in self defense–another fun way of piling on a few more numbers.
And you virtually never hear about fatal motor vehicle crashes other than locally, though such crashes kill more people than gunshots (even including the suicides), unless the victim was a celebrity of some sort. Which makes me wonder why the Marching Moms weren’t hyped about that.
A similar event with similar numbers against violence in general would have been ignored by the media–is that what you’re suggesting?
Violence using guns is but a part of the overall violence problem, yet you and your friends act like it only counts if somebody gets shot. I go back to the 15-year-old dispatched with a clotesline and rock that I mentioned in my first post to this thread–you manage to cheapen her death and imply her family’s pain is less worthy. I heartily disagree.
Sorry, but I calls 'em as I sees 'em. The undeniable affect of attemps to ban cheaper guns, as well as attempts to force prices to rise on other guns, is to make it difficult or impossible for the less afluent to afford them–and that means it disproportionately affects minorities. I used to live in Michigan, and as I recall this was Detroit Mayor Coleman Young’s take on the whole thing too.
Gee whiz, you’re willing to let me exercise part of my constitution rights–I’m just so grateful. And, of course, you have taken it upon yourselves to decide what is “suitable” for my defense. Thanks, but I think I’ll reserve that priviledge to myself.
Uh huh, that relieves me a lot. Perhaps you remember the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, which was HCI’s partner for a good many years–they changed their name (I don’t remember what to) when they decided they were being a little too open about their aims. I’m afraid it would take more than a lack of an official manifesto position to convince me of HCI’s good faith. (I don’t imagine that Christian groups who try to get the Ten Commandments posted in schools come out and say that they are trying to force their religion down the gagging throats of children, either. Does that mean you believe they aren’t trying to do just that?)
Ok, number one, I don’t for a minute believe the Moms–or at least their backers–have any interest in “affirm[ing] the legitimacy” of owning guns of any sort. Sorry, but I haven’t seen the slightest good faith demonstrated by your side of the table–just rhetoric and demonization. (See, for example, slythe’s slam at Klaatu in this very thread.)
Number two, you are apparently all hot to ignore the Constitution–you recall that document, right? The Second Amendment covers the “offensive” weapons you wish to ban–you folks seem to want to play “let’s pretend” regarding the Second, but don’t look for me to cooperate. Remember what the Founding Fathers had just been doing a few short years before all this was written–overthrowing a government, in effect–and remember what actually provoked the shooting phase of the Revolutionary War. The military governor of Massachusetts tried to seize colonial arms stored at Concord…which is to say the war began because of an attempt at “gun control.” The Second Amendment was intended to prevent the disarming of the state militias–which were essentially composed of all able-bodied free white males (nowadays, minus the white male stuff, we’d call them the “citizens”)–as a check to the potentially dangerous central government; it had nothing to do with either hunting (which was a given at the time) or self-defense (except possibly from Indians in some areas). Offensive firepower? Damn right they wanted to protect offensive firepower–that was the whole point.
You have every right to campaign to modify or repeal the Second Amendment–I’ll oppose you, but I’ll defend to the death your right to do so. (I’m a First Amendment absolutist, too.) But if you can’t do that–and I think you can’t–you do not have the right to violate it on the grounds that you think it’s a good idea. I’m afraid I’m not willing to exercise my freedoms at your sufference, whether you think you mean well or not. I assume that makes me a “gun nut” in your eyes. So be it.
(To Klaatu):
Ok, happy to refresh your memory. RTFirefly said:
Unless you use the word “ban” in some way I’m not familiar with, I have to assume you’re advocating the taking of “offensive firepower” away from people.
Incidentally, why do you say Klaatu is “verging on trolling” while making no such complaint to slythe?
I’ll ignore that you want to impose such a requirement on a Constitutional right, which I find highly questionable. What, other than this, are your suggestions? What is your program on this subject? Having analysed the matter in ways which you find proper, what do you think should be done?
Jeff_42 wrote:
No, I suggested your embrace of the 10:1 ratio mentioned by another poster was based on nothing at all, which was true. Then I said your citation of ratios from the Civil War and the Vietnam War had no relevance to civilian ratios in 1995, which was also true. And…who the hell ever disputed that “more people are wounded than killed when shot with a gun[?]” Anybody who knows anything at all about guns knows that.
Nevertheless, I find I owe you an apology. I jumped all over you for citing useless military statistics, but I forgot that the original number cited was a military statistic. Military stats aren’t relevant, but you were just responding to one that was brought up in the first place, so I was out of line to make fun of you for doing so.
I’ll look over your stats and sources when I get the chance. Meanwhile…you appear to be saying it would be better if more people had been shot than fewer, meaning the ratio of wounded-to-killed was higher, so if you manage to get shot you’d be more likely to survive. That’s ridiculous.
The MMs were the ones who decided to make firearms accidents an issue, not I. Since they did so, I will feel free to point out that it is either stupid or hypocritical to do so in light of the figures. As for “slander,” I suggest you look up words you don’t know before you use them. If you want to call me a liar–which is what I assume you are attempting to convey–cut the beating around the bush and say it outright.
Yo, Jeff–do you remember who posted numbers in the first place? I posted them to force a little honesty in the debate–a little too much honesty for some, perhaps. (Who originally wanted to claim that 10:1 ratio as meaning something, and declare that there were in excess of 170,000 gunshot wounds per year? Was that you, Jeff?) Have I been trying to “low-ball/minimize” the numbers? No. I’ve been interpreting them after I made the effort to bring them in in the first place so that you could do the same. Sorry if my conclusions differing from yours causes you angst–your goals are clear enough from the last part of your sentence: “I thought I’d bump them back the other way.” [MysterEcks emphasis.]
Incidentally, according to both Associated Press and CBS News, the Marching Mothers have had an effect they probably didn’t want–NRA membership has risen over the last several weeks to the highest level ever, and their fundraising is going great guns (heh). The MMs may be the best thing to happen to the NRA since Michael Dukakis. This is known as “the Law of Unintended Consequences.”
momo wrote:
I agree with your conclusion, but I’d point out that the Flat-Earthers don’t have lobbies dedicated to legislatively forcing me to pretend I agree with them.
Oh, you will find there are plenty of Brits and Aussies who are appalled at what’s happened over there, but you are correct–the numbers are smaller, and the political impact is less than in the US. The main point, however, is that we have a Constitution that guarantees us certain rights, one of which is the right to bear arms. The United Kingdom (and Australia and Canada, as far as I know) have no such guarantees.
You make a lot of sense, momo–I don’t agree with you on everything, but I think you make a lot of sense. Since you describe yourself as “anti-gun,” this worries me.
You bring up an important point here, one which neither side usually wants to deal with. The fact is that freedom is expensive, much more expensive than repression–in time, in money, and, yes, in lives. Less freedom = less cost, but once some freedoms start going away others inevitably follow down the same slippery slope. The sad fact is that true safety and security is only available in a dictatorial police state–one of the main reasons such states come into being is to “restore order.”
Some people believe that just some freedoms can be removed while leaving the rest intact, but I don’t believe it–there’s always a “next step” which will gain support, and which is that much easier to swallow once the first step is taken. The Second Amendment is by no means the only part of the Bill of rights that is under attack–they all are, to a greater or lesser extent. Yes, a case can be made that the Second Amendment should be ignored for the greater good–I won’t buy it, but the case can be made. The thing is, you can make that same case with respect to the Fourth Amendment (it would in fact make us safer if the police could search any person, dwelling, or automobile that made them suspicious in any way), the Fifth Amendment (again, it would make us safer if we could dispense with due process), the Sixth Amendment (giving the prosecution a few years to gather evidence, and getting rid of those inconvenient defense lawyers, would keep offenders off the street), and the Eighth Amendment (suspects would not be able to escape the clutches of the law if they could not be bailed, and surely it would discourage wrongdoers if the convicted were burned at the stake). And the First Amendment–you can make the case that anything that gives criminals ideas shouldn’t be allowed. These proposals may sound outrageous to us–at least I surely hope so–but you can indeed make a case for them. And, in one form or another, I’ve heard all of them floated as serious remedies to “what’s wrong with this country.” It is always possible to sand away at the wood of freedom to remove to perceived bad parts…but eventually all that sanding may leave nothing but sawdust.
Larry Niven, the science fiction writer, once put it thusly: the product of freedom times security is a constant. You cannot increase one without decreasing the other…and I believe decreasing freedom in any way starts an inevitable, irreversible process. I do not apply this standard only to those freedoms I wish to exercise personally–far from it. I am a male, and thus cannot get pregnant, but I oppose attempts to dictate what women may or may not do with their own bodies. I am hetrosexual, but I oppose the discrimination against and repression of gay people. I am pro-gun, but as I said to RTFirefly, I would defend to the death the right of those who disagree to take attemp to take my freedoms away–my concept of freedom requires that of me.
Despite what some will no doubt say, my position on guns does not mean I don’t care about the victims of gunshots–or any victim of anything, for that matter. And, like most people, the killing or hurting of a child affects me more than that of an adult–I don’t know whether that’s rational, but it seems to be usual. If it were within my power to arrange, no one would ever hurt another person. But neither I nor anyone else has that power, and giving up our freedoms is too high a price to pay for dangerous experiments. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, those who are willing to trade their freedom for temporary safety deserve neither freedom nor safety. And in the end, they or their children will find they have none of the above.
I don’t see how someone could learn how to keep the safety engaged, open the action, or swing out the cylinder without actually picking up a gun. Before I try to use an unfamiliar power tool I always have someone who knows what they are doing demonstrate how to operate it and then watch me while I try so they can correct me if I’m about to do something wrong. Perhaps there are people who could learn to properly handle a power tool or a gun by simply looking at a diagram, but I don’t believe that most people could. I know I couldn’t.
You never had to put condoms on appropriately shaped produce in sex ed class? I did. They can be a bit tricky, and many people use condoms incorrectly. Apparently the district decided that some supervised practice would cut back on problems caused by improperly worn condoms.
I could always, GASP! pick up the, GASP! telephone and call the, GASP! parents of my, GASP! children’s friends and, GASP! ask if they, GASP! have a, GASP! gun in the, GASP! house. I would consider it part of being a responsible parent. It is true that I would not be able to do much beyond that to keep my children away from guns. But I can’t control the rest of the world. I know that it’s possible that someday someone might decide to shoot me. That’s out of my hands. All I can do is control myself, and know that no one will ever be shot by me and that I will do my best to bring my children up the same way. If everyone did the same then none of us would have to worry about guns at all. Teaching everyone how to use a gun will not end gun-related deaths. Most such deaths are caused by people who know full well how to use a gun. The only way to end gun-related deaths is for everyone to decide that they don’t want to use a gun at all. That may be a fantasy, but I’m doing my part to make it a reality.
MysterEcks
Eh?
The 10:1 ratio was someone elses speculation. I freely provided numbers that reduced the “10:1” ratio to 5:1 and YOU (MysterEcks) questioned the validity of those numbers (5:1) saying jungle wars and musket wars (or something to that effect) are meaningless when trying to speculate on this particular issue.
You’re all over the place on this one. Make up your mind on which way you’d like to attack.
You also want to attack my reasons for ‘bumping’ the numbers the other way which is fine. Let’s call me a rabid anti-gun lobbiest if you like. Now how about responding to those numbers?
MysterEcks
The MM’s may have made accidents a part of their march but it was one piece of the whole. You chose to pick one aspect of their issue as an illustration of the foolishness of their march. That’s disingenuous. You can’t characterize the whole march in the light of one aspect. That’d be like charaecterizing Martin Luther King marching solely for the right to a few drinking fountains in the south.
As for ‘slander’ does the word ‘libel’ make you feel better? Sorry for the wrong word in this case…I think most people will still take my meaning. I wasn’t trying to call you a liar…merely questioning some of your assumptions/facts. If you want to fight over semantics we can start another thread. I think it was clear what I was saying even if I had a poor choice of words. I promise to call you a liar if I feel you are one.
What?
That stat indicates that either for every 10 people shot 1 person dies OR for every 2.5 people shot 1 person dies. Where’s the confusion in this? If I have to be shot I’ll take a 10% chance of dying (10:1) over a 40% chance of dying (2.5:1) any day.