[QUOTE=kung fu lola]
Listen, dood, I’m not an American['quote]
No shit.
If it wasn’t so difficult to emigrate to another country, I might not be here either.
And yet your posts indicate otherwise.
There’s where you’re wrong. There are plenty of other purposes that do not involve shooting at any living thing.
I didn’t say you were. (And for the record, I’m one of the most non-violent people I know; and if you’ve read some of my other posts, I’m pretty darned liberal on most other things.) I merely pointed out that the people is used in several places in the Amendments. (I haven’t checked the Constitution, but I’ll be the people are mentioned in it there as well.) There is no justification in the Amendments for re-defining the people (especially without specifically stating the definition) for one Amendment and not the others.
Handguns are easier to smuggle into schools in backpacks. (I’ve had two handguns removed from students in my classroom.) They are easier to take into banks and corner markets in a pocket. They are easier to use in parking lot robberies. They are handier for those with suicidal impulses. Handguns aren’t terribly useful in hunting.
Banning both the gun and the ammunition might actually make a dent in criminal use of handguns.
catsix, the person who told me the statistic about handguns being more likely to kill someone who lived in the household than an intruder is a former state Director of Mental Health who also works with the prison system. I guess he’s not an ultimate authority, but he’s very knowledgeable.
In my own experience, I’ve known five people personally who have used their own handguns to take their lives, but none who have killed an intruder. (I realize that is anecdotal.)
This is exactly the kind of stupid, mindless, Ted Nugent, bar shouting bullshit that I’m talking about. All that’s missing now is the hysterical pronouncements about what’s going to happen to anyone who tries to take your guns away.
And don’t forget to include GWB on your list of those who “hate guns.”
This happens to be my opinion too, but I still recognise it as an opinion. It is not a matter of settled law. Now as soon as the Supreme Court rules that our interpretation is accurate (something it has never done) then you will be justified in your self-righteous snittery. Until then, all you’re doing is confusing your personal opinion with legal fact and accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being against the 2nd Amendment.
This debate is still hampered by the fact that we don’t have a definitive ruling on what the 2nd amendment actually means. We can have our opinions all we want but that is not the same as citing legal fact.
It’s obviously convenient for the anti-gun side to pretend that the scenario that occurs in the vast majority of cases (criminal enters house, criminal sees armed occupant of house, criminal decides to go off in search of clean underwear) doesn’t count. Sorry, but it still does count.
It’s very rare that household weapons are actually used to fend off home invaders. There is, in fact, no “vast majority” of cases where a criminal gets scared off by Joe Gunowner. It’s an infrequent and rather flukey occurrence if a burglar is confronted by a gun-wielding occupant of a household. It’s even more rare that strangers invade households with any intent to do bodily harm. It’s obviously convenient for the gun fetishists to pretend that the streets are crawling with murderous home-invaders in order to try paint themselves as being in more danger, (and more in need of grenades and M-16’s) than they really are.
Statistically, a household gun is far more likely to used either accidentally or on purpose against an occupant of the home (and mostly we’re talking about accidents but spousal assaults are not uncommon either) than they are to even be pointed at a criminal.
So what you’re saying is that a privately owned handgun is going to be ’ used either accidentally or on purpose against an occupant of the home’ more than two million times a year?
In Virginia it’s already illegal to take a gun into a school. They also are not allowed in banks and, unless you have a CCP, you can’t take one to the corner market in your pocket either.
Obviously the people who take guns to these places have no interest in following the law. Therefore, I’m not convinced that passing more laws will be of any benefit.
I’m saying that a gun in a household is far more likely to be used accidentally or deliberately against an occupant of that household than against an intruder.
Feel free to provide a cite that 2 million home intruders a year are fended off by household guns.
Not that we might need a way to protect ourselves from the government, but the government just has way better weapons at its disposal. Full-auto firearms like the M-60, grenades, mortars, and other cool toys. Hell, if it comes down to it, they could pull out lovelies like the A-10, the Spectre gunship, and various tanks. While I’ve never seen it play out, I know where my money would go on a fight between an Abrams tank and a guy with a shotgun.
I don’t really care. I really don’t. I know why I own guns, the anti-gun folks would like to tell me that I have no need for them.
Those that have no need for them, and know nothing about them would like to tell me that I don’t need them.
The anti-gun folks seem to think that we have issues about our manhood. Or that we live in fear. Umm. Isn’t that a bit third grade? Do you have an issue about the size of my dick?
I’m looking at you DTC.
I’m surprised that someone that has been with the SDMB for long would be such an asshole.
You have convinced me that the anti-gun folks don’t know anything about guns and gun owners.
I live in an area where having a shotgun, rifle, pistol is common place.
It’s not a fetish. It’s yesterdays news. It’s common. It’s like driving a car. I don’t think there is one house in this valley that does not have a deer rifle or shotgun. It’s the way it is.
There only purpose of a firearm is to fire a projectile, at a velocity that happens to deadly. Even when the owner uses a firearm for recreation, there is still the very real possibility that someone could get hurt, even killed.
It’s a complex issue. It’s sad to see both sides demonizing and questioning the patriotism and intelligence of the other.
Both sides fear criminals using firearms against them. One side advocates using firearms to disuade those criminals. That doesn’t work very well. The other side advocates curtailing or banning ownership. That doesn’t work very well, either.
I think Chris Rock was right. Guns should be legal. But bullets should cost 5 thousand dollars.
At the very least, that would stop the morons from shooting their guns in the air on New Year’s Eve.
I didn’t say anyone who owns a gun is creepy or fetishistic, I said much of the “gun culture” was. I recognize that phrase is inexact and vague but it’s for lack of anything better that sums up the people I mean. Maybe “gun nuts” would do it or perhaps “gun enthusiasts.”
I am talking about people who are inordinately fixated on the gun issue, who are enthusiastic about them to the point of fetishism, who are excessively and irrationally fearful about how restrictive gun laws can ever be credibly expected to become (if you sincerely believe, for instance. that an all out ban on all guns is a genuine possibility, your fears are excessive), who frequently become angry or hostile about the issue with little or no provocation and – in some cases – who seem to spend a lot of time daydreaming about scenarios in which they might get to shoot somebody.
If you do not fit the above description then I am not talking about you. But if you don’t really know the the of obsessive personality and subculture that I’m talking about then I guess I can’t convey it to you. I suppose it’s a matter of perspective. I think some gun advocates don’t appreciate the impression that they give other people.
Incidentally, while I personally do not own any firearms, I have been around them and used them and occasionally still do. In particular, I have a brother-in-law in rural North Dakota who enjoys taking me out for target practice on the farm with both rifles and handguns. I think shooting guns is fun. I’m not against it at all. It’s only some of the people who freak me out, not the 2nd Amendment itself.
My household doesn’t contain alcoholics or drug abusers, there’s no history of domestic violence, no history of mental illness, and none of us are involved in any sort of criminal enterprise. I don’t doubt that a whole lot of people are more likely to use a firearm against a family member or someone they know rather then the odd intruder. Does that apply to all of us?
Marc