1) Fast cars dont have a primary use of killing other people

2) drinking, smoking, food are self-destructive substances, you have the freedom to do what you want to your own body.

3) guns are protected by the 2nd amendment

I'm giving statistical backing for people being killed by guns with that express intent. It's completely unfair and ridiculous that we even have to discuss this, but people are so fucking stupid, evil and ignorant, that those of us who do actually care about life have to do something about it.

8/13/2007 2:38:54 AM

Quote :

"Criminals don't use military or LEO weaponry, they use HIGHER caliber firearms"

this thread is full of false statements

8/13/2007 7:21:34 AM

yeah, that statement is ridiculous, and there is so much other silly shit in this thread that I don't even feel like going through and commenting on it all.

8/13/2007 7:53:03 AM

Guns Don't kill People!!! People Kill people!! If you take away people's guns they will only use other weapons.

8/13/2007 11:03:15 AM

The Constitution, obviously, is a framework for a federal government of limited powers (with the majority of powers reserved to the states and people), and the 2nd Amendment expressly prohibits Congress from enacting ANY law infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The only restrictions on firearm ownership (if any) could therefore come from the states. But virtually every state has explicit clauses protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms in their respective state constitutions.

https://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statedat.htm

8/13/2007 11:31:08 AM

TEH J00Z ER TAKIN' ER GUNZ

8/13/2007 11:33:43 AM

Quote :

"You can keep on talking about what-ifs and isolated incidents. "

It's not just what-ifs and isolated incidents, it's a reasonable expectation of the end result of making the same mistake we have made many times over in history.

Quote :

"Criminals don't use military or LEO weaponry, they use HIGHER caliber firearms. They don't use rifles or shotguns. IF they did, crime would be dramatically reduced over a concealed carry sidearm (AKA handgun) that accounts for the overwhelming majority of gun violence now. "

Did it occur to you that the reason they don't use them is because they aren't the most convenient option? If you eliminate the more convenient options however, criminals will resort to other methods or different methods. Case in point, before the total ban on handguns, no one in the UK had heard of drive by knifings, but they've actually started to see a rise in knife crime (among other crime) since the ban. As always, the problem is not the gun, it's the person comitting the crime in the first place.

Quote :

"You also apparently don't understand the economy of scale for ammunition. You are talking about 1.5 BILLION rounds per year of manufacture. Smuggling in a few thousand rounds, or a company selling a random order on the black market would have virtually zero impact. To reach anywhere near the volume required to meet even black market demand, will get people caught quickly. "

Most of those 1.5 billion rounds are purchased by the military, LEO, sportsmen, recreational shooters and legal citizens practicing defense. Find me a statistic for how many rounds are used in the comission of crimes and then we can talk about economies of scale and black market impact.

8/13/2007 12:11:44 PM

Quote :

"Time to admit the 'gun nuts' are right"

It basically comes down to personal opinion. There is no right answer.

Quote :

"But its surprisingly nice to see even establishment media outlets forced to admit that we are right."

Thats an editorial stating opinion. No one is being forced to admit anything.

Quote :

"What if Mrs. Hawke-Petit had been trained in the use of firearms? Suppose she had been able to get to a gun after her husband was beaten into unconsciousness by the invaders?"

What if she'd been a ninja? What if she'd had a pet alligator guarding the front door? You can propose an infinite number of hypotheticals to that situation.

Quote :

"Japan would have essentially the same low violent crime rate even if it had less restrictive firearm ownership laws. The UK and United States have generally high rates of violent crime due to increasing non-white Third World populations."

Good thing that there are no non-whites in Japan.

Quote :

"The U.K. actually has one of the highest violent crime rates in the "Industrialized" world, even despite draconian gun bans."

Scotland is 95% white and has one of the highest crime rates in the industrialized world - second in murders in Europe only to Finland (97% white). You are more than 3 times as likely to be murdered in either as you are in England, which has a much larger non-white population.

As far as West Virginia, I hope you realize that WV is second only to Connecticut in terms of smallest percentage of population living in urban areas. Of course, please don't let my facts and economics get in the way of your hysteria.

Before you try to call me an establishment shill - as you tend to do whenever I point out your errors - just know that I fully support gun rights and don't believe in any further legal limitations to get a gun. That being said, your "logic" is absolutely appalling and is an embarrassment to anyone who has graduated high school.

[Edited on August 13, 2007 at 1:34 PM. Reason : .]

8/13/2007 1:33:37 PM

Quote :

"It basically comes down to personal opinion. There is no right answer. "

Much of it most certainly is NOT subjective. For instance, are so-called 'gun nuts' right or wrong that the Second Amendment to the Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear firearms? That is a yes/no, right/wrong, objective issue. And the answer, of course, is that "YES", the Second Amendment DOES protect an individual right to keep and bear firearms.

8/13/2007 3:02:11 PM

How about automatic weapons? Heavy machine guns? Artillery? Surface-to-air missiles? How about nuclear weapons if you can afford them? The modern extent of the second ammendment is purely opinion at this point as it was written in a time of flint-lock muskets and heavy and innacurate crew served artillery pieces. I have no problem with it being a states rights issue, but to think that there is one right answer and one wrong answer is lunacy.

We can run in circles with this all day. I really just want to see you defend the horrid logic that you've put forth so far in support of your positions.

8/13/2007 3:09:18 PM

Are those 'crazy gun nuts' right in their belief that people have the right to self-defense, and have the right to be armed to protect themselves against common criminals or a potentially tyrannical government?

YES.

8/13/2007 3:15:58 PM

I'll repost this because you obviously didn't read it. As you've done repeatedly in the past, you're trying to simplify a complex issue into a black and white one and smear anyone who points out the incompatibility of trying to create a simple dichotomy around such a complicated issue.

Quote :

"How about automatic weapons? Heavy machine guns? Artillery? Surface-to-air missiles? How about nuclear weapons if you can afford them? The modern extent of the second ammendment is purely opinion at this point as it was written in a time of flint-lock muskets and heavy and innacurate crew served artillery pieces. I have no problem with it being a states rights issue, but to think that there is one right answer and one wrong answer is lunacy."

By the way, whats up with the murder rates in Scotland and Finland?

8/13/2007 3:26:45 PM

Quote :

"trying to create a simple dichotomy around such a complicated issue"

This...

Quote :

"Are those 'crazy gun nuts' right in their belief that people have the right to self-defense, and have the right to be armed to protect themselves against common criminals or a potentially tyrannical government?"

isn't complicated....and is the crux of the entire issue...

The gun-grabbers and many on the left would say "no." Many support outlawing private ownership of ALL types of guns and the disarmament of the American people. They are dead wrong on the issue. The 'gun nuts' and pro-2nd Amendment crowd are right. That's black and white. Period.

8/13/2007 3:42:46 PM

Quote :

"This isn't complicated....and is the crux of the entire issue..."

No, it's not complicated. It also doesn't reflect the issue at all because you've dumbed it down to the point that it is no longer part of any rational discussion on gun control. There are many different levels of legality between unlimited ownership and disarmament that you are failing to grasp miserably.

Quote :

"Many support outlawing private ownership of ALL types of guns and the disarmament of the American people."

I actually looked at a number of polls and only a small minority support the ban of gun sales. The vast majority just support stricter laws or better enforcement of existing laws so that violent criminals can't get their hands on guns. Where do they fit into your childish dichotomy of 'gun nuts' vs. 'gun grabbers'?

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

By the way, why don't you explain why the peaceful white folk of Scotland and Finland have such a murder problem?

8/13/2007 3:55:37 PM

Quote :

"There are many different levels of legality between unlimited ownership and disarmament that you are failing to grasp miserably."

No. I understand that argument perfectly. And while you claim to support gun ownership rights, it appears you are trying to introduce this argument into the discussion as a way to legitimize restrictions on firearm ownership rights (eg, banning so-called "assault" weapons, etc).

Quote :

"I actually looked at a number of polls and only a small minority support the ban of gun sales. The vast majority just support stricter laws or better enforcement of existing laws so that violent criminals can't get their hands on guns. Where do they fit into your childish dichotomy of 'gun nuts' vs. 'gun grabbers'?"

Most of the existing so-called "gun control" laws violate state or federal constitutional rights protecting firearm ownership (eg, handgun bans in big cities, laws requiring permits for handguns, the former federal ban on "assault" weapons).

So if people support these existing laws, they are supporting encroachments and infringements on their ABSOLUTE RIGHT to own firearms, which, of course, infringes on the the rights of Americans to defend themselves. That goes directly to the central issue I was discussing above. They are being propagandized and suckered into supporting the destruction of their rights, whether they realize it or not.

8/13/2007 4:20:51 PM

Quote :

"And while you claim to support gun ownership rights, it appears you are trying to introduce this argument into the discussion as a way to legitimize restrictions on firearm ownership rights (eg, banning so-called "assault" weapons, etc)."

No, not at all. You're just trying to misrepresent my position in order to take attention off of yourself.

Quote :

"Most of the existing so-called "gun control" laws violate state or federal constitutional rights protecting firearm ownership (eg, handgun bans in big cities, laws requiring permits for handguns, the former federal ban on "assault" weapons)."

What state and federal constitutional rights protect against those? Please point them out.

Quote :

"So if people support these existing laws, they are supporting encroachments and infringements on their ABSOLUTE RIGHT to own firearms, which, of course, infringes on the the rights of Americans to defend themselves."

Theres no if. The majority of Americans support existing laws. So are you rejecting democracy and majority rule?

Quote :

"They are being propagandized and suckered into supporting the destruction of their rights, whether they realize it or not."

Well actually, they just have a different opinion than you. In classic salisburyboy fashion, that makes them sheep for the edomites, doesn't it?

By the way, why don't you explain why the peaceful white folk of Scotland and Finland have such a murder problem?

8/13/2007 4:48:30 PM

Quote :

"What state and federal constitutional rights protect against those? Please point them out."

Are you suggesting that laws banning handguns or requiring permits from the government to own a handgun are not unconstitutional (if the respective state constitution protects firearm ownership rights)?

Quote :

"So are you rejecting democracy and majority rule?"

We live in a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. The majority cannot just gang up and, for instance, vote to deprive other people of their rights (absent amending the Constitution to revoke those rights, of course).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic

Quote :

"A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens. In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches and the will of the majority of the population is tempered by protections for individual rights so that no individual or group has absolute power. "

[Edited on August 13, 2007 at 5:09 PM. Reason : 879-78-967-8967-867]

8/13/2007 4:58:22 PM

Quote :

"Are you suggesting that laws banning handguns or requiring permits from the government to own a handgun are not unconstitutional (if the respective state constitution protects firearm ownership rights)?"

The second amendment says nothing about preventing the registration of firearms nor does it say that certain jurisdictions can't limit the types of firearms available. The fact that you're turning this into a discussion of constitutional interpretation only proves my point that it is a matter of opinion and that there is not right or wrong answer.

Quote :

"The majority cannot just gang up and, for instance, vote to deprive other people of their rights (absent amending the Constitution to revoke those rights, of course)."

They aren't ganging up to take away the rights of other people; the choices of the majority effect all citizens equally. Thats what rule of law is - the hallmark of a constitutional democracy. Regardless, no rights are being taken away by so theres no need for you to bring up constitutional amendments.

In your mind, does the second amendment mean that I can have anti-aircraft weaponry?

By the way, why don't you explain why the peaceful white folk of Scotland and Finland have such a murder problem?

8/13/2007 5:56:39 PM

Mr. Joshua - 57
salisburyboy - 2

Good points Mr. Joshua. Your argument is rational, well-researched, and based on fact. The problem of course is the underlying assumption that salisburyboy intends to have a rational, well-researched, and fact-based discussion of this topic....

Since it was ignored the first time, here' my postion.... again...

Quote :

"The premise behind gun control is simple - guns are inherently dangerous. They are dangerous because, in a person's hands, they can cause exceptional damage with relative ease in a short amount of time. It takes a significant amount of discipline, knowledge, and restraint to use a gun properly. This is discipline, knowledge, and restraint that most people don't take the time to acquire. Some don't have the capacity to acquire these at all. As a result, we have gun control. That being said, I believe that gun control, like the government, should be as limited as possible. When in doubt, let the individual decide. By our 2nd amendment we have the right to bear arms. This is a right expressely stated in the constitution. People should lose the right to bear arms only when it distinctly conflicts with the rights of others. If you're certifiably crazy, or have a history of violence, you lose the right to have a gun. Your possession of the gun is a threat to other's safety, and people, generally speaking, have a right to be safe from crazy people with guns. "

Yes, people have the unalienable right to defend themselves. They have this right however only to the point that it does not infringe upon the rights of others. In society we commonly relinquish certain rights in order protect other rights. For example, we give up the right to take the law into our own hands by relying upon the police. We do this because, hopefully in most cases, we have a reasonable expectation that the police will lawfully and professionally conduct criminal investigations and keep us safe.

Why is this both necessary and practical? Because when the law is placed entirely in the hands of the common citizen, you get "vigilante justice" like in the old west. There comes a point where the common citizen is willing to submit to certain restrictions on guns in order to maintain order, stability, and safety in society. Hence why gun restriction laws are stiffer in certain places and not as stiff in others.

To be fair, the pendulum can swing the other way, whereby restrictive gun laws can become innefficient, impractical, and (in extreme cases) more detrimental than helpful in effect. This is why the debate on this issue rages on... and it will continue so long as it's possible to strike a better, more equitable compromise between individual rights and the collective good.


ONe thing however is certain: Gun control is not a black and white issue. It isn't now, it never has, and it never will be.

[Edited on August 13, 2007 at 6:13 PM. Reason : f]

8/13/2007 6:06:42 PM

salisburyboy is stating that it is black and white though. blacks are out killing whites with guns.

8/13/2007 7:10:45 PM

One of the things salisburyboy cited was written by Prof. Eugene Volokh, who is a Jew.

8/13/2007 7:22:32 PM

Quote :

"Are you suggesting that laws banning handguns or requiring permits from the government to own a handgun are not unconstitutional (if the respective state constitution protects firearm ownership rights)?"

Quote :

"The second amendment says nothing about preventing the registration of firearms nor does it say that certain jurisdictions can't limit the types of firearms available."

So you claim to "fully support gun rights and don't believe in any further legal limitations to get a gun", yet here you are indicating you support the registration of firearms (which is historically shown to lead to confiscation), and you are indicating you support handgun bans in states/jurisdictions that protect firearm ownership rights.

So you are a liar who actually supports "gun control." And you just couldn't resist jumping in another one of my threads and arguing in favor of the establishment position, yet again. I'm COMPLETELY SHOCKED.

8/14/2007 7:12:59 AM

Quote :

"So you claim to "fully support gun rights and don't believe in any further legal limitations to get a gun... and you are indicating you support handgun bans in states/jurisdictions that protect firearm ownership rights"

First off, Mr. Joshua said he doesn't support additional gun restrictions. At no point did he claim to "fully support gun rights." Such a statement is exceptionally broad and non-specific. I doubt that even you would support "full gun rights." So it's ok for people to bring guns to grade-school? Court rooms? How about allowing assault rifles to kids soccer games? Even those whom "fully support gun rights" don't honestly support ZERO restrictions on gun usage. A significant portion of current gun restrictions are founded upon pragmatism, and those restrictions need to stay in place out of necessity.

Secondly, at no point did Mr. Joshua state that he supported hand gun bans on a state level. Jurisdictional hand gun bans include places like schools, court rooms, and community areas like those I mentioned previously. Such bans are not only reasonable, they're flat out necessary.


I'd appreciate it, salisburyboy, if you would restrict your outrage to comments that people ACTUALLY SAID.

Quote :

"yet here you are indicating you support the registration of firearms (which is historically shown to lead to confiscation)"

I call shenanigans. Cite a source backing that claim up or retract it immediately.

[Edited on August 14, 2007 at 12:32 PM. Reason : sdf]

8/14/2007 12:30:18 PM

Quote :

"At no point did he claim to "fully support gun rights.""

Uh....YES he did. Those are his exact words. Look at his post near the top of this page.

Quote :

"I doubt that even you would support "full gun rights." So it's ok for people to bring guns to grade-school? Court rooms? How about allowing assault rifles to kids soccer games? Even those whom "fully support gun rights" don't honestly support ZERO restrictions on gun usage."

No, I DO support "full" gun rights (or something very very close to "full"). We have the right to keep and BEAR arms. That right includes the right to carry arms on our person anywhere we may go. If you say that the government can deny our right to carry arms in some places, it leads to them denying the right in more and more places. Now, I may have to agree that a courtroom may be a place where people should not be allowed to carry arms. But that is a special case, and any other such restrictions should be VERY rare and limited.

As for grade schools, police are armed on school campuses, and there is no reason to deny teachers/principles the right to carry firearms as well. Can we only trust police, and we can't trust teachers and principles? And this would further protect against and help prevent future school shootings (even though school shootings are very rare).

People have the right to carry firearms on their person in order to be able to defend themselves. And that includes concealed carry (ie, needing a PERMIT to concealed carry violates gun carry rights....ie, the right to "keep and BEAR arms"). It matters not if it is on school grounds or anywhere else. And there is nothing to fear from allowing law-abiding citizens to carry firearms wherever they may go. If you actually think about it, there is nothing stopping criminals and nefarious individuals from carrying firearms wherever they may want to go. So if you require decent law-abiding people to be disarmed in certain "no gun" areas, you are leaving them defenseless against potential criminals, which is a recipe for disaster (eg, school shootings in high schools and universities).

Quote :

"Secondly, at no point did Mr. Joshua state that he supported hand gun bans on a state level."

As I said, he indicated that he supports those bans by the way he responded to my direct question on the issue.

8/14/2007 1:10:36 PM

Quote :

"just know that I fully support gun rights and don't believe in any further legal limitations to get a gun."

You're right, and I screwed that up admittedly.

What I was trying to say was that you are misinterpreting Mr. Joshua's support of gun rights. He's not suggesting guns should be allowed everywhere and be available to everybody. He's not contradicting himself, you're merely drawing the wrong conclusions.

Moreover, we have a right to bear arms the same way we have the right to free speech. We have the right to free speech only to the extent that it does not violate other people's rights. Yelling "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater when there isn't one, for example, is against the law. Why? Because saying that kind of crap may start a stampede that gets several people killed. At that point you have violated other people's rights in exercising yours. This is wrong.

Similarly, kids need a safe environment in school to learn. A safe, stressfree environment is conducive to learning. Similarly, the court system needs an impartial judicial process to ensure justice is served. Guns also pose a considerable saftey threat on airplanes, since it oculd potentially endanger everyone on the plane and lead to a potential hostage situation. In each of these scenarios, gun control makes sense.

Full gun rights, as you've suggested, goes against public opinion, pragmatism with regards toward civic order, and above all... plain ordinary common sense... which you obviously have none of...


That's all I got, I'm out.

[/thread]

8/14/2007 3:59:35 PM

Quote :

"So you claim to "fully support gun rights and don't believe in any further legal limitations to get a gun", yet here you are indicating you support the registration of firearms (which is historically shown to lead to confiscation), and you are indicating you support handgun bans in states/jurisdictions that protect firearm ownership rights."

I didn't indicate anything. You said that such acts are unconstitutional and I pointed out the errors in your argument.

Quote :

"So you are a liar who actually supports "gun control." And you just couldn't resist jumping in another one of my threads and arguing in favor of the establishment position, yet again. I'm COMPLETELY SHOCKED."

Quote :

"As I said, he indicated that he supports those bans by the way he responded to my direct question on the issue."

Now you're making up stuff and then trying to call me out on it. In classic salisburyboy fashion, you've given up defending your ideas and instead have turned to personal attacks. This is nothing new. You've simply proven again that you will resort to blatant lies whenever your position significantly erodes.

Quote :

"We have the right to keep and BEAR arms. That right includes the right to carry arms on our person anywhere we may go."

Bear arms in no way indicates blanket legalization of concealed carry. I actually couldn't find a single definition of bear that defined it in any way as concealed carry.

Here are two legitimate questions that you are too much of a coward to address:
In your mind, does the second amendment mean that I can have anti-aircraft weaponry?

By the way, why don't you explain why the peaceful white folk of Scotland and Finland have such a murder problem?

8/14/2007 4:00:53 PM

salisburyboy is now posting on packpride

http://forums.scout.com/mb.aspx?S=178&F=2531#S=178&F=2531&T=836324

8/14/2007 5:05:33 PM

Quote :

"You said that such acts are unconstitutional and I pointed out the errors in your argument."

You haven't pointed out any error at all. For instance, handgun bans in states that protect firearm ownership rights in their constitutions are CLEARLY unconstitutional. But I guess you would argue otherwise. And after supporting such handgun bans, you would also tell us that you "fully support gun rights."

8/14/2007 5:22:10 PM

Its a shame that you can't get past personal attacks based on wrong assumptions and get back to the issue. I never said that I supported handgun bans, I simply pointed out that there is nothing unconstitutional about them. You're really grasping here.

Quote :

"The second amendment says nothing about preventing the registration of firearms nor does it say that certain jurisdictions can't limit the types of firearms available."

If thats wrong, please explain why and stop being such a little crybaby.

I'd also like to know a little bit more about why you claim to be a fan of the constitution but you oppose laws supported by a majority of Americans - it sound like you complaining because you can't get your way.

Quote :

"Most of the existing so-called "gun control" laws violate state or federal constitutional rights protecting firearm ownership (eg, handgun bans in big cities, laws requiring permits for handguns, the former federal ban on "assault" weapons)."

I'm still waiting for you to point out the specific state and federal constitutional rights protecting against those.

Here are two legitimate questions that you are too much of a coward to address:
In your mind, does the second amendment mean that I can have anti-aircraft weaponry?

By the way, why don't you explain why the peaceful white folk of Scotland and Finland have such a murder problem?

8/14/2007 5:40:03 PM

Quote :

"I never said that I supported handgun bans, I simply pointed out that there is nothing unconstitutional about them."

If a state has a constitutional provision protecting the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms, then a handgun ban law in that state would MOST CERTAINLY be unconstitutional. It's laughable for you or anyone else to argue otherwise.

8/14/2007 6:01:13 PM

Thats not evidence, little buddy. Thats you repeating your opinion.

Tell me this: does the second amendment mean that I can have anti-aircraft weaponry?

8/14/2007 6:07:01 PM

Quote :

"So you are a liar who actually supports "gun control." And you just couldn't resist jumping in another one of my threads and arguing in favor of the establishment position, yet again. I'm COMPLETELY SHOCKED"

8/14/2007 6:09:18 PM

Why does no one argue about the right to form militias that is part of the 2nd amendment.

8/14/2007 6:12:51 PM

Now you're making up stuff and then trying to call me out on it. In classic salisburyboy fashion, you've given up defending your ideas and instead have turned to personal attacks. This is nothing new. You've simply proven again that you will resort to blatant lies whenever your position significantly erodes.

Back to the issues: please explain why the second amendment prevents handgun bans and gun registration.

Tell me this: does the second amendment mean that I can have anti-aircraft weaponry?

8/14/2007 6:15:00 PM

^ If it does then I would like some . I get so made at low flying planes it would be nice to give them a few warning shots to get them to fly at a higher altitude.

8/15/2007 9:09:04 AM

I'll assume that the fact that salisburyboy has abandoned this thread and moved onto the next one (even though he had abandoned defending his ideas on the first page) is his concession of defeat.

But if you do come back:

Please explain why the second amendment prevents handgun bans and gun registration.

In your mind, does the second amendment mean that I can have anti-aircraft weaponry?

By the way, why don't you explain why the peaceful white folk of Scotland and Finland have such a murder problem?

8/15/2007 3:29:06 PM

Great discussion. Too bad people are too heated about it, and start cursing and arguing abstract logic and diction instead of issues. Oh message boards...

I would be interested in seeing current statistics on who is doing the shooting and with what type of gun. I WOULD LOVEEEEE to see a statistic on how often someone heroically pulls out a handgun/12gauge they've been hunting with, or carrying around "to feel safe" and protects themselves successfully from an armed assailant. I could see that happening occasionally in the home, but if there are more than a handful of cases where a gun saves lives outside of someone's home a year, i would be surprised.

Also

1)I've heard that there are high powered semiautomatic rifles that can VERY easily be modified into automatic weapons. Does any pro 2nd amend-er really require the right to bear an m16 (or whatever it is)? Can we at least outlaw those?

but the main one is:

2)Can't we outlaw handguns more powerful than .22, and limit the clip size to...say...6 rounds? "but jubjub, thugs would modify the gun to make the clip larger"...Jubjub: ok so make the punishment for that a felony and jail time. "but jubjub, it would be so easy, anyone could do it"...jubjub: yes. but i really doubt someone that mugs people for drug money has a)convenient and plentiful internet access, b)the dedication required to buy the parts and machine them (using his...power tools? from his...garage?) "but jubjub this would be hard to implement, and limits personal privacy" Jubjub: Airport security has the same problems, but it's worse. We didn't ignore that problem, and I'll tell you, I feel damn safe on a plane, and damn scared shitless walking around really shady city streets at night.


Honestly, no one needs an m16 or a colt 45 to "protect" themselves from thieves, or the government.

8/15/2007 8:09:16 PM

to those who claim "there's no use outlawing things, criminals still get them"

In the 2005 World Drug
Report, UNODC valued the world narcotics trade at
some US$320 billion, a figure in keeping with previous
estimates from a variety of sources. Estimates for other
major illicit flows are considerably less. For example, in
2005 the International Labour Organization estimated
the value of global human trafficking to be US$32 billion.
1 Estimates of the value of the trade in conflict diamonds
range from 1.5 - 2 per cent to 3 -15 per cent of
the overall trade in rough diamonds.2 Small Arms
Survey puts the value of the illicit firearms trade at no
more than US$1billion.3

As technology improves, it would be harder and harder to obtain outlawed firearms. This is our country, why throw up your hands and say "whatev, let some people die, it's too hard to try"

8/15/2007 8:40:29 PM

Quote :

"I WOULD LOVEEEEE to see a statistic on how often someone heroically pulls out a handgun/12gauge they've been hunting with, or carrying around "to feel safe" and protects themselves successfully from an armed assailant. I could see that happening occasionally in the home, but if there are more than a handful of cases where a gun saves lives outside of someone's home a year, i would be surprised. "

Quote :

"In 79.7% of gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occurred in places away from the defender's home. "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of CVolume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995 "

Quote :

" 77% of all violent crime occurs in public places. U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Criminal Victimization in the United States”, 1993 "

Quote :

" 26.8% of defensive gun uses occur away from home. Kleck and Gertz, National Self Defense Survey, 1995 "

Quote :

"Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Often the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed. “Targeting Guns”, Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University, 1997 "

Quote :

" Every day, 550 rapes, 1,100 murders, and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun. National Crime Victimization Survey, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics,"

Quote :

" Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds. Fall 1995, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology "

Quote :

"I've heard that there are high powered semiautomatic rifles that can VERY easily be modified into automatic weapons. Does any pro 2nd amend-er really require the right to bear an m16 (or whatever it is)? Can we at least outlaw those? "

Why would you outlaw those? To what purpose? You're 11 times more likely to be beaten to death than killed with one of those.

Quote :

"Can't we outlaw handguns more powerful than .22, and limit the clip size to...say...6 rounds?"

Again, to what purpose? The only people who would follow the law would be those following the laws in the first place (i.e. not assaulting you with a gun). Furthermore, do you then also limit your police to .22 and 6 rounds? If not, what justification does a police officer have needing more firepower to defend their life that a citizen does not?

Quote :

"Airport security has the same problems, but it's worse. We didn't ignore that problem, and I'll tell you, I feel damn safe on a plane, and damn scared shitless walking around really shady city streets at night."

Interestingly, statistically, you are no more safe on a plane today than you were before 9/11, yet overall violent crime is going down across the nation.

Quote :

"Honestly, no one needs an m16 or a colt 45 to "protect" themselves from thieves, or the government."

Perhaps not, but if they aren't harming anyone, what right do you have to tell anyone they can't have it?

Quote :

"Small Arms Survey puts the value of the illicit firearms trade at no more than US$1billion.3"

Don't you suppose this might have something to do with the fact that the overwelming majority of fireams trade is legal for legal law abiding citizens? The majority of your violent crime is comitted by a very small minority of your population. Focus on the criminals not the tools and you might actualy change something.

8/15/2007 9:45:55 PM

1)Your statistics are ridiculous. almost 1 in 100 Americans do not prevent crime by brandishing a weapon PER YEAR. I guess youre including cops and security guards in that. I never said cops should be disarmed. I think cops with berettas is a beautiful thing.

2)
Quote :
Why would you outlaw those? To what purpose? You're 11 times more likely to be beaten to death than killed with one of those.

Your premises:
a)"You're 11 times more likely to be beaten to death than killed with an m16"
b)(implied) If you are more likely to be beaten to death than shot with an m16, outlawing m16s will not save lives "to what purpose?"
c)Your (implied) conclusion: you should not outlaw m16s because it is not worth the trouble "why would you outlaw those?"

So you're saying saving lives isn't worth the trouble. I explicitly answered that question, in the very post you are responding to.
"As technology improves, it would be harder and harder to obtain outlawed firearms. This is our country, why throw up your hands and say "whatev, let some people die, it's too hard to try"

3)
Quote :
Again, to what purpose? The only people who would follow the law would be those following the laws in the first place (i.e. not assaulting you with a gun). Furthermore, do you then also limit your police to .22 and 6 rounds? If not, what justification does a police officer have needing more firepower to defend their life that a citizen does not?

First, keep the cops with their berettas, high powered rifles, shotguns, etc. What justification do they need? Hm...let's see. THEY SERVE AND PROTECT. The military has stinger missiles and fucking F22 raptors, TO PROTECT THE US, INCLUDING YOU (ostensibly). Should individuals be allowed to own raptors? Would that protect them? dammit i cant believe I'm arguing with you about this.

As to the more relevant question you pose about "The only people who would follow the law would be those following the laws in the first place (i.e. not assaulting you with a gun)".

Again. I posed AND answered that question.

4)
Quoteon't you suppose this might have something to do with the fact that the overwelming majority of fireams trade is legal for legal law abiding citizens? The majority of your violent crime is comitted by a very small minority of your population. Focus on the criminals not the tools and you might actualy change something.

Agree, agree (I never said the contrary, I just thought it was an interesting statistic), disagree, but thank you for your opinion. Your entire post revolves around the idea that we can't do anything about the "tools", mostly because "it would be too difficult". Obviously I disagree. That's why I included the statistic about how small the illegal gun trade was. I thought the implications were self-evident.

Sorry for bashing your statistics. Maybe they're 100% accurate. None of them interfere with my two propositions anyway. I think that if you don't feel safe with a .22 then what you need is counseling, not a .45. I think if you can't kill a deer with a bolt action rifle, then you can't do it with an m16. I think we would DRASTICALLY cut down on the most dangerous weapons.

[Edited on August 16, 2007 at 4:30 PM. Reason : dsaf]

8/16/2007 4:13:03 PM

Quote :

"I think that if you don't feel safe with a .22 then what you need is counseling, not a .45. I think if you can't kill a deer with a bolt action rifle, then you can't do it with an m16."

These 2 statements make it very clear you know absolutely nothing about firearms, every other post you made proved that as well but those are just ridiculous.

8/16/2007 5:05:32 PM

Quote :

"I think that if you don't feel safe with a .22 then what you need is counseling, not a .45"

I hate that part of the 2nd Amendment that specifies which calibers you are allowed to have

8/16/2007 5:19:15 PM

It's so immediately obvious in this thread who actually a) knows anything about guns b) has even shot one.

Some of the arguments made in this thread are just so absurd. My favorite was the one banning ammo, lol that was a gem.

Most people don't understand that a .22 will do a shitload of damage. Those who own guns and use them regularly (yes that includes me) know that it doesn't take a .45 caliber to fuck something up. Though it will make bigger holes .

I'll keep checking back on this thread for more hilarity to ensue.

8/16/2007 7:03:35 PM

i've shot a 22 pistol, and a 22 rifle, not that I think it really matters.

No one said the 2nd amendment specifies caliber size. That's what amendments are for. Amending.

"most people dont understand that a .22 will do a shitload of damage" who said that...ever? has anyone said that on this thread? I didnt read most of it, but I'm sure I didn't say that. obviously a .22 round could kill. but, more importantly, it's nearly as good as a colt at disabling. Therefore, it is just as good as a defensive tool, and much less deadly in criminal hands. If a mugger shoots you ANYWHERE with a colt, you're fucked. If a mugger shoots you anywhere other than the stomach or head with a .22, you have a chance.

Care to create any more straw dogs or red herrings?

8/16/2007 8:27:54 PM

^ I've heard that .22 bullets are responsible for more deaths than any other caliber, although google couldn't find me any support for it.

Hell, Seung-Hui Cho had one with him when he flipped out.

8/16/2007 9:20:30 PM

^^ so for the armed citizen a .22 is as good as a Colt, but for the criminal he has to hit us in the head or else we have a chance??
Its time for you to quit talking out of your ass, you know absolutely nothing about guns, NOTHING, NOT ONE FUCKING THING.

One day if you ever have to protect your family from armed criminals with thick wintertime jackets on with your little 6 shot .22 you will learn the truth fast. But then again, you would be to coward to even try to protect yourself. You are to damn ignorant son!

Dont get me wrong, I love .22's and own many but to think its just as good of defensive weapon as a .45 is rigoddamndiculous



and dont bother arguing bullet placement with me, I hold a masters qualification in IDPA and i've won more guns than you've been scared of

[Edited on August 16, 2007 at 10:35 PM. Reason : 1]

8/16/2007 10:24:06 PM

Quote :

"Your statistics are ridiculous. almost 1 in 100 Americans do not prevent crime by brandishing a weapon PER YEAR. I guess youre including cops and security guards in that. I never said cops should be disarmed. I think cops with berettas is a beautiful thing. "

Irellevent. A cop is nothing more than a citizen with a job of enforcing the law. It has nothing to do with how effective handguns are at stopping crime.

Quote :

"Your premises: a)"You're 11 times more likely to be beaten to death than killed with an m16" b)(implied) If you are more likely to be beaten to death than shot with an m16, outlawing m16s will not save lives "to what purpose?" c)Your (implied) conclusion: you should not outlaw m16s because it is not worth the trouble "why would you outlaw those?" So you're saying saving lives isn't worth the trouble. I explicitly answered that question, in the very post you are responding to. "As technology improves, it would be harder and harder to obtain outlawed firearms. This is our country, why throw up your hands and say "whatev, let some people die, it's too hard to try" "

Close but not quite. My points are the following:

1) Outlawing M16s will reduce crime by an extremely insiginificant ammount as compared to the ammount of resources and effort that would need to go into making the laws surrounding fully automatic weapons any more restrictive than they already are. Resources that would be better spent on things like outlawing shooting people in the first place.

2) Being that you are more likely to be beat to death than killed with an M16, adding anymore laws against it would simply move your criminal from shooting you with an M16 to beating you to death. Again, you're attacking the symptom not the problem itself.

Quote :

"First, keep the cops with their berettas, high powered rifles, shotguns, etc. What justification do they need? Hm...let's see. THEY SERVE AND PROTEC"

And what makes a cop's life more valuble than the life of random joe blow who you think is going to be gunned down with an M16? Why doesn't Joe Blow deserve to be able to PROTECT himself with something better than a .22? I assure you that when Joe Blow gets mugged, robbed or assaulted, even assuming he can call a cop in the first place, by the time they get there, the only thing left to protect will be the evidence. How many more public shootings at schools and malls and churches have to happen before people realize that police are by design and intention a reactionary force, and that defense starts with the individual?

And if the .22 is good enough for the citizen, why isn't it good enough for the cop?

Quote :

"Your entire post revolves around the idea that we can't do anything about the "tools", mostly because "it would be too difficult". Obviously I disagree. That's why I included the statistic about how small the illegal gun trade was. I thought the implications were self-evident."

It's not a matter of difficulty, it's a matter of relative effectiveness, cost bennefit and the fact that every person should have the right to defend their life as they see fit.

Quote :

" I think that if you don't feel safe with a .22 then what you need is counseling, not a .45."

A gun in the hand is better than none at all, but are you seriously suggesting that were you going up against someone assaulting you, you wouldn't want the most effective tool for the job? Combat veterans will tell you that when your adrenaline gets moving, you don't always feel getting shot. If my opponent is going to be in a state like that, I want to ensure I inflict the most damage to stop him the fastest.

Quote :

"obviously a .22 round could kill. but, more importantly, it's nearly as good as a colt at disabling. Therefore, it is just as good as a defensive tool, and much less deadly in criminal hands."

And here we get to the fatal misunderstanding in your position. If you pull the triger of a gun, then you must have already decided that whatever is on the other end of that gun MUST DIE. Shooting at gun is DEADLY force, therefore, the decision to shoot is the decision to KILL. Anything else is suicide.

Quote :

"If a mugger shoots you anywhere other than the stomach or head with a .22, you have a chance."

Which applies the other way as well. If I hit the mugger anywhere else with a .22, he's going to keep comming, which completely negates the purpose of shooting him in the first place, which was to stop and kill him.

8/16/2007 11:00:32 PM

I feel that I must add that if the only way to "stop" a criminal with a .22 is by shooting him in the head, you'll pretty much go to prison. I can't speak for laws in other states, but in NC a head shot is not considered self-defense. Granted that in the heat of the moment--and when adrenaline causes you to empty the entire magazine in a short amount of time--it's entirely possible to hit somebody in the skull, but a general rule of thumb is that you probably aren't in imminent danger (and therefore cannot legally justify lethal force) if you have enough time to line up a shot on a difficult target such as the head. That goes for shots to the knees as well. Self-defense does not necessarily mean making the attacker think twice about continuing his attack, it means striking as fast and has hard as possible. If you're at the point where you cannot get away from your attacker and you know he's going to kill you, the only response left to you is to kill him first.

One of the most basic rules of gun ownership is that you do not EVER point the gun at something that you do not intend to destroy. Once you have reached the conclusion that the object on the other end is worth shooting, you must follow through completely, or else you will likely be killed or worse. So if you ever pull a gun on someone in self-defense, you better aim quickly for the center of mass (ie chest) and squeeze off at least two rounds.

I think that the 2nd Amendment guarantees every citizen in this country the right to bear any sort of weapon. I think that people have a responsibility first and foremost to themselves, and that includes protecting their person and their property. I don't think that it's up to the police to have to guard your well-being 24/7, and time after time the police in this country have demonstrated that they don't particularly care about individuals' safety either. That said, it's understandable and necessary that restrictions be placed upon more-dangerous weapons such as automatics, mortars, etc. We do not live in such a dangerous society that keeping an M16 set on automatic for home-defense is a must, so I can see why there would be a need for regulation on weapons of that nature. And I'm sure that all of the statistical evidence indicates that guns cause significantly more deaths (both accidental and criminal) than any other weapon, in countries where they are allowed. But as long as you aren't harming anyone, or committing any crimes, you continue to report that you have it, and as long as you can afford it, why should it matter whether or not you own an AK-47? If you aren't doing anything wrong, why should you be punished?

8/16/2007 11:28:21 PM

since you don't bother with logic, i'll keep it short and sweet. Who was I to expect reason on a message board?

I'll respond to your positions seriatim.

1)no, it is relevant.

2)you said I was off the mark, and then you reiterated the fact that you do think m16 control is worthless. Why do you lie about your position? You are too lazy to try and control m16s. Admit it.

3)a cop with a beretta is not a citizen in the same sense that the pilot of a b2 bomber laden with nukes is not a citizen. let me dumb it down for you. You just don't understand what I'm saying. stop pretending to reply to me. Why don't you go have someone explain my posts to you. Then have them help you formulate responses.

4)i'll ignore the first 2 clauses as already addressed. The third is axiomatic. What place does it have in our discussion? MY GOD. GOOGLE STRAW DOG.

5)I already admitted a 22 has less stopping power than a 45. I'm sure there is a hypothetical situation where you shoot a mugger and he keeps coming at you. Would this happen frequently? no. Are you being a devils advocate on purpose, because you dont have a legitimate leg to stand on? Fuck you for ruining my good drunk.

6)my misunderstanding is what exactly? That a defensive shot of a 22 would be intended to disable? I didnt say that. If a mugger is coming after you, shoot his ass. His ass is grass. Should you care for his welfare? I think not. We wouldnt be arguing here, if you werent inventing straw dogs.


umbrellaman:that is a problem. If, in some states, you are criminally charged for defending yourself, then that needs to be addressed. Why do you suppose that I support such a ridiculous statute? because I'm not a gun nut, and therefore the enemy? SIGHHHHHHHHHHh

8/17/2007 2:37:43 AM

Quote :

"you said I was off the mark, and then you reiterated the fact that you do think m16 control is worthless. Why do you lie about your position? You are too lazy to try and control m16s. Admit it. "

It's not a matter of being lazy, it's a matter of there being more effective and better means of solving the same problem than banning M16s. It's called cost bennefit analysis. If banning M16s saves 1 life per year but uses 1 million man hours to enforce and those same 1 million man hours could be spent actively seeking out and locking up murderers in the first place, saving 50 lives per year, then banning M16s is a waste of resources.

If stopping people from being killed by M16s is your goal, then by all means, ban M16s. If your goal is to stop people from being killed period, than there are better things to spend your limited resources on.

Quote :

"a cop with a beretta is not a citizen in the same sense that the pilot of a b2 bomber laden with nukes is not a citizen."

Police and the military are vastly different entities with different charges, and are designed to be that way. To compare them as you are is dishonest. Furthermore, provide for me a logical reason why a cop is anymore deserving of a greater form of defense for his life than you or anyone else is. Again, what makes a .22 good enough for you and me and your grandmother, but not good enough for a cop?

Quote :

"I already admitted a 22 has less stopping power than a 45. I'm sure there is a hypothetical situation where you shoot a mugger and he keeps coming at you. Would this happen frequently? no. Are you being a devils advocate on purpose, because you dont have a legitimate leg to stand on? Fuck you for ruining my good drunk."

It's rather common for someone to continue attacking even after being shot, and would certainly be more common with a .22 than say a 9mm or a .45.

Quote :

"my misunderstanding is what exactly? That a defensive shot of a 22 would be intended to disable? I didnt say that. If a mugger is coming after you, shoot his ass. His ass is grass. Should you care for his welfare? I think not. We wouldnt be arguing here, if you werent inventing straw dogs."

So if we have no concern for his welfare, why should I not be allowed to stop him using higher powered rounds?

For someone so concerned with logic, you sure as hell don't seem to be able to put together a logical argument. Most of your arguments are from an emotional standpoint. That being said, I'm done with you, you will come back with a rebuttle saying the same things again, how cops aren't citizens and deserve more rights than citizens and questioning my concern for human lives because I don't want to ban M16s. I'm not going around in circles with someone who isn't listening.

8/17/2007 2:06:42 PM