Trilidon

The national guard is controlled by the government and is a branch of the armed services

It is not a bring your own gun militia

reconmike

I like being armed to the teeth!

The National guard is under government control, so they are not a militia, the founding fathers intended for civilians to keep and bear arms so as if the government became tyrantical they would have some recourse.

And grandmas that are armed to the teeth with the knowlege of how to use firearms are less likely to be robbed of their social security check.

If people are afraid of firearms, just stay away from them.

__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?

seretogis

This has been discussed in several posts, already. The National Guard is not the "well regulated militia" which is referred to in the Second Amendment.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

cj2112

Interesting, I posted an actual personal experience in which owning a firearm, and using it in a responsible manner, actually prevented four people from being injured or killed (Myself, my 2 small children, 6 and 8 y.o. at the time, and the criminal) yet only one person who appears to be in favor of stiffer gun regulations even acknowledged it. I stand by my opinion that it is not only my right to own a firearm, but my responsibility. If, in light of my experience in using a firearm to defend my family, you can show me where owning a firearm is a bad thing, then I will respect your opinion, until then, if you are anti-gun, and American, please don't vote.

The.Lunatic

First off I should be able to buy any gun i want.

Freedom isn't the safest way to live ones life.

It just happens to be the best.

Our current gun laws are fine with the exception of one.

We need a Federal Conceled weapons licence, because its very lame to need one for every state you go to. Yes many states will recognize a licence from another state, however many more do not.

If you don't want the freedoms that this country permits move to canada. They don't have guns.

They also have serial killers with woodchippers and pig farms, but they don't have guns.

Also accorind to the United Nations Canada is number 8 now in best countries to live in US is number 7

EAT THAT CANADA!!

number one is Norway

i'm half norwegian

ctembreull

I would argue here that if the National Guard is not, in fact, the "well-regulated" militia specified in the Constitution, then said militia does not in fact exist, because what militia there is is not well-regulated. It is too easy for criminals to acquire guns in contravention of law, it is too easy for people to commit gun crimes.

If we must have a militia, then it must be well-regulated, and ours is most certainly not. I think that no matter how you slice it, gun laws are insufficient as they stand, and need to be tightened. Exactly how is open to debate.

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

ctembreull

Neither do I. But I think it's very, VERY obvious that the modern Court is drastically conservative in nature. But that's neither here nor there, except to provide some context for my frequent and vehement disagreements with the Supreme Court.

I agree insofar in that gun training really ought to be mandatory; we license people to drive. We make them take classes, tests, and acquire insurance. Maybe there's a solution that way. After all, a car improperly used is as much a threat to life and limb as a gun improperly used. What an interesting idea... an actual licensing process and liability insurance.


I think you might have missed where I pointed out that there are potential solutions in "fingerprinting" guns and so on. This could actually be done in the factory, providing law enforcement at least someplace to start. The whole point here is to begin collecting data on guns. If we're not to remove them - and I'll say it again, we shouldn't, then it is not a bad idea to know as much as possible about each gun out there. Sure, incomplete data happens. But you can't say it would be a failure, because it's never been tried before.

The number here is based on casual observation of guns. I won't touch them myself, but I do pay some small amount of attention. It seems that most legit handguns have 12-round clips at most. You may call that arbitrary, and there you have it. But that's what happens when you use a personal definition. Believe me, I'm not a lawyer, and reciting the gun laws is quite beyond my powers of recollection. The definition I gave was simply culled from my observation of guns.

Good thing I don't think guns should be eliminated, huh? I thought I was fairly clear on that one...

On that we can agree... and I hope that things like this can form the foundation of future gun legislation. But I'm still hoping for an ounce of prevention to go with that pound of cure.

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

ctembreull

Hmm. I think not. Since I operate in no legal or law enforcement capacity, my personal definition becomes relevant. Since that sort of personal definition is at the core of my personal opinion, it is totally relevant, if arbitrary. Huzzah, welcome to humanity. My personal opinion irrelevant? No more so than yours is, dear.

Le'ts call it years of casual observation, combined with a perhaps misguided desire to be as flexible as possible.

Yes. I take particular exception to .50 caliber handguns. What earthly need has anyone for that much bullet?

Hmmm. So you say technology has made more powerful bullets mandatory? I think not. My definition stands, and you'll note that I made mention of some weapons needing alternate classification. Rifles would be a good example. Just because your pistol fires cop-killers doesn't mean that such bullets and weapons should be legal.

You're saying your target pistol is a .50-caliber pistol loaded with teflon or tracer rounds, carrying thirteen or more rounds? You have just defined your "target pistol" as vastly in excess of what you could almost ever conceivably need to defend yourself, unless perhaps you are regularly assailed by platoons of elephants wearing body armor.


(... alternate definition of assault weaponry, notably excluding any post-ban weapon converted to full-automatic fire trimmed for space)

I'm so glad you have an opinion, but I think perhaps you shouldn't be quite so quick to call other folks' opinions irrelevant.

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

dmay

A rather large black bear killed several of our animals,then raised up at me from the other side of our childrens pool last year.I'm very glad I was not armed with a broom.

seretogis

I disagree, I've yet to see a unanimous vote in favor of something that I would define as a "conservative decision".

Many many many more people die from car accidents than from gun accidents, but yes, some form of safety training should definitely be required. Personally, I would implement this through the school system. Perhaps an elementary school Eddie-Eagle-like "Hey kids, stay the hell away from guns, they're bad" program coupled with a required course on firearm safety in high school.

"Shall-issue" conceal/carry handgun laws are a deterrant of violent crime. Do you support such empowerment of law-abiding gun owners, or would you rather that only police and the military are able to carry a gun?

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

debaser

Perhaps irrelevant was to strong. Lets stick with ignorant.

Lets call it vague instead.

I would much rather be assaulted with a .50 caliber handgun. The assailent will have less rounds to shoot at me, his follow up shots will be less accurate, and he will tire far more easily than if he were using, say, a 9mm (which, to a human is every bit as lethal using modern ammunition). A .50 calibur bullet is just 5 hundredths of an inch bigger than a .45 calibur bullet, it is not some magic death machine because of it. (I assume you know the difference between a .50 AE and a .50 BMG, since we are talking about handguns here)

You may "think not" all you like, but you cannot fire LRN bullets out of a polygon rifled barrel. So yes, jacketed rounds are neccesary for some weapons. Also, any weapon capable of firing a non-jacketed round is equally capable of firing a jacketed round, so unless you reinvent the wheel you aren't going fix that issue.

Oh, do all the conditions have to apply? Mine just fires jacketed ammo, but by the phrasing of your definition above, that makes it an assault weapon.
It is not an "alternate definition", nor is it my opinion. It is the definition of an assault weapon as layed down by the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 (18 USC Chapter 44 as amended by Public Law 103-322). Converting any weapon to full auto has been against the law since the NFA of 1934.

Real quick, which gun is an assault weapon?

__________________

Dilbert1234567

Ignorants with guns are worse

__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen

sharonz

Hand guns are specifically designed for killing PEOPLE. no one takes their friggin pistol to go shoot a deer. no-they take it to 7-11 to shoot the cashier for $100 and a free slurpee. Holding up a conveniance store witha rifle isnt very conveniant.

i also dont understand how having a gun in the home is so safe. it protection? NO! how can it protect you when the gun is hidden in a differant place then the amunition? If they arent hidden, how do you expect to protect your children from themselves? I'd rather give the guy whatever the fuck he wants than risk the lives of my potential children.

reconmike

I have never taken my ACP .45 to the 7-11 for a slurpee or $100, that is why I have a ATM card, a responsible life.

I am a law abiding citizen, with all the proper papework that is involved with owning a firearm, training in use of it, I am sure that I have more than most in this area.

My handgun is loaded in a place that I can get to it quickly but my children can not. I can be out of bed and armed in less than 10 seconds,
does that make me feel better living in a metropolis with more than 12 million people?

You can bet it does.

__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?

ctembreull

I've tried to trim your post down to get rid of the ad-hominem argumenta, and a bit of the techno-weenie stuff. I recognize that you are far, far, far more conversant with guns than I will ever care to be, but I'm sure you'll pardon me when I say that that doesn't make me feel any more secure. Much less so, actually.

I think I see the crux of your argument here: so long as guns are legal in any form, you appear willing to concede that a non-trivial number of gun deaths will occur in the United States every year. This is, apparently, where we diverge: you're quite willing to frame the debate in terms of a gun duel, which presumes that one or more participants will wind up dead or wounded. I would much rather frame the debate in terms of finding a way to prevent such situations and to, with any luck, minimize or eliminate gun accidents and homicides in America. It's as simple as that. I want to try to fix a badly broken system; you want to talk about things like muzzle velocity and the relative merits of this gun over that gun.

(... a point dodging the issue of technology versus gun laws).

You don't, apparently, see what I'm getting at. Just because people have come up with a way to make handguns fire rifle ammunition, or that such-and-such a gun requires such-and-such an ammo, it does not automatically follow that said gun should be legal. Again, there's the "more power than you'd ever need" aspect, which has a lot to do with this.

You like quibbling with my definition, I see. That's fine, but you've managed to completely miss the forest whilst you were counting trees. But, for your information, no - all the conditions need not apply. If a gun has a thirty-round clip loaded with Teflon rounds, I don't see how the size of those rounds matters. It's the people who are probably about to die because of that gun that matter.

Well, actually, it *is* an alternate definition to my own. And I don't recall ever calling it your opinion...

In your hands, I'd probably say any gun is an assault weapon. You'll pardon me for saying so, but without looking at your profile, you strike me as a high-schooler. You're very fond of guns, I see that, and you're always very happy to talk about them, much in the fashion that other high-schoolers do about cars or other things. All technical, with no thought given to the actual impact of what you're saying. You can argue the technical all you like. I don't think I'll be listening too closely: technospeak outside my own professional field tends to bore me intensely. I would rather be fixing the problem.

Thanks all the same.

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

HaloLauren

I've decided that though guns should be legal, I can still shun those who own them.

Sty

There's a lot of non-lethal alternatives which are even more efficient at stunning the opponent than a .50 desert eagle. Would save a lot of lives too.

__________________
br,
Sty

I route, therefore you exist

debaser

Cute:

What ad-hominem? I called your opinion ignorant, as it is obvious you don't know much about the subject you are speaking to. As far as the "techno-weenie stuff", you are the one who brought up the technical aspects of firearms in your post. I didn't realize that you were using them without knowing what they meant. From now on I will exclude such details from my arguments.

The sad irony of the situation is that while you may not feel safer, the presence of competant, armed, law-abiding citizens in this country actually makes you much safer. Every criminal who will ever size you up will do so under the assumption that you may have a gun. You're welcome.
No, I have come to terms with the reality that there will always be guns available to the criminal element in this country, and have seen the folly of passing laws that restrict only those people who follow laws in the first place (generally not the type killing people with guns).

Yes, so long as there are guns, there will be deaths. The same goes for knives, lawn-darts, cars, and shampoo.

And also, you were the one discussing the relative merits of one gun over another by arbitrarily labeling one of them an "assault weapon". I was simply pointing out the folly of such logic.
No, what you are trying to say, in a round about way, is that we should ban all guns. Period. You see, your definition of what is dangerous includes every gun I have ever seen. I was trying to explain that to you, I apologize if I got lost in minutia.

I was simply trying to allay your irrational fear of firearms using humour. I find it funny that my target pistol is suddenly such a dangerously out of control device that I am likely to go out and start mowing down the innocent masses with it.


And as for the definition, yours would be the alternate. You see, the term assault weapon carrys legal weight, therefor the term is defined in balck and white. If you are going to discuss gun control and banter around technical terms, make sure you know the meaning.
Not even close, though I am very fond of guns. I make my living with them, you see. And you buy them for me.

[quote][b] All technical, with no thought given to the actual impact of what you're saying. You can argue the technical all you like. I don't think I'll be listening too closely: technospeak outside my own professional field tends to bore me intensely. I would rather be fixing the problem.
Yet you have proposed no feasible way to fix "it". Your methodology is akin to waving a magic wand and making all the bad, evil guns just dissappear. Not gonna happen. I have addressed the technospeak issue, If you don't like it, don't bring it up.
You are most welcome.

__________________

ctembreull

Wow. I lay out some basic terms, e.g. military-grade ammunition (with a couple of examples), and I'm going technical. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. So anyway, where were we:

I can think of at least 55,000 people who might disagree with you. At least, they would if they were still alive. You can talk comparatively all you like, but you're not addressing the basic point: guns do kill people. "Guns are neat little things, aren't they? They can kill extraordinary people with very little effort. " -- John W. Hinckley

I'm trying very hard to see where I should be thankful; the odds are that he just wants to make sure his gun is bigger. Oh, look! Our very own arms race. The fact that the "bad guys" have guns does not mean that people should buy ever more of them. It means that alternate solutions to the problem are required, or the U.S. will rapidly come to resemble Beirut.

I've never seen anyone quite so complacent about death before. What a saddening thing. However, we license people to drive; we require that they are trained in automotive safety. We also restrict cars to within certain boundaries of power. Why, pray tell, do we not do the same with guns? You're in the military; you've had that training. What about Joe-Bob out there, who bought that Desert Eagle or what have you because it looks cool? What safety training has he got? In most states, the odds are that he has none.

Right. Don't tell me what I was trying to say. I don't believe in banning all guns, FYI. But you're right: all guns are dangerous. The sooner society wakes up to this simple fact, the sooner we can begin working on fixing the problem. That's the trick about those little implements designed from their very inception to kill people; they're inherently hazardous to health, both yours and that of anyone around you.

Irrational fear of guns? What a load of tripe. My fear of guns is entirely rational. I've seen firsthand precisely what they can do. I've also seen firsthand how carrying a weapon is no guarantee of safety; but it can increase the likelihood of your being a victim of gun violence. And as far as your pistol goes, are you trying to tell me that if you were not of a mind, you couldn't begin "mowing down the innocent masses"? Or someone else with exactly the same weapon? Your intransigence awes me, as does your utter incapability to realize that my fear of guns is every freaking bit as rational as your fear of gun control.

Not from where I'm standing. The difference is that perhaps I trust my own judgement better than I trust words on paper. It's a perspective thing.

I have never heard of a more laughable notion than that which states laws are black and white, outside of narrow ink-color-on-paper-color terms. Laws are fluid. Laws change. Laws are inconsistent. Laws come and go. Laws are passed to supersede other laws. No law is static, inflexible, or absolute.

Tell me, would you like me to expound upon just why your being in the military only reinforces my earlier assessment?

Somehow, I am not reassured.

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

smooth

You raise a good point. I wonder if the few people (was it two or three?) posting here who have resorted to utilizing a firearm in their defense would have been able to use a Tazer, rubber bullets, or some other disarming/incapacitating device.

So to those posters:

Are there reasons you would not have felt equally safe or think you would not have resolved the episode to your satisfaction by resorting to current or future non-lethal devices?

If you wouldn't have felt just safe or feel current non-lethal devices would not have resolved the episodes to your satisfaction, why not and which improvements would you suggest to reach comparable results as lethal means?

seretogis

My brother was a security guard at a relatively insecure apartment complex in Minneapolis and before he was able to carry a gun, he carried such non-lethal weapons as pepper-spray and baton. The problem with these (and a Taser), is that they are unreliable and you either have to get very close to the attacker, or have incredible aim. Miss, and you will only make your attacker more determined to do and/or your family harm. Honestly, it isn't worth it to me to risk my life or my family's life in order to save that of someone who's trying to do me bodily harm.

An effective non-lethal means of self-defense would have to be intimidating as well as incapacitating. It would have to be effective when used on any part of the body, and be able to travel through heavy clothing. Lastly, it would need to be fast acting/shooting, as you generally only have seconds to react in a life-threatening situation.

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

debaser

Well, yes, you are. If you want to define ammunition as "military grade", the reader assumes you know what "military grade" ammunition is. Or were you just dressing up your post a bit?
Well, if you define your stances in life by the quotes of murderers that up to you I guess.

Of course guns kill people. They also protect people. A strange dichotomy to be sure...


Please go back and read the thread. There is no arms race. The deterent is being shot, not being shot with a bigger gun than you happen to be holding at the time.

But earlier in the thread I said:

...and...
And in the spirit of righteous indignation that you display below, don't tell me how I feel about taking another mans life. It is completely out of your realm of experience.

If handled improperly. I handle mine properly. Now what is your beef?


I could just as easily decide to plow my car through a famers market, were I suddenly to snap and go on a homicidal rampage. The nice thing about living where I do though, is some sane, law-abiding citizen would very likely put an end to my crime spree with the very weapon you hate.
Well, we can go with well known and excepted definitions, or we can attempt to glean your meaning from the fathomless depths of your mind...

I prefer the former. However, if you insist on the latter, I will be happy to start using my own definitions of words and terms as well.


Well, then I suggest you read the piece of legislation in question and find the wiggle room. It is very specific. Black and white, some would say.
If you have a problem with the military, please start another thread, and I will deal with that issue there.

__________________

tritium

I own a 30/30 rifle that I use when I'm home to shoot gophers and such to keep them from digging holes that break cattle legs. I don't really have much to say either way, only that in certain circumstances guns are useful. Same token, different side: you don't need a .50 automatic sniper rifle to go dear hunting with ...

__________________
Blah.

Gorgo

ctembreull v. debaser

It's interesting to see two people with seriously polar opposite beliefs try to come to a consensus about Gun Control.

I can't resist throwing in my perspective, as I believe I am somewhere between the two of you on this issue.

First, about that Second Amendment:
"A well-regulated militia being essential to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Let's remember when this was written, so we can take it in context. Over 200 years ago, when smoothbore muskets were state-of-the-art firearms. Most adult males had one, for hunting and such. Over half the population was involved in producing food, most as farmers. There wasn't a standing army, nothing like what we have now. The militia was all the men of the town who could use their muskets and defend the town. They were like "citizen soldiers".

Next lets read the whole sentence and notice the comma halfway thru. The first part of the sentence is the "justification" part, where the need for a militia ie. citizen soldiers is located. The second part of sentence is the actual rule of law "the right of the people to keep and bear arns shall not be infringed". For a definition of people, see the first sentence of said constitution, as in "We the people", all law-abiding citizens is the meaning here.

So the basic concept is, all law-abinding citizens who may be needed in the militia to keep security and defend the free state may keep and bear arms.

Why is this a good idea?
The people in this thread have pretty much covered them all, self-defense, crime deterrent, slow police response, dictatorship deterrence.

----------------------

Second, does size matter?
Yes, Not much for diameter, but for length absolutely.

The longer the barrel the more inherently accurate the weapon can be.
The shorter the barrel the more easily concealed.

Diameter mostly affects how many shots you can get on target because of recoil, but its only takes one well aimed shot of any caliber to end a lethal confrontation.

And I'll take any firearm, even a little .22 deringer over any other self-defense item, lethal or non-lethal, if I want the best chance of saving my life or a loved one's.

----------------------
Gun Control?
Not if it takes away my right as a law-abiding US citizen to keep and bear a firearm for lawful self defense. Requiring gun owners to be trained in use, care and responsibilties of firearms ownership would be OK with me.

Restricting citizens from having Military style fireams is also OK with me. We don't really need sniper rifles, bazookas and machineguns to defend our homes and loved ones from street criminals.


FYI, I am a licensed Concealed Carry Weapon and Firearm license holder and a licensed Armed Security Guard in my state, so I am the Militia ;P

__________________
Will Code for food . . .

ctembreull

A question to answer your own: Are teflon rounds, caseless rounds, and tracer rounds military-grade ammunition? If so, then why on earth should they become available under any circumstances to anyone outside the military?

Yep, Hinckley was a murderer. How, exactly, does that invalidate what he said?

Hmm. Criminals get guns. People get guns to protect themselves. More criminals get more powerful guns because people are getting guns. More people get more powerful guns because more criminals get more powerful guns. That's an arms race. It's on a slightly smaller scale than the origin of the term, but it scales well enough. The Cold War didn't erupt into a nuclear exchange in large part because of the idea of mutually assured destruction. The human mind tends to recoil from the idea of depopulating the globe. Statistics indicate it's not nearly such a stretch to depopulate a small section of the street. So if everyone gets guns because everyone else is, even if just for protection, it's only gonna take one good bar brawl to touch off a moderate-scale battle. At this rate, the metaphysical difference between Oakland and Beirut will be negligible sooner, rather than later.

Because as safe as you claim to be, for every person as safe as you, there's at least one more, probably more, who is not. Time to enforce safety, much in the fashion we do with automotive vehicles. Tests, licensing, and insurance would be an acceptable start.

The only people I can think of who would say that gun legislation is black and white are those who are either naive, hermits living in cages, and hopeless idealists. Tax laws are supposed to be in "black and white", too, you know.

I'm so happy for you that you like your guns so much. You'll hopefully pardon those of us who do *not* subscribe to Mao Tse-tung's philosophy that "power grows from the barrel of a gun." I think I'd rather spend my time and energy making life safer without having to resort to packing heat.

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

Gorgo

Exactly how can you make life safer without anyone having to resort to packing heat?

While this sounds really good and is quite idealistic, the stark truth of man's entire existance is: Might makes right.

The firearm has only been around for a few hundred years, before that it was knives, swords, bows and arrows, clubs and way back when . . . rocks.
The basic concept is the same.

It's not the weapon, it the wielder of that weapon.

A disarmed public is vulnerable to many situations where life will not be safer, from enemies foreign or domestic.

__________________
Will Code for food . . .

ctembreull

Difficult. Very difficult, in fact. It's not like I'm saying this would be easy. I start with safety, though. For example, you have a right to own a car. It is a privilege to be able to drive it. You earn that privilege by learning and demonstrating the safety aspect, and acquiring insurance to make sure you are financially responsible for accidents that happen with your car. Same with guns. You have the right to own them, using them should be a privilege earned in much the same manner.

I think that's actually a fairly good start; some states already are moving in this direction.

Very true. So perhaps instead of eliminating guns altogether (something I vehemently oppose), we can try to keep the power climbing to a minimum. Sure, might makes right, but you don't need an AK-47 to be mighty.

Sure, but a sword isn't what you want when, to quote Samuel L. Jackson, "you absolutely, positively have to kill every motherf***er in the room." I can speak from personal experience with this; I fence (saber) and do live-steel show combat. I somehow doubt I could clear out an office filled with my "evil coworkers" with my saber; with an AK or even a legal semiautomatic pistol, it would become infintely easier. I have a bit of a problem with people acquiring the ability to pick off people they don't like, or even people at random, at 300 meters from cover - case in point, the D.C. sniper.

(Note to debaser: Malvo was military. Being in the military isn't even an automatic guarantor of gun safety.)

In some ways yes, in some ways no. It's facile to say that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" - as often as not, or probably more, it's a person with a gun. That points directly to having perhaps more stringent background checks, the aforementioned licensing, learning, and insuring, and so on and so forth.

But owning a gun is not a guarantor of safety. Personal responsibility is required. Too many people ain't got it. Too many of them have guns.

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

debaser

In my military experience I have never encountered teflon or caseless ammunition. As far as I know they are not used my the US military. As for tracers, why would you want them? They are no more powerful than a normal round, in fact less so. The military uses ball ammo, that is a jacketed round that is far less lethal than an equivalent calibur of hunting round that you can buy at Walmart.

Very well:

"God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it." - Daniel Webster

Now who holds more weight?


But criminals don't get "bigger" guns. They just move to places where no-one is armed (like California). There isn't an "arms race". Criminals use whatever they can get their hands on. I am just as comfortable carrying a .38 revolver as I am any other gun. I am not worried that someones weapon may be "bigger" than mine...

The world is jamm packed with idiot. I think a solid education is an acceptable start.

We are were talking about the legal definition of an assault weapon, remember. It is very specific. Stop dodging the issue.
I think this goes back to the hopeless idealist reference earlier...

__________________

Lebell

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

mtsgsd

Ever hear of John Lott? He's the only person to do real, extensive research into the statistics of guns and gun violence, and his findings are not what the anti-gunners want to hear.
You should know that he was not looking for that kind of result when he began the research.

His detractors and other gun opponents don't have the same research to back up their opinions. In fact, they mostly just mi-quote his books in order to back up their own claims.

To those of you doing all this arguing against guns:
How much of what you think you know is verifiable? Based on real research? There is an awfull lot of old-wife's tales, and urban myth, and "common knowledge" out there. All bullshit.

Do some research on Australia and Britain's ban on gun ownership, and see what kind of results have been showing up there.

I don't know why I'm posting again. I know you won't be swayed by logic or facts, or be willing to look at this objectively. That's why it's such a usefull subject for politicians. Emotional subjects are what get people elected, because facts don't matter.

ctembreull

You mean Mary Rosh, don't you? Too many questions exist about Lott/Rosh's credibility, honesty, and integrity. Allegations exist and have not been refuted that he fabricated a large portion of his data.

Yeah, I've heard of this Mary Rosh chick.

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

mtsgsd

No, I mean John. He's defended his work before. All the data is there, but no one is going to pull it all out into the light of day because it would show he's not lying. This guy is such a thorn in their side that they would have done it a long time ago.

Kind of like that "scholar" who falsified all his data claiming early Americans didn't own guns. In spite of this book having been denounced by other academics, his award revoked, job lost etc. there are still people who want to say it's really the truth. A publisher has already bought the book with the intent to keep it alive. Because that's all the anti-gunners have to work with: spin and lies.

hrdwareguy

While I spent a short stint living in Vegas, I lived in an apartment and the beedroom had sliding glass doors onto a small enclosed patio. I awoke one night and someone was outside on the patio. I got out of bed, got my gun and proceded toward the door. Before I got there the person jumped out of the patio and left.

What would have happened otherwise, I can not say. But I am glad I had my gun.

__________________
Gun Control is hitting what you aim at

Aim for the TFP, Donate Today

hrdwareguy

I have. But it was at like 2 in the morning and not in the best part of town.

And no, I didn't drive across town just to take my .45 into 7-11.

__________________
Gun Control is hitting what you aim at

Aim for the TFP, Donate Today

hrdwareguy

As far as I konw, teflon bullets are illegal now since they will pass through kevlar, but then again so will a .22.

What's the deal with tracers? The only thing special about a tracer is the phosphorous on the end so you can see it at night. You can buy them at just about any gun show for just about any caliber.

__________________
Gun Control is hitting what you aim at

Aim for the TFP, Donate Today

hrdwareguy

Keep this in mind:

1. You do not have to have a license to buy a car.
2. You do not have to know how to drive a car to buy one.
3. In some instances (rural areas) children are allowed to use a car without a license on their property.
4. Some vehicles are not required to be registered.

__________________
Gun Control is hitting what you aim at

Aim for the TFP, Donate Today

mtsgsd

Here's a brief interview with Prof. John Lott:
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

Other than teflon rounds, which can defeat vests, I don't see why the fact that an military force uses the ammo should make it inappropriate for civilians?

Besides the question about tracers posted by hrdwareguy, what's wrong with caseless ammo?
Teflon is bad for cops wearing vests so I'll grant you that, but what's up with the others? Or is it just that you figure that it's bad because it's military? The real question to be answered would be why should it not be available?

ctembreull

But you do have to have a license and insurance to drive it off the lot.

See above.

But to use it on public roadways requires a license, registration, and insurance.

Neither is my fencing saber, nor are any of the other edged weapons I possess and carry.

I'll ask again: we license people to drive, which entails training and knowlege of vehicular safety. Why don't we do so with guns? Every car on American soil since the advent of the VIN (vehicle identification number) has one, and is registered with both national and state-of-registration governments. Why don't we do the same with guns? (Yes, I've heard the argument about filing off serial numbers. It's easy for forensic techs to recover the serial even from a filed-down gun).

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

ctembreull

I've already dealt with the issue of Prof. Lott. If you want more information, then I will direct you to http://whoismaryrosh.com, where you can read all about the good Professor for yourself.

This is from an excerpt hosted on that site:
Lott has admitted to using the Mary Rosh sockpuppet to defend his own work. Credibility? He don't need no stinking credibility!

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

guy2003

There should of course be some level of control over who is allowed to purchase a gun. However, an outright banning of gun ownership is not neccisary. There are many people who enjoy hunting and target shooting. These people have the right to engage in these activities if they want to.