Anti-gun nonsense

[Liquid Cobra]

Disclaimer: I have no dog in this political fight, and the following is simply a well meaning contribution to the discussion.... Plus my support and condolences to any that may need it.

I really don't understand why the "freedom" not to be murdered by lunatics with assault weapons is of less importance to America than the "freedom" to own them.

Nonetheless: You're never going to get that genie back into the bottle as you have too many guns in circulation. WW1 and WW2 weapons still come to light here in the UK and we've had gun control, basically for ever. You might just have a chance by controlling the ammunition, though, if ever the lives of your own people become valuable enough to you.

I assume "freedom not to be murdered by lunatics with assault weapons" implies regulating or gettin rid of them. How can you suggest such a thing and then say in the next paragraph that it will do no good? Then what's the point? Bad people are going to do bad things. Good people shouldn't be punished because of it. And please, refrain from using the term assault rifle. It's just a rifle.

I admit I know nothing of rifle variants - but I actually wrote "assault weapon" not "assault rifle". There is plainly a difference between hunting rifles and weapons that the military would utilise, though.

You jumped to the conclusion that I'm advocating gun control, and then complain that it contradicts the rest of my post where I say I don't think it achievable. If I had meant to write in support of gun control, that's what I would have written.

My point was that there is more to the concept of "freedom" than any individual just getting what they want.

Paul's response was honest. Mass shootings are the price US society is willing to pay so people can own weapons.

We don't have much gun ownership in the UK and I'm happy with that because I never fear getting shot, I never fear opening my front door to strangers, or at night. I am not "free" to own or carry a gun (but could theoretically own one under very strict licensing and control circumstances) but we are probably at least as "free" here than virtually any other country in the world from the fear - and actuality - of gun crime. And as a result I don't need a gun to protect my family from it.

Apologies, I should not have assumed. I was just trying to understand. I will say though that assault weapon and assault rifle are used interchangeably around here and both are incorrect. A semi automatic rifle is not an assault rifle/weapon. And I'll have to disagree with your statement that there is a difference between what's considered a hunting rifle and what the military decides to use. Bolt action and lever action rifles used to be the rifle of choice for the military and eventually became what hunters use. Today, many Americans hunt with AR-15's and other rifles like it. A gun is a gun. Black stock, wooden stock, semi auto or manual. It doesn't make a difference.

You might not worry too much about gun crime where you live, but from what I've read there is much more violent crime there than in the United States. Robberies, assaults etc.

[Liquid Cobra]

EDITED TO ADD: And, for the record, very few crimes in the US are committed with "assault weapons". Almost all the firearms the press mislabels as assault weapons are semi-automatic rifles, not full automatic.

Exactly this. It's insane to me that the so called assault weapon ban a few years ago was actually called that. For all intents and purposes assault weapons (automatic fire) are all but banned in the U.S.

I guess they figured they would have a harder time calling it what it actually was. A rifle ban. Or a semi auto ban.

[yablanowitz]

I always find it interesting that the first people to blame the gun for the violence have taxpayers footing the bill for their 24/7 personal security force (armed of course).

Every adult citizen in the USA is responsible for his/her safety and security except while they are in protective custody. The police do NOT exist to "protect and serve", their function is to investigate and apprehend. As long as we shirk our responsibility to protect ourselves and rely on the government in all its guises to do our work for us, there will be mass murders by one means or another.

[SpyderNut]

After a number of the recent tragic shooting incidents, it is alarming to see how quickly politicians and law-makers try to single out and villainize guns as being the root of all violent crimes. They are also quick to over-simplify the issue by naively stating that stiffer guns laws will decrease these violent crimes. By advocating for more gun control, they are able to offer a false semblance of reassurance and security to the fearful masses. It is always easier to point fingers and play the blame-game rather than to address the core issues. On that note, where did we go wrong? Why all the senseless violence? My personal belief is that since the time the US decided to kick God and moral values out our homes and schools, we have begun to reap the awful consequences.
As usual, the solution is never an easy one. But one thing is certain: if Americans lose their ability to defend themselves and their families and friends through the efforts of increased gun control measures, we will regrettably continue to see senseless bloodshed--because the criminals will always find a way to illegally obtain weapons and firearms and use them to harm the unarmed innocent people.

[The Mastiff]

"Common sense gun laws" seem to be about banning firearms from people not doing anything wrong and "compromise" invariably seems to be everything the anti gun people want. With over 12 million AR variants already in circulation ( out of well over 200 million firearms in the US) good luck trying to get rid of them.

Don't worry though. I know better than everyone else and can decide what everyone needs and doesn't need. Blerv, I now decide what car, insurance, tires, gas and everything else transportation wise you can buy, own or drive. Even the paint color and length in inches. I'm obviously superior so you can trust my judgement. I'll use common sense, don't worry. 35 hp/80mpg is obviously enough with a 50 mph limiter. . You aren't a "car nut" are you? :)

[bdblue]

The media likes to publicize when a nut case acts up but they don't publicize when a law-abiding citizen stops the problem because it doesn't promote their agenda. I don't understand why the media is that way- gun ownership is the primary thing that protects the media's existence.

The hollywood types like to preach against guns but they certainly like all of the money they make by promoting violence in films and TV shows. If there was less violence on TV and movies there would probably be less violence elsewhere as well. Maybe we should ban Hollywood.

A lot of people may be somewhat indifferent to the arguments but they don't want guns banned because they don't want to be without guns when the criminals retain theirs. We know the scenario- guns are banned and zombies eat everyone, or guns are banned and looters take over when there is a natural disaster, or guns are banned and some gangster's private army takes over when something happens and the government fails.

If we ban guns then the government can do whatever they want. They can ban free speech, censor movies, tax everybody, tell you what you can and cannot do, whatever is in the government's interests and not the public's. England has gun control, and restrictions on knives, and very high taxes, and criminals that do whatever they want, restrictions on who goes to school and who doesn't, restrictions on what careers you can pick, ... And they are a civilized western country. With certain politicians in power and no guns, it would be like Idi Amin in Uganda.

We could ban guns but it wouldn't make any difference until we got to the point of being like Nazi Germany where the SS stopped and searched everyone that walked by, and imprisoned the ones that they didn't like. That would reduce the amount of criminals but then the government would be worse than the criminals. Nobody but certain politicians want that.

[tvenuto]

Why does the gun community always want the people who are rabidly against them to come up with the answers? Isn't the onus on the supporters to provide a solution so they can keep selling and enjoying their kill-tools? :confused:

Well, because it's a protected right given to us by the second amendment. Why do people have to be proven guilty, not innocent? There's no absolute logical reason this needs to be so, it's just what we decided to do. When in doubt: people are innocent. When in doubt: err on the side of personal responsibility and let the people defend themselves. To change either you need a darn good reason. I'm not saying that we don't work on or discuss the problem, but it must be done with deference to the constitution.

I will add that the vast majority of these incidents seem to happen in places where the criminal is fairly sure they will not encounter a large number of armed citizens: concert venue, marathon, night club, stadium....

Hypothetical question: if you were a relatively motivated criminal, and you could be told the exact percentage of people that had a concealed firearm, what would be your threshold for this sort of event? 10% of people armed? 50%? Even if someone is totally insane and completely motivated to kill everyone in sight, they have to understand that this will be more effective in a place with a lower percentage. I actually don't believe that many of these people were completely insane, but rather had a broken moral system, the ability to commit these acts (possess guns or explosives), and the relative surety that they would be able to pull it off with minimal immediate resistance (unarmed populace).

I have another point: guns level the playing field. Feudal Japan was ruled by the Samurai because swords were difficult to manufacture and difficult to use. If you didn't have the means to train and acquire one you could be ruled by those that did. It's no coincidence that their power waned with the arrival of mass produced firearms (and Tom Cruise). The Rawandan Genocide was largely purpetrated with machete. Do you think a similar event would be possible in America, given the fact that the door you might be knocking on could contain defensive firearms?

Horrible stuff is going to happen in society, it is a consequence of living in large groups, I'm sorry. Some may fantasize about a star trek future where the vulcans come down and school us, but I'm not hopeful. Whenever this topic comes up I think of The Judge, from Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian...

"It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way."

[remnar]

I find it absurd and foolish when U.S. citizens call for laws that restrict their rights and suspicious when politicians do the same. The reason that I find it so absurd is that in most cases there are already laws on the books to combat the perceived problem, but often those laws are not being enforced or criminals are not held accountable. Blerv already eluded to this problem and is one point that I think we agree on. In the state that I live in I can't buy a firearm without going through a background check. What good is this if the government can't even keep accurate records of who should or shouldn't be allowed to buy a firearm? More laws? NO! Fix the problem with enforcing our current laws first.

As a U.S. citizen, the 2nd amendment guarantees my right to keep and bear arms. I don't expect everybody to really understand the importance of this, especially those that live in a country that shun and severely limit or completely disallow gun ownership. This country was founded after the people stood up to an oppressive government. The founders knew the importance of being able to speak out against your government and the importance of being able to defend yourself from a tyrannical government. The first and second amendments are the first and second because they are so important. For those that don't like the second amendment, there is a legal way to have it changed and until you're willing to do so, please stop trying to curtail my rights by passing more laws that criminals and nut jobs will not obey anyway.

I usually try to stay out of controversial issues on the boards but I had to get that off my chest. I'll leave you with this:

[Evil D]

I know of at least 50 people who weren't carrying guns, they're all dead now because they had no means to defend themselves. Gun bans only hurt the law abiding. Murder is illegal, did that make a difference? Bad people will always do bad things. If good people are unable to act when bad things happen, you just end up with larger casualties. The police can't save you, they're too few. The police didn't save those 50 people.

If you banned all guns and even somehow made it impossible to get a gun, the bad people would use knives. Then you ban those and they'll use sticks. Ban sticks and they'll use rocks. We can ban ourselves all the way back to the stone ages and people will still find better and better ways to kill each other. If you can't defend yourself when the bad people come, you will be a victim. It's as simple as that.

Just one law abiding concealed carrying person could have saved so many lives in that club. Maybe not even their own, maybe not everyone, but 50 people didn't have to die. Notice how these attacks happen in places where people are the most vulnerable. When was the last time you saw a mass murder happen at a police station? Ever? That's because everyone inside is trained and prepared to defend themselves.

[Liquid Cobra]

.

Great thoughts everyone. Tvenuto, your post really spoke to me. Thanks for sharing that.

[murphjd25]

Guns don't kill people, in fact we need more good guys with guns. That's all I have to say and keep it at that! :cool:

[araneae]

I live in a town that had a mass school shooting. I am not sure that laws will eliminate these types of events, but I would gladly accept restrictions if it means a few people's sons/daughters come home and the end of the day. These horrible tragedies occur because there are mentally infirm people that are generally able to legally obtain firearms capable of doing large amounts of damage in short amounts of time with relative ease. These people aren't just "criminals", they are sick people unable to make basic moral decisions much less be responsible gun owners and we continue to accept a system that allows it. We may put labels on them as terrorists, troubled youths, etc, but anyone capable of using a firearm as an assault weapon against a group of unarmed innocent bystanders is sick. But it is their right to own a gun too, who are we to take that from them?

I own a firearm, I have no illusions that the world is a safer place because I have it. There will be a tipping point, its just sad that we keep pushing the limits of how many people we are ok with dying to protect our rights. The current system doesn't keep us safe. There were no armed civilian good guys that came to the rescue this time; if it makes you feel safe at night thinking someone is going save us all because somewhere out there good people are armed too, good for you. Maybe its worth remembering the 2 NYPD officers that were ambushed and killed a couple years back, guns do not equal safety or protection from attack. Training and preparation do not guarantee safety.

[Pinetreebbs]

I live in a town that had a mass school shooting. I am not sure that laws will eliminate these types of events, but I would gladly accept restrictions if it means a few people's sons/daughters come home and the end of the day. These horrible tragedies occur because there are mentally infirm people that are generally able to legally obtain firearms capable of doing large amounts of damage in short amounts of time with relative ease. These people aren't just "criminals", they are sick people unable to make basic moral decisions much less be responsible gun owners and we continue to accept a system that allows it. We may put labels on them as terrorists, troubled youths, etc, but anyone capable of using a firearm as an assault weapon against a group of unarmed innocent bystanders is sick. But it is their right to own a gun too, who are we to take that from them?

I own a firearm, I have no illusions that the world is a safer place because I have it. There will be a tipping point, its just sad that we keep pushing the limits of how many people we are ok with dying to protect our rights. The current system doesn't keep us safe. There were no armed civilian good guys that came to the rescue this time; if it makes you feel safe at night thinking someone is going save us all because somewhere out there good people are armed too, good for you. Maybe its worth remembering the 2 NYPD officers that were ambushed and killed a couple years back, guns do not equal safety or protection from attack. Training and preparation do not guarantee safety.

Actually, crime rates have been declining for years. Take away the statistics from several large cities with highly restrictive gun laws and we are far less murderous than most countries in the world. It is a rare day that mainstream media will report the successful use of a firearm to prevent a crime.

Check out the facts here: https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm

[ChrisinHove]

Disclaimer: I have no dog in this political fight, and the following is simply a well meaning contribution to the discussion.... Plus my support and condolences to any that may need it.

I really don't understand why the "freedom" not to be murdered by lunatics with assault weapons is of less importance to America than the "freedom" to own them.

Nonetheless: You're never going to get that genie back into the bottle as you have too many guns in circulation. WW1 and WW2 weapons still come to light here in the UK and we've had gun control, basically for ever. You might just have a chance by controlling the ammunition, though, if ever the lives of your own people become valuable enough to you.

I assume "freedom not to be murdered by lunatics with assault weapons" implies regulating or gettin rid of them. How can you suggest such a thing and then say in the next paragraph that it will do no good? Then what's the point? Bad people are going to do bad things. Good people shouldn't be punished because of it. And please, refrain from using the term assault rifle. It's just a rifle.

I admit I know nothing of rifle variants - but I actually wrote "assault weapon" not "assault rifle". There is plainly a difference between hunting rifles and weapons that the military would utilise, though.

You jumped to the conclusion that I'm advocating gun control, and then complain that it contradicts the rest of my post where I say I don't think it achievable. If I had meant to write in support of gun control, that's what I would have written.

My point was that there is more to the concept of "freedom" than any individual just getting what they want.

Paul's response was honest. Mass shootings are the price US society is willing to pay so people can own weapons.

We don't have much gun ownership in the UK and I'm happy with that because I never fear getting shot, I never fear opening my front door to strangers, or at night. I am not "free" to own or carry a gun (but could theoretically own one under very strict licensing and control circumstances) but we are probably at least as "free" here than virtually any other country in the world from the fear - and actuality - of gun crime. And as a result I don't need a gun to protect my family from it.

Apologies, I should not have assumed. I was just trying to understand. I will say though that assault weapon and assault rifle are used interchangeably around here and both are incorrect. A semi automatic rifle is not an assault rifle/weapon. And I'll have to disagree with your statement that there is a difference between what's considered a hunting rifle and what the military decides to use. Bolt action and lever action rifles used to be the rifle of choice for the military and eventually became what hunters use. Today, many Americans hunt with AR-15's and other rifles like it. A gun is a gun. Black stock, wooden stock, semi auto or manual. It doesn't make a difference.

You might not worry too much about gun crime where you live, but from what I've read there is much more violent crime there than in the United States. Robberies, assaults etc.

No worries. I just struggle to understand the relationship with the gun. It's clearly (!) deeply rooted, truly and intensely held, but appears from a distance to come at a terrible price.

There's not much violent crime here, at all, and what occurs is mostly in certain areas ....

[Malfeasant]

If you look at the statistics, cause of deaths by guns in the U.S. Provided by cdc.gov. (2015 stats)
Then do the math. Which I have.
Subtract suicides,accidents. (Deaths caused by felons with firearms statistics are conveniently not provided. Even with these numbers added.)
You have nearly the same chances of being shot & killed as being struck by lightning & killed.
You can go check that out for yourself.
Anti gun nonsense indeed.
I'll spare you guys by not including my own personal conspiracy theories.

[paladin]

If you banned all guns and even somehow made it impossible to get a gun, the bad people would use knives.

You're wrong David...

The bad guys would still use.... guns...

The "impossibility" of owning a gun would only extend to the law abiding citizenry like you and me. Never gonna be impossible for a devil to find a gun. Some might feel it's "impossible" for a prisoner to have a gun in solitary confinement in a maximum security prison. We know better.

Not making light of your comment, I follow you...but I am struck by the irony that we <law abiding citizens> would be the only one the "impossibility" of gun ownership would ever extend to if our 2nd Amendment was ever breached!

Here's another chestnut that conveys my message more succinctly:

"When guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns."

[Evil D]

If you banned all guns and even somehow made it impossible to get a gun, the bad people would use knives.

You're wrong David...

The bad guys would still use.... guns...

The "impossibility" of owning a gun would only extend to the law abiding citizenry like you and me. Never gonna be impossible for a devil to find a gun. Some might feel it's "impossible" for a prisoner to have a gun in solitary confinement in a maximum security prison. We know better.

Not making light of your comment, I follow you...but I am struck by the irony that we <law abiding citizens> would be the only one the "impossibility" of gun ownership would ever extend to if our 2nd Amendment was ever breached!

Here's another chestnut that conveys my message more succinctly:

"When guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns."

I meant that as a hypothetical situation. When it really comes down to it laws in general only effect the law abiding, whether it's theft or murder or lying on your taxes. How did making alcohol illegal work out? Drugs are illegal, I guess that means nobody will use them anymore.

[The Deacon]

I admit I know nothing of rifle variants - but I actually wrote "assault weapon" not "assault rifle". There is plainly a difference between hunting rifles and weapons that the military would utilise, though.

When it comes to rifles, very little, actually. Aside from the fact that the military is allowed fully automatic rifles and civilians, for the most part, are not. There's also little or no difference, other than perhaps a bayonet lug, between a "trench gun" and a shotgun used to hunt large game with rifled slugs or buckshot and, when it comes to handguns, there's no difference at all.

I'm not a huge fan of semi-auto long guns, but over the years I've owned "sporterized" versions of several military bolt actions ('92 Springfield Krag, '98 Mauser, 03A3 Springfield) and have a buddy who still hunts with a SMLE. Heck some of the finest sporting rifles the world has seen are based on either the '98 Mauser or 'O3 Springfield action. That said I know there are folks who hunt with semi-auto AR's and AK's.

You jumped to the conclusion that I'm advocating gun control, and then complain that it contradicts the rest of my post where I say I don't think it achievable. If I had meant to write in support of gun control, that's what I would have written.

Probably because of this sentence: "I really don't understand why the "freedom" not to be murdered by lunatics with assault weapons is of less importance to America than the "freedom" to own them."

Regardless of what you meant by it, you need to accept the fact that it sounds like gun control advocacy to American ears.

My point was that there is more to the concept of "freedom" than any individual just getting what they want.

Yes, like being a citizen of the US rather than a British subject or the difference between having rights and being granted privileges.

Paul's response was honest. Mass shootings are the price US society is willing to pay so people can own weapons.

Just as the occasional dead or mutilated child is the price we pay for allowing people to own certain breeds of dog.

Just as the carnage on our highways is the price we pay for the convenience of owning vehicles.

Just as the fairly high percentage of that carnage caused by drunk drivers is the price we pay for the freedom to purchase alcohol.

Just as the lesser but still significant percentage of that carnage caused by "distracted driving" is the price we pay for the freedom to own cell phones.

We don't have much gun ownership in the UK and I'm happy with that because I never fear getting shot, I never fear opening my front door to strangers, or at night. I am not "free" to own or carry a gun (but could theoretically own one under very strict licensing and control circumstances) but we are probably at least as "free" here than virtually any other country in the world from the fear - and actuality - of gun crime. And as a result I don't need a gun to protect my family from it.

Personally, I see little difference between protecting my family from a criminal with a gun and protecting them from a criminal with a knife, axe, or club. I also see little difference between protecting them from a criminal of any kind and protecting them from a vicious stray dog. I just see having a gun as making it a bit easier for a 70 year old like me to do so. However, I'm glad you're comfortable with your situation.

I also suspect the Queen's limo is every bit as well armored as Obummer's, perhaps even more heavily.

I just struggle to understand the relationship with the gun. It's clearly (!) deeply rooted, truly and intensely held, but appears from a distance to come at a terrible price.

And, from a distance, Britain appears to be a country that too easily forgets what having a virtually unarmed populace almost cost them 100 years ago, and then again 65 years ago. There are those here who still believe you'd all be speaking German today if it wasn't for us and our nasty, evil guns.

There's not much violent crime here, at all, and what occurs is mostly in certain areas ....

Pretty much the same situation as here. If you stay out of certain neighborhoods you're in far more danger of being the victim of a drunk driver, a distracted driver, your own irresponsible use of a motor vehicle, or an irresponsible owner's pet than of "gun violence".

[akaAK]

This may be jaded but don't ever forget that the vast majority of politicians are purely looking to preserve or obtain influence and power not effectively serve their constituents. Banning guns is a simple proposal in the age of sound bites. Next on the list is cars (far more people die by car than gun), alcohol (because that was really effective when it was last tried), knives (say goodbye to your chefs knives as they have been murdering vegetables and family members since the beginning of man). The list goes on.

I don't mean to make light of the situation because it is abhorrent to me that people can be gunned down for no other reason than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. That is unfortunately reality. Lower homicide rates (not just with guns as the method is too easily overshadowed by the action) are common in countries with better established social safety nets. If society as a whole attempts to deal with issues of mental illness, poverty, injustice less people are murdered, plain and simple. The problem is that society shifts this to politicians who are very happy to take credit but very unwilling to accept responsibility for policies that are essentially taking shots in the dark.

Where I live it takes the police on average 8-10 minutes to respond which means you are most likely dead before anyone with a gun shows up to help you. The people who ultimately make the law (simplification of the process) have those people with guns standing at their sides. I take responsibility for my actions and decisions but I should be neutered while the very politicians who want to ban guns sleep soundly protected by them.

So far a good discussion about a terrible situation.

[Blerv]

Edit: never mind