Gun Control Debate #6

[Tawny]

Nobody is denying us our right to defend ourselves. We simply don't need high capacity rapid fire weapons to do so and if we DO, please never handle a firearm again.

 

[Lulu_la_Nantaise]

Nobody is denying us our right to defend ourselves. We simply don't need high capacity rapid fire weapons to do so and if we DO, please never handle a firearm again.

Such weapons might be useful to fight off a hord of zombies though. That about the only legitimate use I can think of, but still.

(a rottenness of zombies? a brain-eating of zombies? never mind)

 

[grammieto5]

So I'm just curious, these clear back packs, is this something new? Or have they been around for awhile?

 

[Blef]

So I'm just curious, these clear back packs, is this something new? Or have they been around for awhile?

These backpacks are new for the students in Florida. Clear backpacks must have been around for a while, but I can't imagine many teenagers wanting to go out and buy them on their own choice.

 

[TeaTime]

Tawny - a gun can only discharge as fast as the person pulls the trigger, so rapid fire is up to the shooter. Again, it isn't a 2d amendment issue, it is a human issue. Agree? Of course.

By "high capacity" I assume you mean magazines that hold multiple rounds. Consider, if you will, that in reality it takes one second for a trained person to change magazines. So, a shooter with one 30 round magazine will take 2 second less than a shooter with 3 ten round mags to shoot 30 rounds. Those 2 seconds are unlikely to change the outcome of any mass shooting. So, to limit all magazines to 10 rounds will make no difference whatsoever in the real world of psychopath mass shooters, they will just train longer. Therefore, limiting magazine capacity is a regulation without an effect.

I am not trying to be argumentative, but if there is a solution to mass shootings, it has to be based in reality and the gun ownership regulations must actually make a difference in the thing desired to be prevented.

There are 50, 75 and 100 round drum mags, but they are so heavy when loaded that they are too cumbersome to carry and difficult to find for sale. Belt-fed weapons, like machine guns for combat, are illegal to own as a private citizen. Thus far, we haven't seen anyone using drum magazines in mass shootings but I bet that if the FBI so desired it could find the name and address of every person who has purchased one since the invention of the internet. But, they aren't illegal so no one is looking.

Many hunting rifles use larger caliber rounds than does an AR-15. So, the size of the caliber is not a helpful factor either.

And, if we start telling people what they can have based upon what we think they NEED, then luxury cars and big houses are on the table too. No one NEEDS an automobile at all, but absolutely no one needs a luxury car. No one NEEDS a massive house either.

I hope you see the slippery slope here and how your argument fails to withstand reason.

Further, and finally, per your statement that we don't need "high capacity rapid fire weapons" to defend ourselves, but if we do, you suggest we 'never handle a firearm again' is confusing. If we need them don't you want people who know how to handle them to use them? No?

 

[Blef]

I was going to read through these threads, but realized I would likely want to answer each post and that would be just foolish. However, I would like to add my two cents.

1) We already have a ban on automatic weapons for private citizens, save a few extreme cases. A semi-automatic weapon is a whole different kind of handgun or rifle and still requires a trigger pull for each bullet fired. So, please stop using the term "automatic weapons" in your discussions, it just proves that you do not know what you are talking about.

2) There is no such thing as an assault weapon. Any object can be used in an assault, but the AR-15 rifle that everyone is screaming about is nothing more than a rifle with a plastic stock rather than a wooden one. AR means Armalite - a plastic - which makes the rifle lighter to carry. So, when you scream about the AR-15, you are showing that you know nothing about rifles and your demands are just that we stop having plastic stocks which seems rather ridiculous. And, yes, they are used for sport and hunting, like all rifles.

3) The number of people killed by AR-15s is staggeringly low, about 175 per year. In fact, most people that are killed with guns are victims of handguns used by criminals. That being the case, the overwhelming majority of gun deaths each year are suicides - 60%. Next in line are gang related shootings which combined with suicides represents 88% of all gun deaths. Next comes accidental shootings and last but, but not least, murders. Roughly 3,000 murders by handguns each year, the vast majority of which are illegally obtained and owned. Again a staggering low number considering the 325 million people in this country and the estimated 200 million guns out there. The fact is that more people die as a result of being beat to death with an object or strangled by a loved one than are murdered with handguns. More people die of medical negligence. Should we ban hospitals and medical staff? Of course not.

4) Guns, like all inanimate objects, do nothing on their own. A gun is no more dangerous than a tulip. The person behind the gun, with their finger on the trigger is the danger. This is a fact that you can not dispute. You can treat madness, but you cannot legislate it out of society.

5) The NRA does not make political contributions to any party or candidate. Your are mistaking PACs with the NRA. If you research the contributions made by the PACs, you will see that they are minuscule; in the $2K range to a candidate. This is hardly enough to sway opinion or votes.

6) In every case of mass shootings, without exception, the shooter was mentally ill and there were red flags that were missed. Mental illness causes mass shootings, not guns. Perhaps you've read about the uptick in murders in England where handguns are banned. The criminals use knives which you can buy without a background check or an ID. You have several of these assault weapons in your kitchen.

7) We have laws that criminalize the mis-use of guns. It is illegal to: steal a gun, be a felon in possession of a gun, shoot a gun in a populated area or use a gun to commit any crime, etc., etc. Criminals do not obey laws, neither do the mentally ill. The 200 million law abiding gun owners obey the law and that is why we are all still here to discuss it.

8) You will never legislate the murder out of men's hearts. God Himself told us not to kill and it hasn't stopped anyone from committing murder. I suggest there is no higher authority for believers, but even a self-inflicted set of moral standards for non-believers doesn't stop them from murdering either. Hitler used gas, McVeigh used fertilizer, 911 was jumbo jets, Jones used spiked Kool-Aid, the Khmer Rouge used starvation.

9) Without the 2d amendment, you can forget all other rights. ALL. Criminals like their victims unarmed and governments without armed populaces can easily turn against the citizens and atrocities occur. Look no further than any dictatorship and see the millions of lives exterminated by oppressive regimes. Our forefathers knew well how oppressive governance turns out and wrote into our BOR the right to fight against it. Any argument that they intended the amendment to mean 'muskets' is silly. They intended the citizens to have a formidable defense against an oppressive regime.

10) Don't be so quick to throw away your rights. Once gone, they will never return. You have the inherent right of self-defense. If you have never been in a situation where a gun would have saved you or a loved on from harm, I am happy for you. But, if you or a loved one have been the victim of a violent crime which could have been prevented if you were armed, I bet you wish you had that gun at the time.

11) This latest shooting has generated a lot of emotion, but blaming the NRA, guns, gun manufacturers or law abiding gun owners is disingenuous. It would be like blaming all drivers who drink socially, AAA and car manufacturers for drunk driving deaths. And, that would be kinda ridiculous, wouldn't it?

12) These kids from the school did not organize this 'march'. It was orchestrated by organizations that stir tumult for the sake of stirring tumult. To believe otherwise stretches credulity to the breaking point.

13) The Parkland shooter could have been stopped. There were warnings, reports, red flags every where. This isn't a gun issue, it is a ''slip through the cracks" issue at the highest level, all the way to the FBI.

14) It is estimated that guns in the hands of private citizens prevent roughly 2 million violent encounters every year. Remember, the sociopath criminals WILL get the guns. You will be defenseless against them. You may want to take that chance, it is your choice, but those of us who choose to be prepared to defend ourselves and others do not want to risk it. It is our right.

I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6. You may choose the opposite, I can not force you to carry a firearm. But, you can't deny me my right to defend myself. You can't choose for me. You don't have that right.

Finally, if this really was about saving lives and the sanctity of human life, the marches would be about drug addictions and abortions. In the US alone , 50,000 die each year from illegal drug use and 1.2 million die each year by being shredded in uerto. It isn't about life, it's about control and the stealthy, incremental dissolution of Constitutional rights.

BEWARE. You know not what you surrender. Don't be a sheep.

The Constitution doesn't need to be re-written, it needs to be re-read. A lot.

So many issues that I could address here, most of which have all been addressed already. However I respectfully disagree with a lot of what you have said.

You say don't be a sheep, well don't fall for the gun lobby propaganda either.

 

[TeaTime]

Clear backpacks have been around for a very long time. They have been used in public schools here before. Maybe the answer is 'no backpacks'.

 

[Blef]

Tawny - a gun can only discharge as fast as the person pulls the trigger, so rapid fire is up to the shooter. Again, it isn't a 2d amendment issue, it is a human issue. Agree? Of course.

By "high capacity" I assume you mean magazines that hold multiple rounds. Consider, if you will, that in reality it takes one second for a trained person to change magazines. So, a shooter with one 30 round magazine will take 2 second less than a shooter with 3 ten round mags to shoot 30 rounds. Those 2 seconds are unlikely to change the outcome of any mass shooting. So, to limit all magazines to 10 rounds will make no difference whatsoever in the real world of psychopath mass shooters, they will just train longer. Therefore, limiting magazine capacity is a regulation without an effect.

I am not trying to be argumentative, but if there is a solution to mass shootings, it has to be based in reality and the gun ownership regulations must actually make a difference in the thing desired to be prevented.

There are 50, 75 and 100 round drum mags, but they are so heavy when loaded that they are too cumbersome to carry and difficult to find for sale. Belt-fed weapons, like machine guns for combat, are illegal to own as a private citizen. Thus far, we haven't seen anyone using drum magazines in mass shootings but I bet that if the FBI so desired it could find the name and address of every person who has purchased one since the invention of the internet. But, they aren't illegal so no one is looking.

Many hunting rifles use larger caliber rounds than does an AR-15. So, the size of the caliber is not a helpful factor either.

And, if we start telling people what they can have based upon what we think they NEED, then luxury cars and big houses are on the table too. No one NEEDS an automobile at all, but absolutely no one needs a luxury car. No one NEEDS a massive house either.

I hope you see the slippery slope here and how your argument fails to withstand reason.

Further, and finally, per your statement that we don't need "high capacity rapid fire weapons" to defend ourselves, but if we do, you suggest we 'never handle a firearm again' is confusing. If we need them don't you want people who know how to handle them to use them? No?

The answer to stopping mass shootings, or any other shooting, is to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. Guns are not harmless. They are designed and built to maim and kill, no other purpose. NONE!

 

[TeaTime]

So many issues that I could address here, most of which have all been addressed already. However I respectfully disagree with a lot of what you have said.

You say don't be a sheep, well don't fall for the gun lobby propaganda either.

There is no gun lobby propaganda, just facts. There is no 'gun lobby' but there are 2d amendment lobbyists; people having to remind Congress that we have a Constitutional Republic and and Constitution to protect us.

<modsnip>

 

[Woodland]

Whaaaaaaa ... ??? Not sure what he could possibly be thinking when he said it, but I'm glad he apologized. (Apologies if this was already posted upthread and I missed it.)


Actor Frank Stallone, Sylvester's brother, apologizes for calling David Hogg a 'rich little b---h'

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/b...d-shooting-frank-stallone-20180402-story.html



bbm

I see the same paranoia that Meghan McCain talked about - off the cuff remarks, no thinking beforehand. Indoctrination. Jmo.

 

[TeaTime]

The answer to stopping mass shootings, or any other shooting, is to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. Guns are not harmless. They are designed and built to maim and kill, no other purpose. NONE!

And how do we determine who should and who should not have them? Any ideas? Surely, the same people who distrust government wouldn't want only the government to have them. Right?

Gun are as harmless as flowers. Guns do not act, people act. A killer will kill with hands, rocks, knives, screwdrivers, hammers, ropes, stockings, belt, extension cords, bath tubs.

Cigarettes kill more people everyday than guns, but we don't see a ban on the sale of cigarettes. Again, it is 'life' at issue, it is control.

 

[Woodland]

I was going to read through these threads, but realized I would likely want to answer each post and that would be just foolish. However, I would like to add my two cents.

1) We already have a ban on automatic weapons for private citizens, save a few extreme cases. A semi-automatic weapon is a whole different kind of handgun or rifle and still requires a trigger pull for each bullet fired. So, please stop using the term "automatic weapons" in your discussions, it just proves that you do not know what you are talking about.

2) There is no such thing as an assault weapon. Any object can be used in an assault, but the AR-15 rifle that everyone is screaming about is nothing more than a rifle with a plastic stock rather than a wooden one. AR means Armalite - a plastic - which makes the rifle lighter to carry. So, when you scream about the AR-15, you are showing that you know nothing about rifles and your demands are just that we stop having plastic stocks which seems rather ridiculous. And, yes, they are used for sport and hunting, like all rifles.

3) The number of people killed by AR-15s is staggeringly low, about 175 per year. In fact, most people that are killed with guns are victims of handguns used by criminals. That being the case, the overwhelming majority of gun deaths each year are suicides - 60%. Next in line are gang related shootings which combined with suicides represents 88% of all gun deaths. Next comes accidental shootings and last but, but not least, murders. Roughly 3,000 murders by handguns each year, the vast majority of which are illegally obtained and owned. Again a staggering low number considering the 325 million people in this country and the estimated 200 million guns out there. The fact is that more people die as a result of being beat to death with an object or strangled by a loved one than are murdered with handguns. More people die of medical negligence. Should we ban hospitals and medical staff? Of course not.

4) Guns, like all inanimate objects, do nothing on their own. A gun is no more dangerous than a tulip. The person behind the gun, with their finger on the trigger is the danger. This is a fact that you can not dispute. You can treat madness, but you cannot legislate it out of society.

5) The NRA does not make political contributions to any party or candidate. Your are mistaking PACs with the NRA. If you research the contributions made by the PACs, you will see that they are minuscule; in the $2K range to a candidate. This is hardly enough to sway opinion or votes.

6) In every case of mass shootings, without exception, the shooter was mentally ill and there were red flags that were missed. Mental illness causes mass shootings, not guns. Perhaps you've read about the uptick in murders in England where handguns are banned. The criminals use knives which you can buy without a background check or an ID. You have several of these assault weapons in your kitchen.

7) We have laws that criminalize the mis-use of guns. It is illegal to: steal a gun, be a felon in possession of a gun, shoot a gun in a populated area or use a gun to commit any crime, etc., etc. Criminals do not obey laws, neither do the mentally ill. The 200 million law abiding gun owners obey the law and that is why we are all still here to discuss it.

8) You will never legislate the murder out of men's hearts. God Himself told us not to kill and it hasn't stopped anyone from committing murder. I suggest there is no higher authority for believers, but even a self-inflicted set of moral standards for non-believers doesn't stop them from murdering either. Hitler used gas, McVeigh used fertilizer, 911 was jumbo jets, Jones used spiked Kool-Aid, the Khmer Rouge used starvation.

9) Without the 2d amendment, you can forget all other rights. ALL. Criminals like their victims unarmed and governments without armed populaces can easily turn against the citizens and atrocities occur. Look no further than any dictatorship and see the millions of lives exterminated by oppressive regimes. Our forefathers knew well how oppressive governance turns out and wrote into our BOR the right to fight against it. Any argument that they intended the amendment to mean 'muskets' is silly. They intended the citizens to have a formidable defense against an oppressive regime.

10) Don't be so quick to throw away your rights. Once gone, they will never return. You have the inherent right of self-defense. If you have never been in a situation where a gun would have saved you or a loved on from harm, I am happy for you. But, if you or a loved one have been the victim of a violent crime which could have been prevented if you were armed, I bet you wish you had that gun at the time.

11) This latest shooting has generated a lot of emotion, but blaming the NRA, guns, gun manufacturers or law abiding gun owners is disingenuous. It would be like blaming all drivers who drink socially, AAA and car manufacturers for drunk driving deaths. And, that would be kinda ridiculous, wouldn't it?

12) These kids from the school did not organize this 'march'. It was orchestrated by organizations that stir tumult for the sake of stirring tumult. To believe otherwise stretches credulity to the breaking point.

13) The Parkland shooter could have been stopped. There were warnings, reports, red flags every where. This isn't a gun issue, it is a ''slip through the cracks" issue at the highest level, all the way to the FBI.

14) It is estimated that guns in the hands of private citizens prevent roughly 2 million violent encounters every year. Remember, the sociopath criminals WILL get the guns. You will be defenseless against them. You may want to take that chance, it is your choice, but those of us who choose to be prepared to defend ourselves and others do not want to risk it. It is our right.

I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6. You may choose the opposite, I can not force you to carry a firearm. But, you can't deny me my right to defend myself. You can't choose for me. You don't have that right.

Finally, if this really was about saving lives and the sanctity of human life, the marches would be about drug addictions and abortions. In the US alone , 50,000 die each year from illegal drug use and 1.2 million die each year by being shredded in uerto. It isn't about life, it's about control and the stealthy, incremental dissolution of Constitutional rights.

BEWARE. You know not what you surrender. Don't be a sheep.

The Constitution doesn't need to be re-written, it needs to be re-read. A lot.

Once again no empathy for people, but much caring for gun possession with a personal twist on what everyone else should see and think. Hardly seems worth the time to reply imo.

 

[Blef]

And how do we determine who should and who should not have them? Any ideas? Surely, the same people who distrust government wouldn't want only the government to have them. Right?

Gun are as harmless as flowers. Guns do not act, people act. A killer will kill with hands, rocks, knives, screwdrivers, hammers, ropes, stockings, belt, extension cords, bath tubs.

Cigarettes kill more people everyday than guns, but we don't see a ban on the sale of cigarettes. Again, it is 'life' at issue, it is control.

If you had read the threads you would see that MANY sensible suggestions have been made, which don't include gun prohibition.

The "guns don't kill..." argument is nothing but NRA rhetoric. I haven't seen anyone commit a mass shooting with a tulip.

 

[TeaTime]

Once again no empathy for people, but much caring for gun possession with a personal twist on what everyone else should see and think. Hardly seems worth the time to reply imo.

Facts don't require empathy. Facts just are.

 

[bluesneakers]

Tawny - a gun can only discharge as fast as the person pulls the trigger, so rapid fire is up to the shooter.

FYI: Tawny and I are both veterans and understand very well how rapid fire and automatic weapons work.

 

[Sillybilly]

Off-topic posts have been removed. Stick to gun control folks.

Also, stop the back and forth arguing in this thread or timeouts will be issued.

Thanks.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

2) There is no such thing as an assault weapon. Any object can be used in an assault, but the AR-15 rifle that everyone is screaming about is nothing more than a rifle with a plastic stock rather than a wooden one. AR means Armalite - a plastic - which makes the rifle lighter to carry. So, when you scream about the AR-15, you are showing that you know nothing about rifles and your demands are just that we stop having plastic stocks which seems rather ridiculous. And, yes, they are used for sport and hunting, like all rifles.

rsff

Depends on the definition. We’re not getting into semantics again. This thread is full of appropriate uses, and assault weapon is one of them.

ie: THE FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Implying people are ignorant because someone doesn’t agree with the semantics — especially when there are multiple correct uses — is just a diversionary tool to throw discussions off topic.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite_AR-15

“The ArmaLite AR-15 was a select-fire, air-cooled, gas-operated, magazine-fed assault rifle manufactured in the United States between 1959 and 1964. Designed by American gun manufacturer ArmaLite in 1956, it was based on its AR-10 rifle. The ArmaLite AR-15 was designed to be a lightweight assault rifle and to fire a new high-velocity, lightweight, small-caliber cartridge to allow the infantrymen to carry more ammunition.[4]”

... assault rifle, you say? For infantrymen? It’s light so they can carry more ammunition?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm ...

[emoji108] OKAY

 

[Tricia]

I am on the road and haven't had a chance to look at this thread until now.
WOW.
Closing it down until I get my desktop set up and I can figure out what is going on.
Tricia