Political ThreadsThis section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:
The kook is the biggest factor, you are correct. But please, tell me what's factually incorrect with the following sentence?
The more lethal the weapon, the more kids the kook can kill before the good guys get there.
How is that wrong?[/QUOTE]
Think suicide bomber . Your right this kook chose an assault style rifle but your premise that less kids would have died if he didn't illegally access this weapon is hypothetical Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The kook is the biggest factor, you are correct. But please, tell me what's factually incorrect with the following sentence?
The more lethal the weapon, the more kids the kook can kill before the good guys get there.
How is that wrong?
your premise that less kids would have died if he didn't illegally access this weapon is hypothetical Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/QUOTE]
So why did those cops storm the school with rifles instead of handguns?
Yes, I am hypothesizing. The fact that those cops entered the school with rifles instead of handguns, would seem to support my hypothesis. The cops did not know what they were facing. Yet just about every one of them chose a rifle instead of a pistol? Why?
If a rifle provides no tactical advantage over a handgun, why did they all have rifles?
Then please enlighten me. If the weapon plays no role in the outcome, why did all those cops (who have standard issue handguns) run into that school with rifles? How come when I was with the USMC, I never once told my gyus to leave their rifles back at base and just bring handguns?
The kook is the biggest factor, you are correct. But please, tell me what's factually incorrect with the following sentence?
The more lethal the weapon, the more kids the kook can kill before the good guys get there.
How is that wrong?
Since 9-11 and the LA bank heist most police departments have issued patrol rifles or carbines with homeland security money so that the cops are never outgunned again. That said if you were in your house and an armed intruder broke in, with say a shotgun, you would be more comfortable going up against him with a pistol? I know I would want a semi automatic carbine made for CQB, the best chance for myself and my family to survive. This is why they went into the school with "rifles" up against a "kook" armed with pistols.
So your arguing that in fact citizens need these weapons for defense against those that illegally aquire them ?
That's the NRA position also .
I'm saying without the rifle there is no telling how many might have died with the semi automatic hand guns he had also. Maybe more ? Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
So your arguing that in fact citizens need these weapons for defense against those that illegally aquire them ?
That's the NRA position also .
I'm saying without the rifle there is no telling how many might have died with the semi automatic hand guns he had also. Maybe more ? Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
"So your arguing that in fact citizens need these weapons for defense against those that illegally aquire them ?
That's the NRA position also "
Right. That's also your position, at least that's what you posted before. I concede that in extremely rare situations, citizens might need these weapons for protection. We agree on that. I don't agree that it's common for citizens to need such a weapon, but I wouldn't say 'never' either.
Somehow, we disagree on the downside ogf these weapons, that in random mass murder killing sprees, these weapons will increase the body count compared to handguns. You seem to disagree that these weapons pose any greater danger than handguns, when in the hands of a would-be mass-murderer.
I asked this 3 times, and you seem to be dodging. Just in case you didn't see the question, I'll ask it yet again. If these rifles offer no tactical advantage over handguns, why did all the cops that stormed the school, who had no idea what they were facing, have rifles instead of their standard-issue handguns?
Please try to anser that question. My hypothesis, and I am certain that I'm correct, is that the cops chose rifles because they know that in most situations, it's easier for them to kill bad guys with rifles instead of handguns. And if that's true, it also holds true for bad guys.
I asked this 3 times, and you seem to be dodging. Just in case you didn't see the question, I'll ask it yet again. If these rifles offer no tactical advantage over handguns, [B
why did all the cops that stormed the school, who had no idea what they were facing, have rifles instead of their standard-issue handguns?[/B]
Please try to anser that question. My hypothesis, and I am certain that I'm correct, is that the cops chose rifles because they know that in most situations, it's easier for them to kill bad guys with rifles instead of handguns. And if that's true, it also holds true for bad guys.
The cops don't like to be out gunned either Jim. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The cops don't like to be out gunned either Jim. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Hold on! You have repeatedly denied that rifles are going to result in more deaths than handguns. Therefore, you are denying a tactical advantage to using rifles. In that case, why would the cops be "out-gunned" with pistols?
Hold on! You have repeatedly denied that rifles are going to result in more deaths than handguns. Therefore, you are denying a tactical advantage to using rifles. In that case, why would the cops be "out-gunned" with pistols?
You can't have it both ways. Which is it?
You absolutely can in instances where one party is armed and the other is not, such as Newtown.
BTW the media falsely reported that he used the bushmaster, it was found in the trunk of the car, he used 4 handguns to kill 20 something people, now what do you say about that?
He killed all of them with handguns, and the medical examiner either has no idea what he is talking about, or has a bull#^&#^&#^&#^& political agenda
Hold on! You have repeatedly denied that rifles are going to result in more deaths than handguns. Therefore, you are denying a tactical advantage to using rifles. In that case, why would the cops be "out-gunned" with pistols?
You can't have it both ways. Which is it?
I'm sure this is been answered already Jim and you know the answer.
Rifles are a better weapon at longer ranges
Hand guns are a close proximity weapon
Cops entering a building to engage a man with a weapon don't intend to shoot him from close proximity . Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
"So your arguing that in fact citizens need these weapons for defense against those that illegally aquire them ?
That's the NRA position also "
Right. That's also your position, at least that's what you posted before. I concede that in extremely rare situations, citizens might need these weapons for protection. We agree on that. I don't agree that it's common for citizens to need such a weapon, but I wouldn't say 'never' either.
So then, for extremely rare situations, citizens should be able to get a permit for these weapons? How does one prepare for extremely rare situations? How does one even know what those situations might be? Or when they will occur? If a white store owner in L.A. during the Rodney King riots would have been justified to own these weapons, would he also have been justified before the riots? Wouldn't it have been too late to wait for the riots to happen? Would the black store owners also have been justified to own them? How about the truck driver that was hauled out of his truck and nearly beaten to death? Would he have been justified in owning one? How about all the other residents in L.A.? Would they have been justified to own them? Would they only be justified in the actual event of a riot? wouldn't it be too late to wait for a riot to happen before applying for a permit?
Somehow, we disagree on the downside ogf these weapons, that in random mass murder killing sprees, these weapons will increase the body count compared to handguns. You seem to disagree that these weapons pose any greater danger than handguns, when in the hands of a would-be mass-murderer.
My hypothesis, and I am certain that I'm correct, is that the cops chose rifles because they know that in most situations, it's easier for them to kill bad guys with rifles instead of handguns. And if that's true, it also holds true for bad guys.
I don't think buckman or anybody else disagrees that high capacity weapons can increase the body count compared to lower capacity handguns. There might be a disagreement that they pose a greater danger. All guns pose the danger of being used to kill. Greater numbers of killed does not increase the danger, it, as you say, increases the body count. I doubt that the parents of children killed by a handgun think to themselves that, "phew, it's a good thing the guy didn't have a high capacity weapon or he might have killed some other kids. Hey Jim, congrats, you're kid was not shot. I feel good for you." On the other hand, parents of kids who weren't shot might well be grateful. But the danger that they could have been the ones killed was there, by hand gun or rifle.
Your hypothesis is that cops chose rifles because they know that in most situations, [not just extremely rare ones] it's easier to kill bad guys with rifles instead of handguns. And that if that's true, it also holds true for bad guys. But then, as I believe buckman implied, that it would also hold true for civilians defending themselves against bad guys. Why would we allow police to defend with rifles but not allow civilians to do so? Aren't civilians killed in far greater numbers than police?
It would seem that if the number of kids killed in rare instances is enough to ban high capacity weapons, that there is an even greater need to ban hand guns which are used to kill, on an almost daily basis, many more people, including children.
You keep wanting to have a "serious conversation" on the subject, as if such conversations have not occurred. If the conversation is simply about the number killed, the acceptable number would have to be less than one. Which guns would be allowed under that number?
Last edited by detbuch; 01-03-2013 at 05:42 PM..
Reason: typos
I don't think buckman or anybody else disagrees that high capacity weapons can increase the body count compared to lower capacity handguns. There might be a disagreement that they pose a greater danger. All guns pose the danger of being used to kill. Greater numbers of killed does not increase the danger, it, as you say, increases the body count. I doubt that the parents of children killed by a handgun think to themselves that, "phew, it's a good thing the guy didn't have a high capacity weapon or he might have killed some other kids. Hey Jim, congrats, you're kid was not shot. I feel good for you." On the other hand, parents of kids who weren't shot might well be grateful. But the danger that they could have been the ones killed was there, by hand gun or rifle.
Your hypothesis is that cops chose rifles because they know that in most situations, [not just extremely rare ones] it's easier to kill bad guys with rifles instead of handguns. And that if that's true, it also holds true for bad guys. But then, as I believe buckman implied, that it would also hold true for civilians defending themselves against bad guys. Why would we allow police to defend with rifles but not allow civilians to do so? Aren't civilians killed in far greater numbers than police?
It would seem that if the number of kids killed in rare instances is enough to ban high capacity weapons, that there is an even greater need to ban hand guns which are used to kill, on an almost daily basis, many more people, including children.
You keep wanting to have a "serious conversation" on the subject, as if such conversations have not occurred. If the conversation is simply about the number killed, the acceptable number would have to be less than one. Which guns would be allowed under that number?
"I don't think buckman or anybody else disagrees that high capacity weapons can increase the body count compared to lower capacity handguns"
ThenI can only assume you aren't reading his responses.
"If the conversation is simply about the number killed, the acceptable number would have to be less than one. "
Wrong. You need to read what I'm actually saying. It isn't only about reducing deaths. It's about reducing deaths in accordance with our constitution. That's a big difference. I'm not saying that any ban that reduces deaths is good. I'm saying that if it's not trampling the constitution, let's talk about it.
Automatic machine guns are banned. That ban has been deemed constitutional. What's so crazy about extending that ban to, say, high capacity magazines?
"Greater numbers of killed does not increase the danger, it, as you say, increases the body count."
If it increases the potential body count, it certainly increases the danger to society as a whole. I'm shocked you'd miss that.
"I doubt that the parents of children killed by a handgun think to themselves that, "phew, it's a good thing the guy didn't have a high capacity weapon or he might have killed some other kids"
Why, then, are families of victims so often leading the charge to ban military-style weapons? If what you say is correct (that they don't care about any other kids), and their kid is already dead, why should they give a rat's azz. Wow. You're saying that parents who lost their kids, have zero vested interest in making sure it doesn't happen to someone else's kid. That's one of the stranger things I have seen you post. I could not disagree more.
I survived a war. Using your logic, I have no reason to be concerned about what happens when other teenagers are sent into compat? I have no reasons to call for rules to help future soldiers? That's what you think?
"If the conversation is simply about the number killed, the acceptable number would have to be less than one. "
Wrong. You need to read what I'm actually saying. It isn't only about reducing deaths. It's about reducing deaths in accordance with our constitution. That's a big difference. I'm not saying that any ban that reduces deaths is good. I'm saying that if it's not trampling the constitution, let's talk about it.
Sure, let's talk about it. But first, we have to establish which Constitution you're talking about. The original one, or the "living, breathing one" that has replaced it. I don't particularly like the new one, so I don't refer to it when I refer to the Constitution. If you prefer the "living breathing" one, then you are absolutely correct. The Federal Government, according to the "living" Constitution can, in reality, do whatever it wants. And all your logic about reducing deaths according to that Constitution can pretty much remove all "arms" from the people.
Automatic machine guns are banned. That ban has been deemed constitutional. What's so crazy about extending that ban to, say, high capacity magazines?
According to the "living breathing" Constitution, there is no problem extending the ban to all magazines and the guns that use them. The modern, progressive, jurists and politicians just don't see a "need" for any part of the second amendment since they don't see themselves or the government as a threat to the people. The British are no longer a threat, history has arrived at a time of universal understanding of human rights and social justice. Government need not be impeded from doing everything to efficiently administer society's needs including its safety. So there is no real "need" for civil ownership of guns.
"Greater numbers of killed does not increase the danger, it, as you say, increases the body count."
If it increases the potential body count, it certainly increases the danger to society as a whole. I'm shocked you'd miss that.
I didn't miss the danger inherent in guns. The danger I speak of is qualitative. The quality of one death is not diminished by that of a hundred. It holds all the personal tragedy in one soul that is contained in the collective tragedy of a hundred. The danger you speak of is quantitative. The greater the number the greater the danger. For you, apparently, numbers are more important. If so, than you seem to miss that the vast number of gun related deaths are commited with the type of gun you deem less dangerous.
"I doubt that the parents of children killed by a handgun think to themselves that, "phew, it's a good thing the guy didn't have a high capacity weapon or he might have killed some other kids"
Why, then, are families of victims so often leading the charge to ban military-style weapons? If what you say is correct (that they don't care about any other kids), and their kid is already dead, why should they give a rat's azz. Wow. You're saying that parents who lost their kids, have zero vested interest in making sure it doesn't happen to someone else's kid. That's one of the stranger things I have seen you post. I could not disagree more.
Then you disagree with your version of what I said. You do have that habit of exaggeration. But I understand where you're coming from so I don't fault you on that. I didn't say they don't care about other kids. I was referring to your version of "danger" and the personal danger perceived by those involved in mass shootings. It's not that they don't care about other kids, it's that the overwhelming fear is first for their own. The personal, single grief, if their child was lost, and the single relief if they survived. Sure, there is room for concern for others, but, unless I'm weirder than I thought, that doesn't equal, for most people, concern for their own. Do you think that parents are less concerned with the danger of a kook with a handgun roaming the halls of their children's schools than they are with a kook with a high capacity weapon. Do you think they feel safer with him carrying one type of gun than another?
I survived a war. Using your logic, I have no reason to be concerned about what happens when other teenagers are sent into compat? I have no reasons to call for rules to help future soldiers? That's what you think?
Seems unbelievably self-centered to me.
No, you don't use my logic or the Constitution that I prefer. And, I can understand how soldiers view body counts as being crucial to winning, and by winning, how lives can be "saved." And I don't mean to say even a single death is emotionally acceptable on the battlefield.
Automatic machine guns are banned. That ban has been deemed constitutional.
Actually they are not banned. Congress knew in 1934 that it had zero power to ban any arms, especially those that were of the type that constituted the ordinary military equipment.
The widely interpreted power to tax afforded a wider range of powers to restrict possession of full auto machine guns, sawed-off shotguns etc by requiring a Treasury tax stamp to be affixed to the weapon to prove a transfer tax had been paid. Hundreds of thousands of Title II arms are in private hands that run the gamut from little 9mm sub-machine guns to 20mm Vulcan MiniGuns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
What's so crazy about extending that ban to, say, high capacity magazines?
I've read legal arguments on both sides; I haven't read a compelling one that argues for banning.
Emotional arguments are everywhere one turns but are rarely of any value when discussing important issues especially issues of legally enforced public policy. That goes triple when the policy being advocated demands either the ignoring or purposeful violation of fundamental, constitutionally enforced rights.
You can’t truly call yourself “peaceful” unless you are capable of great violence.
If you are incapable of violence, you are not peaceful, you are just harmless.
It would seem that if the number of kids killed in rare instances is enough to ban high capacity weapons, that there is an even greater need to ban hand guns which are used to kill, on an almost daily basis, many more people, including children.
And finally somebody hits the nail on the head. The violence that has resulted from societal issues combined with the proliferation of hand guns is by far the much more serious problem. Some argue it's a racial issue that's ignored because the majority of victims and perps are black.
Incidents of mass shootings tend to involve mental health issues combined with assault weapons if not hand guns. I don't see how anyone can refute Jim's point that an assault weapon as defined under the 1994 law isn't more deadly. They don't just "look scary" their characteristics were designed with a specific purpose. Perhaps it's the line drawn in the sand that's the issue. Is it arbitrary? Does that really make a difference?
Jim made a number of good points in the post above. The most important being, why can't there be a rational discussion on the subject that doesn't fall back on an absolute belief that's fuzzy at best?
I'm certainly not for banning all guns and have no problem with responsible hand gun owners, but the stats on gun violence in our country put us alongside a list of unsavory nations. More guns isn't the answer, there's a huge difference between a concealed carry for personal protection (when justified) and vigilante justice.
As an aside, The Specialist's story about the three load limit for duck hunting was ironic as it was citing a federal law that restricts the use of firearms
And finally somebody hits the nail on the head. The violence that has resulted from societal issues combined with the proliferation of hand guns is by far the much more serious problem. Some argue it's a racial issue that's ignored because the majority of victims and perps are black.
Incidents of mass shootings tend to involve mental health issues combined with assault weapons if not hand guns. I don't see how anyone can refute Jim's point that an assault weapon as defined under the 1994 law isn't more deadly. They don't just "look scary" their characteristics were designed with a specific purpose. Perhaps it's the line drawn in the sand that's the issue. Is it arbitrary? Does that really make a difference?
Jim made a number of good points in the post above. The most important being, why can't there be a rational discussion on the subject that doesn't fall back on an absolute belief that's fuzzy at best?
I'm certainly not for banning all guns and have no problem with responsible hand gun owners, but the stats on gun violence in our country put us alongside a list of unsavory nations. More guns isn't the answer, there's a huge difference between a concealed carry for personal protection (when justified) and vigilante justice.
As an aside, The Specialist's story about the three load limit for duck hunting was ironic as it was citing a federal law that restricts the use of firearms
-spence
Ok schools is in:
Here in lies the problem, in the south, for the most part you can buy a gun, any handgun with a drivers license. So some people buy a bunch and remove the serial numbers, then they come up to NY, Boston, Hartford< Chicago and such under the guise of visiting relatives, only to hook up with their "Homies" and sell the guns illegally. I see it all of the time. This is what is called a straw buyer, now knowing this how would you fix it. An AWB will do nothing.
This is how I would handle it:
Force all states to require a permitting system for the purchase of all firearms.
Require background checks, and safety courses to all who apply
Require that all sales have an instant background check.
Require all private sales to be done at a gun shop, so that an FA 10 form and background check are done first.
Track all large purchaser of firearms, IE some buys 3-10 guns a month or a week and they are not a dealer, then maybe a spot inspection at their residence to rquire that they produce all of the firearms.
Any state that refuses loses all highway safety funding, and public roadway funding until it is implemented.
Now you will have eliminated a large chunk of illegal guns.
I'd agree, and perhaps even require ballistics with weapons registrations. You could also require reregistration after 3-5 years.
Unfortunately, none of this is permitted under the Constitution.
-spence
In Massachusetts every gun you own is on a list at the Department of public safety. Ballistic databases won't work because there are too many variables....
How does the Constitution stop states from such regulations?
I believe in reading his post he a) made a statement of why lax or inconsistent state laws are a big part of the hand gun problem in cities and b) how a Federal law could help remedy.
I believe in reading his post he a) made a statement of why lax or inconsistent state laws are a big part of the hand gun problem in cities and b) how a Federal law could help remedy.
-spence
The Constitution does not require the states to be lax, nor does it stop them from having similar regulations. The problem with Federal laws solving state problems is that it makes states irrelevant. It tends to destroy the whole concept of federalism and of a republic. It constantly encroaches on constitutionalism (all of the above which I assume is OK with you?). And the problem with Federally mandated uniformity as a one-size-fits-all solution is the destruction also of the states as laboratories of experiment. Some may come up with better solutions to a problem than others, and the rest may adapt the solution or even improve on it. When the Federal Government regulates, its solution has no competition and becomes far more frozen in time.
The Constitution does not require the states to be lax, nor does it stop them from having similar regulations. The problem with Federal laws solving state problems is that it makes states irrelevant. It tends to destroy the whole concept of federalism and of a republic. It constantly encroaches on constitutionalism (all of the above which I assume is OK with you?). And the problem with Federally mandated uniformity as a one-size-fits-all solution is the destruction also of the states as laboratories of experiment. Some may come up with better solutions to a problem than others, and the rest may adapt the solution or even improve on it. When the Federal Government regulates, its solution has no competition and becomes far more frozen in time.
If someone buys a large number of hand guns down south to then sell them illegally in a more lucrative market up north how is this an isolated "state" problem?
Not even sure it's a Second Amendment issue any more.
interesting thread so far and some good points made. Its intersting given that I live in gun heaven. I find myself going through the bass pro and cabelas adds drooling over all kinds of combat style rifles for the very reason Nebe highlights, they're cool and I would love to mess around with them. I've never owned a gun and dont trust having one in the house. I was in cabelas last week and they have a specialty room with high value weapons, they had this sick looking rifle, very modern looking. I asked and its a 50 cal. rifle, military use them for sniper rifles and the guy said each bullet is $7 a shot to fire! Crazy but very cool. I can understand both sides to this argument. I dont see how banning high capacity magazines would be an issue, i think thats a good thing.
For the newtown shootings I have repeatadly read that he had 2 pistols and an AR. In the car was a shotgun. The amount of rounds he fired (11 in one baby) would be a challenge with 2 pistols. I am pretty certain of this.
Why does someone need to have a Vulcan mini gun?? Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Well, it just shows the absurdity of the entire argument. Yes, you can get a full auto weapon with the proper permitting and background checks, but the process has made them so expensive, difficult to get and worse -- traceable -- they rarely if ever are actually used in crimes.
I'd think it's a safe wager that if I was a violent criminal I'd much rather have some serious firepower at my disposal. Why aren't they used more? Perhaps because they are so hard to get.
Well, it just shows the absurdity of the entire argument. Yes, you can get a full auto weapon with the proper permitting and background checks, but the process has made them so expensive, difficult to get and worse -- traceable -- they rarely if ever are actually used in crimes.
I'd think it's a safe wager that if I was a violent criminal I'd much rather have some serious firepower at my disposal. Why aren't they used more? Perhaps because they are so hard to get.
-spence
Isn't it much easier for criminals to get "serious firepower" than it is for law abiders?
And does "absurdity of the entire argument" include the reason for the Second Ammendment in that "entire" argument? Or does the "entire" argument only include the "why do they need" the stuff for hunting, sport, and personal protection argument?
Isn't it much easier for criminals to get "serious firepower" than it is for law abiders?
Not if the law abider decides commit a crime
Quote:
And does "absurdity of the entire argument" include the reason for the Second Ammendment in that "entire" argument? Or does the "entire" argument only include the "why do they need" the stuff for hunting, sport, and personal protection argument?
The point was that restricting access can indeed have a big impact on how those weapons are used, even without banning them.
The needs for sporting purposes are fairly narrow and can be met easily under current law. The needs for defense of liberty are quite broad and aren't likely to be met under current law...or are they?
Perhaps the defenders of freedom are already quite well armed.
Hybrid Mode
