I would not want to own a weapon. I would not use a weapon on another human being, period, and I know it. Therefore, if I was in my house and someone broke in, they'd be much more likely to take the weapon and use it on me.
I support the right of law abiding citizens to own guns for sport or defense, just not me!
I grew up in a gun house. My dad owns several hunting rifles and pistols. I have never shot a gun. I was never interested. Even my father believes in some gun regulation. Should private citizens be allowed to set up grenade launchers in their yard? No. No one needs that. My conservative father thinks the NRA is a little crazycakes.
If guns are regulated, it might stop people from being able to stockpile weapons. Ergo, yes, law enforcement can better keep tabs on people with apartments full of guns. If you are using those guns lawfully, then law enforcement should be satisfied with you.
In Arizona, the law is such that you can buy as many guns as you'd like at a store as long as you pass an instant background check. Then, it is TOTALLY LEGAL for you to walk out into the parking lot and resell those guns as an individual who is not a licensed gun dealer. I have confidence that tightening that law would lead to less weapons falling into the hands of criminals.
Plus, like Momi said, sometimes gun regulation is just a good law enforcement tool. Remember how Al Capone did jail time for tax evasion?
Generally speaking, something that would considered a military-grade weapon.
Things with detachable magazines (like an M-16 or similar) and can typically do things like fire a 30 round magazine less than 3-5 seconds.
You don't need that shit for hunting or self-defense, people owning weapons like this are doing so just for fun.
Ok, fair enough - but you do realize that most "assault weapon" bans encompass a MUCH larger category of weapons, right? (dammit i wish SIIHPAPP was still here. I always screw up terminology on this stuff)
Oh absolutely, and I am fine with banning a much larger category.
I'm just speaking to the fact that the assault weapons available to people today can easily kill mass amounts of people before anyone realizes what is going on. I think that pretty much addresses anyone who is saying that gun control won't do much to prevent cases like this.
It may not prevent mass shootings altogether, but is sure as hell would cause a much lower death toll in most instances I think.
Ok, fair enough - but you do realize that most "assault weapon" bans encompass a MUCH larger category of weapons, right? (dammit i wish SIIHPAPP was still here. I always screw up terminology on this stuff)
Oh absolutely, and I am fine with banning a much larger category.
I'm just speaking to the fact that the assault weapons available to people today can easily kill mass amounts of people before anyone realizes what is going on. I think that pretty much addresses anyone who is saying that gun control won't do much to prevent cases like this.
It may not prevent mass shootings altogether, but is sure as hell would cause a much lower death toll in most instances I think.
But we had a ban on those things from '94 to 2004. did the stats show any actual drop in the incidence of mass violence?
ETA: to be clear, i'm not really opposed to limiting the types of weapons private citizens can acquire. Nobody needs a fully auto anything in order to go deer or target hunting. But I do think the bans should be well written and logical (the last one had some issues) and I think we should be honest with ourselves about how much of an impact it's really going to have.
AFAIK, the main effect of the clinton ban was that already manufactured "assault weapons" got really expensive on the resale market.
Oh absolutely, and I am fine with banning a much larger category.
I'm just speaking to the fact that the assault weapons available to people today can easily kill mass amounts of people before anyone realizes what is going on. I think that pretty much addresses anyone who is saying that gun control won't do much to prevent cases like this.
It may not prevent mass shootings altogether, but is sure as hell would cause a much lower death toll in most instances I think.
But we had a ban on those things from '94 to 2004. did the stats show any actual drop in the incidence of mass violence?
You mean death tolls when a shooter opens fire in a crowded place, right?
That's my point. Less people die in a mass shooting if the shooter shows up with a Glock vs. an M-16.
But we had a ban on those things from '94 to 2004. did the stats show any actual drop in the incidence of mass violence?
You mean death tolls when a shooter opens fire in a crowded place, right?
That's my point. Less people die in a mass shooting if the shooter shows up with a Glock vs. an M-16.
And I'm asking you for a source to back that up. Because somebody who has practiced can change out their 10 round mag in about 2 seconds. So I'm not seeing lowered death tolls as a foregone conclusion. We had 10 years of sample data - did it actually get better in those 10 years or not?
I am not saying the UK doesn't have a problem with some people getting guns illegally. And there are occasional shootings - I mean, once or twice a year. But its hard to get a gun. I have played gigs all over the UK in some of the shadiest areas, I have been (attempted) mugged, and I could get hold of any drug. But a gun? I never saw one, never heard of anyone having one, and that is the case for most of the people in the UK. If you have a gun, you are either a policemen (and thats a special branch, not standard), in the army, or a farmer (with a very limited choice of weapons and ammunition, and strict rules governing its use.
But you know, if someone shoots someone with a gun, you are not looking at a wide scope of people who could have got one, and tracking it must be easier, when there are so very few.
Its simple math, really. If the USA banned guns right now, today, it would have a huge problem, because there are so many. But it certainly clears the issue as far as the law goes - in the UK, if you have a gun, and you get caught, you are going to jail. You don't have to shoot it. Just owning it will be cause for arrest, and probably jail time.
The UK does have the opposite problem in that its very hard to protect yourself against an intruder. But of the two, I would rather go fist to fist against an intruder, or even knife to knife, than gun to gun. Its rare for bystanders to die in a knife fight.
You mean death tolls when a shooter opens fire in a crowded place, right?
That's my point. Less people die in a mass shooting if the shooter shows up with a Glock vs. an M-16.
And I'm asking you for a source to back that up. Because somebody who has practiced can change out their 10 round mag in about 2 seconds. So I'm not seeing lowered death tolls as a foregone conclusion. We had 10 years of sample data - did it actually get better in those 10 years or not?
Indirect source here. More about violence/the number of assault weapons overall
The challenge to actually studying whether or not a death toll is higher when a shooter is using an automatic weapon is that you can't recreate the scene of course. Sure you can compare numbers of those killed/wounded in different instances, but the crowd may be a different size, the venue may be different etc etc.
I'll see if I can find some comparison of rounds fired in a certain amount of time by two expert shooters using a pistol vs. an automatic weapon.
I'll see if I can find some comparison of rounds fired in a certain amount of time by two expert shooters using a pistol vs. an automatic weapon.
But we aren't talking expert shooters, are we? Somebody with a rifle at long range, that requires precision, expertise. Somebody with an AK... in a crowded theater... Requires no more expertise than knowing how to spray a garden hose.
I actually agree with you, sort of. We need stricter gun control not just to prevent tragedies like the one in Colorado, but also the daily gun assaults, accidents, and other violence committed with guns. I know I'd feel a hell of a lot safer if there were fewer guns in this country.
I know that's not the point you're trying to make, though, probably because we have pretty different ideas on the necessity of protecting ourselves from the government. I seem to recall that Kuus supports the public sale of grenade launchers, correct?
I am, in general, in favor of laws that protect the right of the people to revolt over laws that protect people from potential tragedies.
Why have both people who have quoted me said something having nearly nothing to do with anything I said?
RPG's for all!!
Seriously... if you have a second amendment right to have any fucking gun that you say you want to have, what's to stop you from having surface to air missiles? They're fun to shoot! They can take out some pretty great game!
...of course, they can also take down commercial aircraft. But NBD! I have the right to my projectile weaponry!
I am, in general, in favor of laws that protect the right of the people to revolt over laws that protect people from potential tragedies.
Why have both people who have quoted me said something having nearly nothing to do with anything I said?
RPG's for all!!
Seriously... if you have a second amendment right to have any fucking gun that you say you want to have, what's to stop you from having surface to air missiles? They're fun to shoot! They can take out some pretty great game!
...of course, they can also take down commercial aircraft. But NBD! I have the right to my projectile weaponry!
isn't that the slippery slope argument come to life?
The big problem for me is supply. There are just too many damn guns out there, and also too many irresponsible people out there. Which means that even if there is a ban on guns (it'll never happen, but stay with me), what happens to all those guns out there already? Many will continue to fall into the wrong hands.
This.
Also, (my own thoughts now) I believe that to legally obtain a gun, some type of training should be required.
I am, in general, in favor of laws that protect the right of the people to revolt over laws that protect people from potential tragedies.
Why have both people who have quoted me said something having nearly nothing to do with anything I said?
RPG's for all!!
Seriously... if you have a second amendment right to have any fucking gun that you say you want to have, what's to stop you from having surface to air missiles? They're fun to shoot! They can take out some pretty great game!
...of course, they can also take down commercial aircraft. But NBD! I have the right to my projectile weaponry!
I do cringe at that, but I cringe more when I see places like banks who have signs saying that no guns are permitted on the premises. They may as well have a neon sign asking to be robbed.
Really? You think that criminals choose where to rob based on whether people can CCW on the premises?
I do cringe at that, but I cringe more when I see places like banks who have signs saying that no guns are permitted on the premises. They may as well have a neon sign asking to be robbed.
Really? You think that criminals choose where to rob based on whether people can CCW on the premises?
Seriously. If that was true, any given business in AZ would never be robbed.
I'll see if I can find some comparison of rounds fired in a certain amount of time by two expert shooters using a pistol vs. an automatic weapon.
But we aren't talking expert shooters, are we? Somebody with a rifle at long range, that requires precision, expertise. Somebody with an AK... in a crowded theater... Requires no more expertise than knowing how to spray a garden hose.
..via mobile.
this is actually kinda funny. More like a firehose, but I take your point.
I just think it's weird to jump straight to needing to back to the assault weapons ban for two reasons.
1. In this particular case we know he had 4 guns. Two were reported as "assault weapons" but we have NO idea what exactly that means yet. (or do we? I haven't seen details.) It could have been a semi-auto with a reasonably sized mag that otherwise falls into that category for all we know. So...what does this have to do with machine guns and rocket launchers exactly?
2. this guy apparently knew how to get his hands on tear gas and make explosives. So...yeah, He also coul dhave just blown the place up. So again...what does banning a specific type of gun have to do with this incident?
Like I said, I'm not at all opposed to certain limitations on civilian weapons. I just want them to make sense. I have a particular hatred for kneejerk reactions when we're talking about legislation.
Like I said, I'm not at all opposed to certain limitations on civilian weapons. I just want them to make sense. I have a particular hatred for kneejerk reactions when we're talking about legislation.
If you come back to CO, I may make out with you. ;D
I'll see if I can find some comparison of rounds fired in a certain amount of time by two expert shooters using a pistol vs. an automatic weapon.
But we aren't talking expert shooters, are we? Somebody with a rifle at long range, that requires precision, expertise. Somebody with an AK... in a crowded theater... Requires no more expertise than knowing how to spray a garden hose.
..via mobile.
No we are not. I agree.
I just wanted to find something for wawa about the deadliness of an assault weapon vs. a handgun.
I've been shooting exactly one time. I couldn't even hit the target with a pistol. I bet you I could kill a few people or more in a crowded place with an Uzi without even trying.
Wawa- can you please tell me what specifically does not make sense about banning assault weapons? Despite this incident possibly not being a direct reason to re-institute the ban, I can't see why banning these weapons is a bad thing.
Wawa- can you please tell me what specifically does not make sense about banning assault weapons? Despite this incident possibly not being a direct reason to re-institute the ban, I can't see why banning these weapons is a bad thing.
Of course you can't, because you're all for banning them. It's justified and settled in your mind because you can't fathom ever wanting to own or use an assault or semi-automatic weapon for any reason, therefore to your mind no one else should want to or need to, so it's full steam ahead to ban them.
But believe it or not, people DO use these weapons for recreation. They like to learn to shoot them, how they work, how to control them and how to shoot at targets. They enjoy it. It's something they do to relieve stress, pressure and they actually take pleasure in it. These people probably have no inclination to ever do anything violent with those firearms; rather they just find the entire exercise interesting.
But since you can't grasp that or share their perspective, let's by all means ban them.
This is really why I can't stand those All State (or State Farm?) Insurance ads where a person is complaining about someone they know owning a motorcycle, or owning a boat - somehow those people enjoy themselves doing something they would never do. And YES, I obviously GET that owning a firearm (which can kill a person) is different than owning/using a motorcycle or boat (oh wait, those CAN kill people too, they're just not made to kill people, isn't that the argument?). But the mentality isn't far off: someone can't understand why someone else would want to use that thing, so there's no reason for that thing.
And with that, I HAVE to go back to work. I'll try to check back later.
Wawa- can you please tell me what specifically does not make sense about banning assault weapons? Despite this incident possibly not being a direct reason to re-institute the ban, I can't see why banning these weapons is a bad thing.
Of course you can't, because you're all for banning them. It's justified and settled in your mind because you can't fathom ever wanting to own or use an assault or semi-automatic weapon for any reason, therefore to your mind no one else should want to or need to, so it's full steam ahead to ban them.
But believe it or not, people DO use these weapons for recreation. They like to learn to shoot them, how they work, how to control them and how to shoot at targets. They enjoy it. It's something they do to relieve stress, pressure and they actually take pleasure in it. These people probably have no inclination to ever do anything violent with those firearms; rather they just find the entire exercise interesting.
But since you can't grasp that or share their perspective, let's by all means ban them.
This is really why I can't stand those All State (or State Farm?) Insurance ads where a person is complaining about someone they know owning a motorcycle, or owning a boat - somehow those people enjoy themselves doing something they would never do. And YES, I obviously GET that owning a firearm (which can kill a person) is different than owning/using a motorcycle or boat (oh wait, those CAN kill people too, they're just not made to kill people, isn't that the argument?). But the mentality isn't far off: someone can't understand why someone else would want to use that thing, so there's no reason for that thing.
And with that, I HAVE to go back to work. I'll try to check back later.
but why do they have to be assault weapons? doesn't the same apply to the use of non-assault weapons? doesn't the same apply to RPG's?
...I know the RPG thing is hyperbole... but I don't really get why it is your being interested and fascinated with something means that it's constitutionally protected.
Wawa- can you please tell me what specifically does not make sense about banning assault weapons? Despite this incident possibly not being a direct reason to re-institute the ban, I can't see why banning these weapons is a bad thing.
Of course you can't, because you're all for banning them. It's justified and settled in your mind because you can't fathom ever wanting to own or use an assault or semi-automatic weapon for any reason, therefore to your mind no one else should want to or need to, so it's full steam ahead to ban them.
But believe it or not, people DO use these weapons for recreation. They like to learn to shoot them, how they work, how to control them and how to shoot at targets. They enjoy it. It's something they do to relieve stress, pressure and they actually take pleasure in it. These people probably have no inclination to ever do anything violent with those firearms; rather they just find the entire exercise interesting.
But since you can't grasp that or share their perspective, let's by all means ban them.
This is really why I can't stand those All State (or State Farm?) Insurance ads where a person is complaining about someone they know owning a motorcycle, or owning a boat - somehow those people enjoy themselves doing something they would never do. And YES, I obviously GET that owning a firearm (which can kill a person) is different than owning/using a motorcycle or boat (oh wait, those CAN kill people too, they're just not made to kill people, isn't that the argument?). But the mentality isn't far off: someone can't understand why someone else would want to use that thing, so there's no reason for that thing.
And with that, I HAVE to go back to work. I'll try to check back later.
Those same people can't derive pleasure, enjoyment and stress relief from owing and shooting a simple handgun? It has to be an assault weapon?
Well if that's the case then driving and off-road enthusiasts should be allowed to own tanks for their recreational pleasure.
These weapons are for military/law enforcement use. Why? Because they are life-ending, destructive forces that kill on a massive fucking scale. I don't care how enjoyable a private citizen thinks playing with those weapons is, they shouldn't be allowed to own them.
Just because people think of something as recreational and enjoyable, doesn't automatically mean they have a right to it.
Post by Daria Morgandorffer on Jul 20, 2012 12:45:30 GMT -5
The whole "there's no reason to own a gun other than intent to kill" argument always cracks me up. My Dad is a National champion in competition sharpshooting. It's a sport....for recreation.
But believe it or not, people DO use these weapons for recreation. They like to learn to shoot them, how they work, how to control them and how to shoot at targets. They enjoy it. It's something they do to relieve stress, pressure and they actually take pleasure in it. These people probably have no inclination to ever do anything violent with those firearms; rather they just find the entire exercise interesting.
Can't you make the same argument for legalizing flame throwers? Or grenade launchers? We have to draw a line somewhere, and drawing it based on safety and potential misuse rather than "it's fun to blow stuff up" makes more sense.
You mean death tolls when a shooter opens fire in a crowded place, right?
That's my point. Less people die in a mass shooting if the shooter shows up with a Glock vs. an M-16.
And I'm asking you for a source to back that up. Because somebody who has practiced can change out their 10 round mag in about 2 seconds. So I'm not seeing lowered death tolls as a foregone conclusion. We had 10 years of sample data - did it actually get better in those 10 years or not?
I don't have a source for that, but if I remember correctly, the Gabby Gifford's shooter was taken down when he reloaded.
These weapons are for military/law enforcement use. Why? Because they are life-ending, destructive forces that kill on a massive fucking scale. I don't care how enjoyable a private citizen thinks playing with those weapons is, they shouldn't be allowed to own them.
Wawa- can you please tell me what specifically does not make sense about banning assault weapons? Despite this incident possibly not being a direct reason to re-institute the ban, I can't see why banning these weapons is a bad thing.
My "doesn't make sense" comments were based on the previous ban. for one thing - it wasn't illegal to own those sorts of guns anymore. It was just that they couldn't be made and sold NEW anymore.
And the restrictions for the 94-2004 law were kinda hit or miss in terms of categorization. Guns that looked like something rambo would carry were restricted, but guns with essentially the exact same function that looked like something davey crockett would carry were fine. That's silly. Either a semi-automatic rifle is ok, or it isn't. (I'm on the side of OK, largely because they are really fun to shoot at the range)
Extended mag restrictions is one thing I can actually get behind, because it's just a matter a bit of a time suck to reload when you're at the range. Not a terribly onerous restriction.
Fully auto machine gun restrictions I can get behind. Yes it's interesting to shoot those kinds of weapons, but they really should be nothing but a curiosity to the average gun owner since it's not like you can take them to the range (most ranges anyway), and anybody who really wants one can just jump through the extra hoops to get the special liscensing required to buy one. I don't neccessarily support making them entirely illegal, but extra background checks? Extra hold times? Sure.
I have friends who are gun collectors and recreational shooters. Two who are gunsmiths. And one who is actually a sponsored competitive shooter on the national circuit. They all own things that you'd probably consider "too much." So yes there's also the issue that it's annoying to me when you state uniquivocally that there is NO REASON for people to own certain firearms. My friends disagree, for an assortment of reasons. And it's not so they can take out entire rooms full of people when the whim hits.
But believe it or not, people DO use these weapons for recreation. They like to learn to shoot them, how they work, how to control them and how to shoot at targets. They enjoy it. It's something they do to relieve stress, pressure and they actually take pleasure in it. These people probably have no inclination to ever do anything violent with those firearms; rather they just find the entire exercise interesting.
And yet, part of living in society is the delicate balance between individual rights and the safety of the public. I don't think "because a small amount of people think it's fun" trumps the possibility of saving lives.
Of course you can't, because you're all for banning them. It's justified and settled in your mind because you can't fathom ever wanting to own or use an assault or semi-automatic weapon for any reason, therefore to your mind no one else should want to or need to, so it's full steam ahead to ban them.
But believe it or not, people DO use these weapons for recreation. They like to learn to shoot them, how they work, how to control them and how to shoot at targets. They enjoy it. It's something they do to relieve stress, pressure and they actually take pleasure in it. These people probably have no inclination to ever do anything violent with those firearms; rather they just find the entire exercise interesting.
But since you can't grasp that or share their perspective, let's by all means ban them.
This is really why I can't stand those All State (or State Farm?) Insurance ads where a person is complaining about someone they know owning a motorcycle, or owning a boat - somehow those people enjoy themselves doing something they would never do. And YES, I obviously GET that owning a firearm (which can kill a person) is different than owning/using a motorcycle or boat (oh wait, those CAN kill people too, they're just not made to kill people, isn't that the argument?). But the mentality isn't far off: someone can't understand why someone else would want to use that thing, so there's no reason for that thing.
And with that, I HAVE to go back to work. I'll try to check back later.
Those same people can't derive pleasure, enjoyment and stress relief from owing and shooting a simple handgun? It has to be an assault weapon?
Well if that's the case then driving and off-road enthusiasts should be allowed to own tanks for their recreational pleasure.
These weapons are for military/law enforcement use. Why? Because they are life-ending, destructive forces that kill on a massive fucking scale. I don't care how enjoyable a private citizen thinks playing with those weapons is, they shouldn't be allowed to own them.
Just because people think of something as recreational and enjoyable, doesn't automatically mean they have a right to it.
You can own a tank as a private citizen. The armament has to have been disabled, but you can totally do that if you have enough scratch.