Guns - production, shipping, and use - have a pretty negative impact on the biosphere.I'm not sure that it does. I think, using Carneiro's model of economic circumscription, it could be argued that guns promote specialization of labor - such specialization increases efficiency in manufacturing (which, of course, decreases pollution).
The core question would be whether or not guns promote specialization of labor - encouraging people to make better use of what they have rather than take from others.
Could you fully explain why you think Carneiro's model has any relevance with this? I'm not fully familiar with it and would like further information.
And the thought that increasing efficiency somehow decreases pollution is extremely flawed. After all the industrial revolution was wonderful for increasing efficiency -- it was horrible for the environment though.
|
- Gun manufacture requires metal and energy.
- Shipping - even more self-explanatory.
- Bullets and other ammo all need to be manufactured.
- Lead bullets, though not as common now, are still around and leaking previously sequestered lead into the environment.
- Hunting, on the whole, profoundly alters ecosystems to the detriment of diversity and stability. It is undeniable that hunting occurred before guns and that habitat loss is usually the greater contributor to a species' decline. However, guns were integral in the endangerment of passenger pigeons, several species of rhinoceros, and great auks. (Currently, whenever an animal is used in traditional remedies, it is very likely to be endangered.)
Also I should probably preemptively declare that I wasn't trolling in my post above. Those are the arguments I would use if I wanted to give a shit about gun control. Which I sometimes do.
|
•Lead bullets, though not as common now, are still around and leaking previously sequestered lead into the environment.
Lead bullets have gone no-where. While there are some lead-alloy and bullets made of other metals, they are not widely available or used (at least here in the US), the vast majority are simply jacketed lead (and by far the most common metal used for this jacket is copper). This jacket is usually shed when the bullet hits a hard target (and bone is usually hard enough)...
|
|
And I say don't. There's no reason to allow the manufacture of either machine guns or the civilian AR-15 (which you can uncivilian with a piece of "scrap metal" and a bench grinder)
One can do this illegally, but what one gets from such a sloppy "conversion" is a gun that will more than likely merely fire a short burst of 3 or so rounds and then jam up (forcing the shooter to then clear the jam and fire again which causes yet another jam). It also creates a firearm that is more likely to have what is called an "out of battery discharge" where the firing pin strikes the bullet before the bullet is fully into the chamber causing the firearm to blow up on you...
Yes, there are ways to properly (and legally) convert a semi-auto AR-15 to full-auto (or any other semi-auto firearm for that matter). But it must be done by someone that has the know-how to acquire or manufacture the parts and to be able to install them (this will land one in Club Fed if it is done illegally however)...
You have to realize that unless you're advocating that people be allowed to keep nukes that you're striking a balance between individual rights and public good. You, like I, agree that the government has a legitimate right to keep some things out of private manufacture, ownership, and use, as fun as it would be to build a cowboy town and film it being blown to smithereens in a nuclear explosion.
I don't see how someone who has the expendable $15,000-$25,000 to pay for a 27 year old retired military M-16 and who has generally been a law-abiding citizen, should be kept from legally doing so...
How is that bad for the general public? How is that going to violate the general public's safety? The vast majority of people doing this are not going to throw it all away and use that firearm to shoot up the local mall...
They are also likely to take greater precautions in safeguarding a firearm such as this from theft...
You can't advocate an absolute right for people to defend themselves against the government if you deny them some weaponry.
In 2008 the US Supreme Court (DC v Heller) held that the right of an individual to bear a firearm is in no way connected to service in a militia AND that an individual has the right to use a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes...
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Note the placement of that second comma...
Apparently, it makes all the difference in the world...
What we have is on one hand, someone's right to have fun. What we have on the other hand is a real danger to people by allowing these weapons to be manufactured and sold here. Do you see why I might consider peoples lives more important than people's fun?
You claim certain guns are misused and should therefore be banned. Why? A lot of things are misused by people AND cause a great deal of death, harm, and destruction. Why not ban those items as well?
You can say it all you want, it won't make it true. You simply don't have the same rate of fire or number of rounds. Skilled person + bolt action > idiot with semi auto but idiot with semi auto> idiot with bolt action.
I will concur that having access to high capacity magazines makes it easier to fire more ammunition before needing to reload, BUT, most people that "go postal" don't use a rifle; they tend to use a handgun (even gang related shootings tend to be committed with handguns)...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
stuff
You didn't address ANY of BNW's points, so I'll be more blunt.
Do you believe that a law abiding citizens should have the right to his own personal nuclear arsenal, or other weapons of mass destruction?
You claim certain guns are misused and should therefore be banned. Why? A lot of things are misused by people AND cause a great deal of death, harm, and destruction. Why not ban those items as well?
Just dealing with this part since its the heart of the matter.
Certain guns are misused and should be banned because the cost of misuse greatly outweighs any benefits of proper usage. Cars are dangerous, but they provide an enormous benefit to a large number of people. Pistols and high capacity , high rate of fire weapons cause enormous problems but the only benefit to the rifles seems to be a leisure activity.
Car: high risk*, high benefit.
Semi automatic "hunting" rifles: High risk, near zero benefit.
Semi automatic pistols: Incredibly high risk, low benefit
You cannot manufacture the vast number of guns that we do in this country and then reasonably expect only the right people to end up with them.
Even cars are only dangerous because of the vast numbers used and they're used every hour of every day. In terms of serious accidents/hour/user they're pretty safe.
|
|
stuffYou didn't address ANY of BNW's points, so I'll be more blunt.
Do you believe that a law abiding citizens should have the right to his own personal nuclear arsenal, or other weapons of mass destruction?
I didn't address this as it is an absurd question. That being said, under the NFA (National Firearms Act), one can under the right circumstances own items declared "destructive devices" by the BATFE (and again, requiring the $200 Federal tax stamp). But these are far from the items you specified...
And the items you specified are a FAR cry from say an automatic firearm, sound suppressor, or short barrelled rifle or shotgun. or even a semi-auto military styled rifle for that matter...
Car: high risk*, high benefit.
Semi automatic "hunting" rifles: High risk, near zero benefit.
Semi automatic pistols: Incredibly high risk, low benefit
This assessment is a little off.
If you for personal reasons decide not to own a firearm, then of course to you they have "low benefit", if not 0 benefit.For those of us who have one in their home for defense, they have 0 benefit till they are needed. Then they have 100% benefit.
For those of us who have one in their home for defense, they have 0 benefit till they are needed. Then they have 100% benefit.
Unless your kids find the gun, or it doesn't work out like you imagine in the actual assault scenario.
That's not 100% benefit.
Kids finding it isn't "when needed", is it?
In the homes of those in my family that have children, they raise them to respect and know how to use them, so it's no big deal.
We all grew up shooting, and if I have children, I will do the same for them.
As far as the "assault scenario" goes, no plan survives contact with the enemy. Doesn't mean you don't plan.
Kids finding it isn't "when needed", is it?
In the homes of those in my family that have children, they raise them to respect and know how to use them, so it's no big deal.
We all grew up shooting, and if I have children, I will do the same for them.
As far as the "assault scenario" goes, no plan survives contact with the enemy. Doesn't mean you don't plan.
If folk respect the guns, they can get the license and all that. The main concern is for the many who don't respect the guns. I mean, accidents have already occurred in families who didn't keep the guns away from children who didn't know better. You have to respect the guns, man.
See, when the guns ain't respected, they get mad. And when they're mad, they start moving. Run. RUN!*Ahem*
I'll be heading back out now. Enjoy the debate, IBTL, tl;dr and all that. :)
|
|
Certain guns are misused and should be banned because the cost of misuse greatly outweighs any benefits of proper usage.
And so what, get rid of these and criminals and problematic people will all of a sudden go; "Ah shucks, now I can't go on a rampage because I only have access to this here 5-shot bolt action hunting rifle!"
Oh, I see... You're hoping that this will limit the amount of havoc that an individual can cause? There was gun violence before semi-automatic weapons were as widely available as they are today. And, the semi-autos that were typically available to the average Joe did not have the high capacity that they are capable of today...
And the havoc these people caused was just as devastating then as it is now because people adapt to what they have available to them...
but the only benefit to the rifles seems to be a leisure activity.
At one time in this country not all that long ago, a large portion of the population relied very heavily upon a firearm to provide for their needs. Are you suggesting that just as soon as something is no longer needed by a majority of the population and also happens to be dangerous that it be banned??
You cannot manufacture the vast number of guns that we do in this country and then reasonably expect only the right people to end up with them.
Four years ago, the estimated number of guns in the US was somewhere in the neighborhood of 276 million. At that same time, there were an estimated 250 million cars. It is impossible to get exact numbers for either of these things, but if these numbers are anywhere near accurate, then there are more guns in the US than there are cars. And since then, the numbers of both have skyrocketed...
Back when President Obama was elected, gun and ammunition sales went through the roof. During this time, you'd walk into a store that sold guns and/or ammunition and the shelves were virtually empty. I'm not saying this to make some political statement, but to say that the number of guns vs. cars is probably even greater than it was four years back...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
If you for personal reasons decide not to own a firearm, then of course to you they have "low benefit", if not 0 benefit.
For those of us who have one in their home for defense, they have 0 benefit till they are needed. Then they have 100% benefit.
If you cannot hit a burglar with the first six shots you are not going to hit them on the next 24 shots either. (30 shots was the highest capacity magazine i could find on cabelas)
Again, and i hate to paint with a broad brush but this is the ONLY response i ever see coming from the pro gun group. The options are not "No pointy siccors for you!" and "nukes for everyone!" The line has to be drawn somewhere and I see no reason for allowing some of these weapons to be legal.
I feel you are being disingenuous when you respond as if I'm proposing a blanket ban on weapons. By all means, own a gun, shoot the burglars. What I'm asking is why specifically you need 30 rounds in a semi automatic high powered rifle for "home defense" ?
Back when President Obama was elected, gun and ammunition sales went through the roof. During this time, you'd walk into a store that sold guns and/or ammunition and the shelves were virtually empty. I'm not saying this to make some political statement, but to say that the number of guns vs. cars is probably even greater than it was four years back...
Also to be clear:
During this time we had 2 wars going on, and people were demanding a huge supply of ammunition and weapons immediately, when manufacturing capacity hasn't gone up in... I think 4 decades now.
Gun and ammunition manufacturers realized this was a market fluke and instead of increasing supply simply cashed in while they could.
Please note the laws didn't change and the government has nothing to do with the sales decisions or production decisions of these manufacturers (other than through use of their products such as during the current 'wars').
President Obama himself stated when asked on the subject of new gun control laws that we didn't need new laws, we needed to enforce what was already on the books, see how that went and then decide from there what was needed.
|
|
During this time we had 2 wars going on, and people were demanding a huge supply of ammunition and weapons immediately, when manufacturing capacity hasn't gone up in... I think 4 decades now.
The demand for ammunition kicked up as a result of the increased sales of firearms...
The demand went up, because there was a scare (unfounded or not) that Obama would place tighter laws on guns...
And as for ammunition production, ATK, which owns Federal, Lake City, Remington, and some others have whole facilities that manufacture the ammunition for the military. They maintain separate facilities for the civilian market as well (some plants make both, but this is not the norm). And even though there were two wars going on, there was still a great quantity of production over-runs of military ammunition making it out to the civilian market...
And the havoc these people caused was just as devastating then as it is now because people adapt to what they have available to them...
So can you find a mass shooting in the age of blackpowder weaponry? Or even the six shooter?
At one time in this country not all that long ago, a large portion of the population relied very heavily upon a firearm to provide for their needs. Are you suggesting that just as soon as something is no longer needed by a majority of the population and also happens to be dangerous that it be banned??
No. I'm not making any blanket rules here. I'm saying that, like all laws, Its a subjective balance call between an individuals right to do what they want without a very good reason and the harm being done by these weapons constituting a very good reason.
Four years ago, the estimated number of guns in the US was somewhere in the neighborhood of 276 million.
And how often are they used? For how long? Many people spend an hour a day or longer in their cars, VERY few people spend that much time with all of their guns.
|
|
What I'm asking is why specifically you need 30 rounds in a semi automatic high powered rifle for "home defense" ?
Not to be obtuse, but this depends on what you mean when you say "high powered"...
The accepted definition among the gun community is that "high powered" means calibers such as 30-06, .300, .308 (7.62), etc...
Calibers such as .223 (5.56x45), 7.62x39 are not considered to be "high powered" (these are the rounds commonly used in the AR-15 and AK style firearms)...
Now, the AR-15 is a good choice for home defense. Why in the blazes would I say such a thing!? Don't I know that the AR-15 is an evil military assault weapon!? I say this because ALL calibers if they miss their target are a liability. BUT, ballistic tests have shown that the higher grained bullets in .223/5.56 (75 grains or more) have a much LOWER chance of "over-penetration" when the round hits its target...
The .223/5.56 has a high chance of just fragmenting when it hits a target. And when it doesn't just fragment, it has lost so much of its energy that that even if it does go through an outer wall, it is usually no longer lethal...
9mm and .45 ACP have a greater chance of over penetration, passing through their target, and keep going with most of their energy entact and remaining highly lethal...
This is one of the reasons Federal Law enforcement agencies have moved away from weapons such as the infamous MP5 (9 mm) to an M4 style weapon (.223/5.56x45); over-penetration...
Shotguns BTW, while a popular choice for home defence, also has over-penetration issues (even buck shot)...
If you cannot hit a burglar with the first six shots you are not going to hit them on the next 24 shots either. (30 shots was the highest capacity magazine i could find on cabelas)
Again, and i hate to paint with a broad brush but this is the ONLY response i ever see coming from the pro gun group. The options are not "No pointy siccors for you!" and "nukes for everyone!" The line has to be drawn somewhere and I see no reason for allowing some of these weapons to be legal.
I feel you are being disingenuous when you respond as if I'm proposing a blanket ban on weapons. By all means, own a gun, shoot the burglars. What I'm asking is why specifically you need 30 rounds in a semi automatic high powered rifle for "home defense" ?
Might be a misunderstanding on my part. When you use the term "firearms" I take that to mean all of them, pistols or not.
I wasn't trying to say you feel we should have blanket ban, I was commenting on the attitude that one person seeing no use for them invalidates another's right or want to have them.I personally would not use a rifle for home defense, they're too long to maneuver around corners with, if you're going after an intruder, imho. I know tha army trains folks to sweep and clear a room with m-16's, but I haven't recieved that training, so I'll stick with my pistol.
That having been said, I wouldn't mind owning an AR-15 or even an AK-47 or SKS. I wouldn't use them for home defense, but for sport/target shooting, or take it out to my uncles farm for "varmint" shooting.
Just becasue I don't have "need" for it, doesn't mean I should not own one, or can't own one, nor does an instance of a whack job shooting up a mall store invalidate my right or want to have one.
You do not remove rights from one person becasue another can not use thiers responsibly.
Now, the AR-15 is a good choice for home defense. Why in the blazes would I say such a thing!? Don't I know that the AR-15 is an evil military assault weapon!? I say this because ALL calibers if they miss their target are a liability. BUT, ballistic tests have shown that the higher grained bullets in .223/5.56 (75 grains or more) have a much LOWER chance of "over-penetration" when the round hits its target...
Look, if you haven't managed to hit them in the first 12 shots you are not the sort of person who should be allowed another 18.
What kind of burglar hangs around for a shoot out anyway?
While this is a this is a good argument in for gun ownership in general it is an absolutely ridiculous argument for assault weapons.(no, i'm not using the brady bills definition)
Just weighing in on being anti NFA.
Cos we all know how giving up liberties to make us safer has worked out...
|
|
So can you find a mass shooting in the age of blackpowder weaponry? Or even the six shooter?
Not by the levels of today’s standards, but when they happened, they were just as dramatic...
The answer with these style weapons was to carry more than one if you planned on any kind of sustained fire...
Its a subjective balance call between an individuals right to do what they want without a very good reason and the harm being done by these weapons constituting a very good reason.
This is the heart of the issue...
Who gets to decide what is and is not a good reason? You? Me? Thus far, the only amendment to have ever been revoked was the 18th amendment...
The first 10, which constitutes the Bill of Rights has never been touched...
Yes yes, I know you never said ban all guns. But when you talk about banning one thing, you open the door to banning anything like it...
Guns are dangerous pure and simple. Does not matter if it's full auto, semi auto, single shot, or what have you...
As a responsible law abiding citizen, I should not have to be limited in my choice of something because some wing-nut decides to misuse it...
And how often are they used? For how long? Many people spend an hour a day or longer in their cars, VERY few people spend that much time with all of their guns.
Okay, sure, no-where near level levels in which people use their cars. But, there are a lot, a lot of people that use the range several hours a day, most days of the week. No, these people aren't weirdoes. While you may find it odd to spend such vast amounts of time doing this, in a lot of ways these people are no different than you and I in how we enjoy our shared hobby. I'm sure these people find it odd that we would spend so much time and energy on a silly game...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
I wasn't trying to say you feel we should have blanket ban, I was commenting on the attitude that one person seeing no use for them invalidates another's right or want to have them.
You keep adressing one point of my argument or the other but you don't address the argument.
No use AND public danger= ban. Its not reducible to its component parts. You have to answer the argument as a whole. I'm not looking to ban tribble plushies (useless but harmless) or cars (harmful but useful)
You do not remove rights from one person because another can not use thiers responsibly.
Yes. Yes you do.
That pretty much is the only reason for removing rights from people (which just about any law does). That is the reason for 90+ % of laws. That is why i cannot drive with a .08% alchohol content, its why I can't own a tiger, its why you can't shoot an endangered species, its why i can't serve raw meat in a restaurant, its why i can't farm pigs in my back yard, and its why i can't have my own nuclear reactor.
For someone that doesn't like politicians or the federal government you're awfully big on enshrining our current laws with deific reverence. You do realize that all of our current laws were made by politicians just like the ones who change laws to be something else, and the ones that made the constitution in the first place? Its not like they were any less corrupt back then.
You're either arguing to law- which is something the government can change and you have no argument against changing the law, or you're arguing to natural rights: and i don't think a natural rights argument to own ak 47's is going to work.
|
|
Look, if you haven't managed to hit them in the first 12 shots you are not the sort of person who should be allowed another 18.
And just because you can slap a 30 round magazine into it, does not mean you have to...
10 round magazines are quite popular for AR-15's and the like (and in California, these are the only legal ones you can use under most circumstances)...
BTW just FYI - You said uptread that you could only find up to 30 round magazines for the AR-15. They are most commonly available in 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 90, and 100 round capacities...
The answer with these style weapons was to carry more than one if you planned on any kind of sustained fire...
I don't think you would get very far carrying 30 flint lock pistols.
Yes yes, I know you never said ban all guns. But when you talk about banning one thing, you open the door to banning anything like it...
You're acting like we don't already do that. Neither god nor the founding fathers drew the current balancing act what we do and don't allow civilians to carry.. the government ALREADY does this. You would be interfering with neither the constitution nor the bible to drop the maximum number of rounds allowed in a clip from 30 to 12 any more than when it was dropped from no limit down to 30.
Guns are dangerous pure and simple. Does not matter if it's full auto, semi auto, single shot, or what have you...
Where's that news paper they use when i get growly...
No. No no no. and no . No pure and simple, no black and white, no brown coats against the evil empire, no clever bumperstickers. Welcome to reality. Its COMPLICATED.
yes, a black powder pistol is dangerous. It is not AS dangerous as a belt fed machine gun. Dangerous/not dangerous is too simple a dichotomy to deal with the fact that not everything is equally dangerous. We need to draw the line somewhere. We HAVE drawn that line somewhere. Your insistence that we can't draw that line is patently absurd since IT HAPPENED. Your insistence that we can't move that line a little more towards safety is baseless.
While you're busy arguing those, i have yet to see a reason why we SHOULDN"T move it a bit more towards safety.
As a responsible law abiding citizen, I should not have to be limited in my choice of something because some wing-nut decides to misuse it...
That's pretty much how most laws get on the books. You live with other people, we write laws for other people too, not just you.
Okay, sure, no-where near level levels in which people use their cars. But, there are a lot, a lot of people that use the range several hours a day, most days of the week.
They are an incredibly small percentage of the population and as such do effectively do nothing to increase the national average of gun hours/ person.
BTW just FYI - You said uptread that you could only find up to 30 round magazines for the AR-15. They are most commonly available in 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40, 90, and 100 round capacities...
If you can't hit a burglar in 30 shots you really. really. really.. REAALLY shouldn't be taking another 70.
During this time we had 2 wars going on, and people were demanding a huge supply of ammunition and weapons immediately, when manufacturing capacity hasn't gone up in... I think 4 decades now.The demand for ammunition kicked up as a result of the increased sales of firearms...
The demand went up, because there was a scare (unfounded or not) that Obama would place tighter laws on guns...
And as for ammunition production, ATK, which owns Federal, Lake City, Remington, and some others have whole facilities that manufacture the ammunition for the military. They maintain separate facilities for the civilian market as well (some plants make both, but this is not the norm). And even though there were two wars going on, there was still a great quantity of production over-runs of military ammunition making it out to the civilian market...
Yeah we're saying pretty much the same stuff -- you are right most government arms are produced separately from civilian arms however I wouldn't doubt that they aren't completely separate either -- it doesn't take much of a strain to stress something that's not been changed in years (even if it's simply work force requirements of shifting people)... and we have had a large surplus of ammunition for small arms for quite a while now if I recall correctly.
I just wanted to be sure we cleared the 'conspiracy theory' stuff quickly and without undue time wasting on the subject.
Yes yes, I know you never said ban all guns. But when you talk about banning one thing, you open the door to banning anything like it...
This is a slippery slope argument. This is also known as a logical fallacy.
Politically, I tend to be pretty liberal.
Studies on suicide show that people are more likely to do it when they have a quick and convenient method. In 2005, on average, 46 people committed suicide with a firearm every day in the US.
Another study showed that in several major cities (Cleveland, Memphis, Seattle), 35% of homes owned a gun. 45% of the victims of all types of homicides owned a gun. 62% of firearm homicides victims owned a gun. Owning a gun increased the risk of being killed by a firearm represented a 2.7:1 more likely chance to be the victim of a firearm shooting (there were other more significant factors, like living with a convicted felon, 5.7:1).
The primary purpose of handguns are to shoot people. You don't hunt deer or fowl with them.
I am okay with long guns though (excluding fully automatics). People hunt, for food or sport, it's an acceptable part of our history and heritage. In my own state of Minnesota, it's even necessary to help maintain appropriate levels of the certain animal populations, like deer. Overpopulation can lead to the spread of disease from deer to farm animals, or spreading diseases from one region of farms to another. It can also lead to the extinction of their favorite plants to eat.
Long guns can be used to kill people, but the have a useful purpose outside of killing people which helps me see them as a tool.
|
|
I don't think you would get very far carrying 30 flint lock pistols.
Now you're just being silly...
But people were known to carry anywhere from 2 to 4 however...
You're acting like we don't already do that. Neither god nor the founding fathers drew the current balancing act what we do and don't allow civilians to carry.. the government ALREADY does this. You would be interfering with neither the constitution nor the bible to drop the maximum number of rounds allowed in a clip from 30 to 12 any more than when it was dropped from no limit down to 30.
Many gun laws in this nation are being overturned or seriously questioned (and reviewed) by law makers (and not just conservatives) because the wording of the 2nd Amendment ends with: "Shall not be infringed."
What these law makers are finding is that to limit such things as capacity or single shot vs. semi-auto is to do just that; infringe upon the 2nd Amendment...
Sure, incidents like Arizona happen and there is a huge buzz with lots of talk about ban this and ban that, but then things settle down for the most part and things continue on as normal...
It is not AS dangerous as a belt fed machine gun.
You keep bringing up full auto machine guns...
They just aren't used in crimes these days (even ones that have been legally or illegally converted), and it's been a while since they have...
A semi-auto AR-15 is NOT a machine gun, and statistics show that these so called "Assault Weapons" (again, semi-auto) are not used in the vast majority of crimes...
Handguns on the other hand are used, with semi-auto handguns being used far more than revolvers...
We need to draw the line somewhere. We HAVE drawn that line somewhere.
If you want to draw a line, why not draw the line at semi-auto handguns??
I don't agree, but at least this would be a more realistic view given the criteria you've stated thus far...
Your insistence that we can't move that line a little more towards safety is baseless.
But removing semi-autos will not make the public any more safe...
Yes, that will drop the instances were those few nut jobs that go crazy and shoot up where-ever from doing as much damage as their potential exists now, but when these same people learn that there are speed loaders for revolvers and stripper clips for most bolt action rifles, well...
We'll hear cries of "Now let's get rid of guns entirely because too many people are still getting hurt and killed and that is just unacceptable!"
That's pretty much how most laws get on the books. You live with other people, we write laws for other people too, not just you.
No, I'm not the only person in this society. And there are many laws in effect that I don't agree with, but I have to live with them...
But, safety laws like driving while intoxicated are not the same as limiting the availability of my choice of semi- vs. bolt action...
And these safety laws like driving under the influence sure are working aren't they?
No, I'm not advocating that we should get rid of this law...
What I am pointing out is that even if all semi-autos were banned, they would not go away (and it would be a LONG time if they ever would). And that would leave just the criminals and the police with them, and that is not a place I would want to live...
-That One Digitalef Fellow-
|
|
Another study showed that in several major cities (Cleveland, Memphis, Seattle), 35% of homes owned a gun. 45% of the victims of all types of homicides owned a gun.
While I don't think you're implying that handguns should be banned, this follows my logic that just because someone with issues misuses a certain kind of gun, does not mean a blanket ban on that type of gun should be enacted...
You don't hunt deer or fowl with them.
Actually, this is a fairly common practice. It requires a great deal of skill just as hunting with a bow or crossbow does, because you have to get closer to your prey than you do with a rifle...
Just thought I'd throw that out there...
Now, the AR-15 is a good choice for home defense. Why in the blazes would I say such a thing!? Don't I know that the AR-15 is an evil military assault weapon!? I say this because ALL calibers if they miss their target are a liability. BUT, ballistic tests have shown that the higher grained bullets in .223/5.56 (75 grains or more) have a much LOWER chance of "over-penetration" when the round hits its target...Look, if you haven't managed to hit them in the first 12 shots you are not the sort of person who should be allowed another 18.
I'm trying to stay out of this debate, but I have to challenge this. Do some research on police shootings. You will notice something: trained police officers generally miss more than they hit, even at close range. Why? Hitting a target in a shoot out is not easy, what with bullets flying everywhere and people trying not to get hit. Missing the first several shots in a real fight does not mean you shouldn't be allowed to have guns, because trained professionals do that all the time. All it means is that you're a human being.
Now you're just being silly...
And yet i still wind up saner than this crazy world of ours.
But people were known to carry anywhere from 2 to 4 however...
And if i wanted to ban 4 shooters or six shooters you would have a point. I'm not, so you don't.
Many gun laws in this nation are being overturned or seriously questioned (and reviewed) by law makers (and not just conservatives) because the wording of the 2nd Amendment ends with: "Shall not be infringed."
So are there any guns you don't think people should be allowed to own in this country?
What these law makers are finding is that to limit such things as capacity or single shot vs. semi-auto is to do just that; infringe upon the 2nd Amendment...
Have any cases been overturned on that basis? The only thing I've seen upheld so far is a blanket pistol ban.
You keep bringing up full auto machine guns...
-To illustrate a point. Your dangerous/not dangerous distinction is insufficient to deal with the argument being presented to you.
A semi-auto AR-15 is NOT a machine gun, and statistics show that these so called "Assault Weapons" (again, semi-auto) are not used in the vast majority of crimes...
You'll also note i'm not a big fan of pistols.
Handguns on the other hand are used, with semi-auto handguns being used far more than revolvers...
Which is what i have a bigger problem with.
If you want to draw a line, why not draw the line at semi-auto handguns??
I'm trying to.
I just don't see any reason for the 100 round clips being legal either.
Its not an or question.
But removing semi-autos will not make the public any more safe...
It will reduce the carnage when people go postal. If the only cost for that is that a gun affecioanatto can't mow down the entire herd of dear or has to shoot targets with a different gun then its well worth it.
Yes, that will drop the instances were those few nut jobs that go crazy and shoot up where-ever from doing as much damage as their potential exists now, but when these same people learn that there are speed loaders for revolvers and stripper clips for most bolt action rifles, well...
Some of them will not, and even then those things aren't as good as what's available now.
We'll hear cries of "Now let's get rid of guns entirely because too many people are still getting hurt and killed and that is just unacceptable!"
Slippery slope argument.
But, safety laws like driving while intoxicated are not the same as limiting the availability of my choice of semi- vs. bolt action...
Why not? If i can drive safely with a .08 bac (either because of a freaky metabolism that makes me pop awake on operating tables or because i live in the boonies) and you're going to be responsible with your guns why make laws?
Because not everyone is you or me.
And these safety laws like driving under the influence sure are working aren't they?
Yes actually. They are.
http://www.carectomy.com/images/image/graph_declinefatalities.jpg
http://www.chooseresponsibility.org/fatality_change_c/
You... don't do gray area's do you? Everything with you is black or white: 100% effective or 0% effective, total anarchy or Big brother nanny state.
Laws against murder don't eliminate it, they just help bring the numbers down. Same with anything else. Expecting a 100% elimination from a law or its a failure is an unrealistic expectation.
No, I'm not advocating that we should get rid of this law...
What I am pointing out is that even if all semi-autos were banned, they would not go away (and it would be a LONG time if they ever would). And that would leave just the criminals and the police with them, and that is not a place I would want to live...
1) I don't think that either the cops or the crooks care what kind of gun you have. They react pretty much the same way to a revolver as a semi automatic. (and in my experience they're not too fond of people with sticks either)
2) If you ban the sale/manufacture but not ownership the criminals will likely loose the fire power before gun affecionatos.
Do some research on police shootings.
You're assuming I haven't. Your argument doesn't follow from your "information", and I don't like the backhand ad hom.
Lets look at the worst case of that
The four officers fired forty-one shots, hitting Diallo nineteen times
So they hit roughly half the time- and i'd be willing to bet that the the hits are pretty heavily frontloaded in the first half of the bullets fired.
I'm not sure i want THEM shooting at people. If you're worse than three times as bad i REALLY don't want you popping off more shots
Do some research on police shootings.You're assuming I haven't. Your argument doesn't follow from your "information", and I don't like the backhand ad hom.
Lets look at the worst case of that
The four officers fired forty-one shots, hitting Diallo nineteen times
So they hit roughly half the time- and i'd be willing to bet that the the hits are pretty heavily frontloaded in the first half of the bullets fired.
I'm not sure i want THEM shooting at people. If you're worse than three times as bad i REALLY don't want you popping off more shots
I've done my research, too, and you can bet about when the shots hit as much as you want, but the very nature of shootings means we'll probably never know which shots hit. Plus, the Diallo incident is not representative of the majority of officer involved shootings. The fact of the matter is that gunfights are highly fluid situations in which accurate aiming is difficult, and missing is to be expected.
]I'm trying to stay out of this debate, but I have to challenge this. Do some research on police shootings. You will notice something: trained police officers generally miss more than they hit, even at close range. Why? Hitting a target in a shoot out is not easy, what with bullets flying everywhere and people trying not to get hit. Missing the first several shots in a real fight does not mean you shouldn't be allowed to have guns, because trained professionals do that all the time. All it means is that you're a human being.
Actually it goes farther than that -- most soldiers will either not fire or will fire to miss even in combat situations, and that's not counting where they are using suppressive fire.
However I would not consider this a good reason to put yet more ammunition in the air. All those bullets have to go somewhere and it could easily be into family, friends and neighbors. Unfortunately bullets do not stop at first impact most times.
Having more or higher velocity rounds will not help with this problem, and having a fully automatic would actually hurt accuracy (in fact most military assault rifles aren't even full auto capable -- generally they are semi-auto with option for 3 round~7 round burst).
Again not that I'm against the idea of handguns for home defense (the one point where you are actually highly likely to be able to retrieve and draw a bead on the criminal before he can close with you), but at the same time the likelihood that having 30 or more rounds of high caliber that fire faster than you can pull the trigger will affect the outcome is beyond astoundingly abyssal.
I've done my research, too, and you can bet about when the shots hit as much as you want, but the very nature of shootings means we'll probably never know which shots hit.
When you fire repeatedly you have to compensate more and more for the recoil. In the dark, you're not even getting the extra feedback of seeing where your shots hit (if you're even paying attention to that)
The more you fire the less likely each extra bullet is to hit.
You keep adressing one point of my argument or the other but you don't address the argument.No use AND public danger= ban. Its not reducible to its component parts. You have to answer the argument as a whole. I'm not looking to ban tribble plushies (useless but harmless) or cars (harmful but useful)
Well, I don't accept the premise that guns are of no use and a public danger. Maybe that's the problem.
Yes. Yes you do.
That pretty much is the only reason for removing rights from people (which just about any law does). That is the reason for 90+ % of laws. That is why i cannot drive with a .08% alchohol content, its why I can't own a tiger, its why you can't shoot an endangered species, its why i can't serve raw meat in a restaurant, its why i can't farm pigs in my back yard, and its why i can't have my own nuclear reactor.
Right now, if I have the proper license, I can walk down to a gun shop with a class III firearms license and purchase an AK-47, legally.
I can and have walked down to the same shop with just a regular permit and purchase a handgun. These are rights already in place.The drunk driving laws aren't even remotely the same thing. It has been proven you cannot operate a motor vehicle when your blood alchohol content is above a certain point. Can you prove that every person that owns a gun will eventualy kill someone or use it recklessly? Or everytime a guy walks into a place of business with a firearm, they rob it? Where is the factor that, like the presence of alchohol in the drunk driving example, deaths will always occur from legal gun ownership? Until you can point it out, they aren't comperable, at all.
You're either arguing to law- which is something the government can change and you have no argument against changing the law, or you're arguing to natural rights: and i don't think a natural rights argument to own ak 47's is going to work.
I'm not claiming natural rights. I'm claiming that the 2nd amendment doesn't make a distinction between pistols and rifles, assault or otherwise. I'm not arguing that the gov't can't change the law. I'm saying that your argument as given is not a good enough reason to do so, mostly because it's subjective.
|
|
And if i wanted to ban 4 shooters or six shooters you would have a point. I'm not, so you don't.
And I wasn't trying to make any point. Just trying to counter your statement about people not getting far trying to carry around 30 flintlock pistols with something a little more useful to the discussion...
So are there any guns you don't think people should be allowed to own in this country?
No...
See, even huge things like cannon, are available to the average citizen (there are hoops to be jumped through, by they can be had with surprisingly little effort). I personally don't have the want or cash for something like this (even if I lived in a state that allowed such things)...
And I am pretty sure we can both agree that there is no need for such a thing outside of a military application. But I see no reason to deny something to someone because I don't see the need for it...
Besides, the BATFE has quite a few restrictions when it comes to things classified by them as "destructive devices", so I am not worried about the rich eccentric that buys a cannon because well, not many things like cannon are being used to commit crimes now-a-days...
Have any cases been overturned on that basis? The only thing I've seen upheld so far is a blanket pistol ban.
A repeal of HR 3193 which banned most guns in Washington D.C. was passed by the House and is awaiting a vote from the Senate...
The entire state of Florida has repealed many of its local gun laws because these were unconstitutional...
These are but two examples...
Your dangerous/not dangerous distinction is insufficient to deal with the argument being presented to you.
Blanket statement or not, all guns are dangerous, and to isolate only the ones that you feel are evil and more dangerous to the public's welfare is only a band-aid to a problem that cannot be fixed...
The Federal Government BANNED all assault weapons. The ban failed! Hell, Clinton stopped the importation of Chinese weapons all together and as a result, the SKS and AK-47 styled rifles are more available than ever...
I'm trying to.
Are you? I'm hearing you talk about banning ALL semi-automatic weapons. You say they are the problem...
The problem, according to the statistics are the semi-auto handguns. Not the rifles (just as you claim that the bolt actions and revolvers are not the problem either)...
I just don't see any reason for the 100 round clips being legal either.
The Federal Government banned high capacity magazines. The ban failed!
As for high capacity magazines for semi-auto handguns, one can buy a 90 round drum for their Glock or 1911, but these are not widely available (being somewhat of a specialty and novelty item, you can't always find one in the average gun store)...
If the only cost for that is that a gun affecioanatto can't mow down the entire herd of dear or has to shoot targets with a different gun then its well worth it....
For you maybe, because you don't seem to like guns very much ;-p
The cost is far greater than an aficionado not being able to shoot targets with his choice of gun. It costs us yet one more personal liberty...
A person drinking and then choosing to get behind the wheel is not a freedom lost. People after drinking lose their ability to properly control a motor vehicle (the amount it takes varies, but a line had to be drawn)...
Some dip-stick with gun on the other hand, is still a dip-stick without the gun...
And to limit my choice because he is able to misuse a tool that is by definition inherently dangerous, is wrong...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Well, I don't accept the premise that guns are of no use and a public danger. Maybe that's the problem.
Well, at this point since you can't come up with a remotely neccesary use for one of those things I'm going to conclude that there isn't one. The use is not enough to justify the risk of having them.
Right now, if I have the proper license, I can walk down to a gun shop with a class III firearms license and purchase an AK-47, legally.
I can and have walked down to the same shop with just a regular permit and purchase a handgun. These are rights already in place.
Put there by law. Why can't the law be changed? Why Shouldn't the law be changed? The current laws are giving criminals and nutjobs access to those same weapons and for what? A fun weekend you could spend fishing instead?
The drunk driving laws aren't even remotely the same thing. It has been proven you cannot operate a motor vehicle when your blood alchohol content is above a certain point.
No, its been proven that a significant percentage of the population can't drive at those BAC figures. Not no one. Its been shown that too many people were unable to maintain proper living conditions for exotic animals, not everyone.
Can you prove that every person that owns a gun will eventualy kill someone or use it recklessly?
No, and you can't prove that every drunk driver will hit someone either, but you know that a lot of drunk people driving is going to get people killed.
Or everytime a guy walks into a place of business with a firearm, they rob it? Where is the factor that, like the presence of alchohol in the drunk driving example, deaths will always occur from legal gun ownership? Until you can point it out, they aren't comperable, at all.
Again, you don't do gray areas and reality is that simple. By your own argument you would have to demonstate that every drunk driver is going to hit and hurt someone.
I'm not claiming natural rights. I'm claiming that the 2nd amendment doesn't make a distinction between pistols and rifles, assault or otherwise. I'm not arguing that the gov't can't change the law. I'm saying that your argument as given is not a good enough reason to do so, mostly because it's subjective.
Of course its subjective. Anyone that tells you something different is either lying to you or an idiot.
None of our rights are absolute (and i wish there was someone standing up for the right to peacefully assemble half as well as there is someone standing up for our right to bear arms) There are limits to all of them. You can't call out one right as being above the others.
Do you support ANY limits on the kind of weapons citizens can get a hold of?
And I wasn't trying to make any point.
You were trying to demonstrate that the number of shots a weapon can fire is irrelevant. It didn't work because its VERY relevant.
No...
Well that's kind of nuts, and also not how the current laws work. So you either need to repudiate the idea that you're forming your ideas on what we should do about guns based on law or find another rational for your position.
See, even huge things like cannon, are available to the average citizen (there are hoops to be jumped through, by they can be had with surprisingly little effort). I personally don't have the want or cash for something like this (even if I lived in a state that allowed such things)...
If i hit the lotto i have to admit i would be tempted to head over to the shop in pawn stars and get a cannon.
And I am pretty sure we can both agree that there is no need for such a thing outside of a military application. But I see no reason to deny something to someone because I don't see the need for it...
But how many people are being killed by semi automatic pistols?
Besides, the BATFE has quite a few restrictions when it comes to things classified by them as "destructive devices", so I am not worried about the rich eccentric that buys a cannon because well, not many things like cannon are being used to commit crimes now-a-days...
I really can't track your thought process. Is the government the incompetent dangerous thing that's trying to take away all of your rights or something you can trust to properly weed out the nut jobs from getting their hands on machine guns?
A repeal of HR 3193 which banned most guns in Washington D.C. was passed by the House and is awaiting a vote from the Senate...
The entire state of Florida has repealed many of its local gun laws because these were unconstitutional...
These are but two examples...
No, they're not. The legislature is a measure of public opinion, not of legal opinion or constitutionality.
The supreme court does not support your view
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
Blanket statement or not, all guns are dangerous, and to isolate only the ones that you feel are evil and more dangerous to the public's welfare is only a band-aid to a problem that cannot be fixed...
A gun is an inanimate object. It cannot have moral qualities.
Its a matter of drawing a line where I think that the costs outweigh the benefits. The costs are very high
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg
I haven't seen any benefit to large magazines, belt fed machine gines, or AK 47's (or the sks or whatever it is. Only seen one of those and it was from the wrong end)
The US model of rights includes the Right to bear arms, which is interpreted to mean personal firearms not other weapons, be those nukes or swords.
By golly gum! You're right! NO cudgels! How can we live without our trusty shillelaghs! And what about my "Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator"?
I currently 'own' a honest-injun cannon! Well, its a reinforced capped pipe with a tiny hole drilled to make it leak water at a very slow rate, cannot remember why. We have 'fired' this piece on a couple of Fourth of July drink fests. Probably better described as a signalling gun. 1/2 oz of Black Powder maximum. Loud and likely dangerous, not used this millennia.
Well, at this point since you can't come up with a remotely neccesary use for one of those things I'm going to conclude that there isn't one. The use is not enough to justify the risk of having them.
Since this was an issue before, all firearms or assault rifles?
I can argue that I should be allowed to purchase both, and whatever I use it for is a good enough reason to own it. Subjective.
Put there by law. Why can't the law be changed? Why Shouldn't the law be changed? The current laws are giving criminals and nutjobs access to those same weapons and for what? A fun weekend you could spend fishing instead?
That's not for you to decide for me.
I could list a bunch of laws on the books that criminals already don't follow, but hell, what's a couple more?
No, and you can't prove that every drunk driver will hit someone either, but you know that a lot of drunk people driving is going to get people killed.
Fair enough, I guess. When deaths due to gun recklessness per year gets close to deaths due to reckless driving per year, you may have a point.
Again, you don't do gray areas and reality is that simple. By your own argument you would have to demonsrtate that every drunk driver is going to hit and hurt someone.
And by your argument, it would have to happen often enough to warrant a law.
Of course its subjective. Anyone that tells you something different is either lying to you or an idiot.None of our rights are absolute (and i wish there was someone standing up for the right to peacefully assemble half as well as there is someone standing up for our right to bear arms) There are limits to all of them. You can't call out one right as being above the others.
Do you support ANY limits on the kind of weapons citizens can get a hold of?
I harbor no illusions that I have a right to a bazooka, or something that needs to be mounted to a vehicle to fire safely, or that I need a multi million dollar delivery system for.
But, that's common sense. No law needed.
I think requiring a background check and a license is enough.
Rights come with an inherent amount of accepted responsibility.
The answer is not to remove rights, it's to pushback on the lack of responsibility.
I'm lovin this by the way. I might get snarky, but I like the back n forth.
|
|
Well that's kind of nuts, and also not how the current laws work. So you either need to repudiate the idea that you're forming your ideas on what we should do about guns based on law or find another rational for your position.
Federal law allows for the law abiding citizen to own and posses items that fall under the NFA...
These include:
Full auto firearms that were manufactured on or before 1986.
Short barreled rifles (rifles whose barrel is less than 16 inches in length).
Short barreled shotguns (shotguns whose barrel is less than 18 inches in length).
Sound suppressors (AKA "silencers").
Destructive devices (which includes explosives and devices used to propel them like "grenade launchers" and cannon).
And AOWs (Any Other Weapons) such as firearms that look like something else (pen guns, umbrella guns, etc.).
The BATFE monitors these items, even ones that have already been sold...
So I say the law seems to work exactly like I've been saying when it concerns these things...
If i hit the lotto I have to admit i would be tempted to head over to the shop in pawn stars and get a cannon.
Well, i suppose that if I won one of the larger lotteries, I'd be tempted to, but I don't know...
And for the record, even though one can buy cannon, it is pretty difficult to track one down. You can't just go to a pawn shop and buy one (and I mean a fully functional cannon) :-)
But how many people are being killed by semi automatic pistols?
These numbers are impossible to define, but the number of people injured or killed by a firearm when used in the commission of a crime are the victims of a wound caused by a handgun more often than a rifle...
Yes, rifles are used to shoot people during the commition of crimes, but so are revolvers and bolt action rifles...
The point being is that you say ban the firearm that most criminals use when they go postal. That firearm is usually a semi-auto handgun...
So if it's a handgun that most whacko's use, why lump semi-auto rifles in with them? Most people do not reach for a rifle when they commit a crime (semi-auto or otherwise)...
I really can't track your thought process. Is the government the incompetent dangerous thing that's trying to take away all of your rights or something you can trust to properly weed out the nut jobs from getting their hands on machine guns?
As I said earlier in this post, the BATFE keeps a close eye on all NFA items. And while they seem to be having issues keeping things straight at the US/Mexico border, the number of registered machine guns used in commission of a crime is very low. The use of illegally converted semi-autos to full auto in a crime is also very low...
Only seen one of those and it was from the wrong end
If I'm reading that right, then that right there is the heart of the matter, and no amount of further debate will allow you to see the other side of things...
While I'm sorry to hear you were at the receiving end of a firearm, a threat to your life, liberty and freedom does not mean any of my freedoms need be taken away from me...
Now, if I read that entirely wrong then I apologize. But I'm not sure how to read "Only seen one of those and it was from the wrong end" any other way...
That said, like Kryzbyn, I too am enjoying the exchange...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-