Thoughts on concealed carry in Pittsburgh? (eat, automobile, guidelines)

[MeinGlanzendMotorrad]

You can kill with an airsoft gun.

[greg42]

Originally Posted by MeinGlanzendMotorrad

That's not a loophole. That's freedom.

I only wish this concept of freedom extended to a few more things than just gun ownership. In many gun advocates minds, freedom seems to start and end with the 2nd amendment. (Perhaps you are not among that group.)

I'd prefer a big campaign for 4th amendment rights at this point.

[gg]

Originally Posted by greg42

I'd prefer a big campaign for 4th amendment rights at this point.

Those were all taken away with bush. Usually when a government takes away rights, they don't give them back. Big brother lives strong.

[MeinGlanzendMotorrad]

Originally Posted by greg42

I only wish this concept of freedom extended to a few more things than just gun ownership. In many gun advocates minds, freedom seems to start and end with the 2nd amendment. (Perhaps you are not among that group.)

I'd prefer a big campaign for 4th amendment rights at this point.

I am a huge fan of freedoms of all kinds.


This topic is in regards to guns. Start a discussion on a different topic and I'll give you my views on that, too.

[ditchdigger]

That's not a loophole. That's freedom.

I sold my AR-15 to a guy who came to my house with cash a few months ago. Never met him before, knew him from a forum vaguely.

I made $600, he got a rifle.

That's exactly how it should be.

I won't count myself as either strongly pro gun ownership, or strongly anti gun ownership, but if I were among those who are pro-gun, I'd cringe to read those words.

What I'm reading there, is that you hold the opinion that the only thing that should mitigate either for or against a particular individual's possession of the means to neutralize many, many threats at once is whether or not they have the cash in hand. (Yes, I'm sarcastically using some gun terminology there, that I picked up along the way, lest I be seen as biased for using the phrase kill lots of people.)

That is the kind of rhetoric that makes the pro-gun side easy to characterize as "gun nuts", and the anti-gun side seem to be the more reasonable of the two, and that public perception, moreso than simple statistics, is the sort of thing that will be a factor in future legislative decisions on the right to bear arms.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Aqua Teen Carl

That's a huge jump to make between saying "there's a chance people would die less if we could only have small calibers".

Well, if it were true people only had available up to something like a .38 special or regular-load 9x19mm, and nothing more powerful, that would very likely be true. There are studies directly looking at the mortality rates associated with different kinds of shootings, and all sorts of other studies into gunshot wounds and how they can injure or kill people, and there really isn't anything controversial about the notion.

So to the extent there was a leap in the logic, it would have to be with respect to actual implementation and enforcement. Which I have agreed would be a huge problem.

If my memory serves me correctly, .22 LR is the caliber that has attributed to more deaths than any other in this country. Not only can you kill someone with a .22, they can bleed out, get infections, or have many other awful things happen to them.

Unless you are actually claiming all the studies are wrong and in truth the .22 LR is particularly lethal when compared to other ammunitions, that doesn't rebut the point. I'm not claiming all or most firearm deaths would be eliminated, just the ones where using a less powerful weapon would have made a difference.

And in fact part of the point is that I'm not suggesting we try to ban all lethal firearms, in part because that would very likely be unconstitutional. The point is rather that for the purposes of self-defense and crime deterrence, you don't need more than moderately powerful handguns/ammunition, precisely because they ARE lethal when used effectively.

but if we are limiting caliber to cause less deaths we would have to make all firearms Airsoft guns. That's a prime example of useless "gun control".

Again, the point wouldn't be to limit people to non-lethal firearms, just to firearms no more powerful than they need to be to serve ordinary self-defense purposes.

In fact, one possible version of this rule would be that private citizens could carry handguns/ammunition as powerful, but no more powerful, than the standard-issue handguns/ammunition for the local police force.

Oh well. Again, the point of this exercise is just to think about what firearm regulations would look like if we took seriously the right of people to arm themselves for self-defense, but also didn't mind reasonable regulations of firearms using ordinary public safety notions. But I know from experience it isn't possible to find many people willing to occupy that mental space, even hypothetically.

[MeinGlanzendMotorrad]

Originally Posted by ditchdigger

I won't count myself as either strongly pro gun ownership, or strongly anti gun ownership, but if I were among those who are pro-gun, I'd cringe to read those words.

What I'm reading there, is that you hold the opinion that the only thing that should mitigate either for or against a particular individual's possession of the means to neutralize many, many threats at once is whether or not they have the cash in hand. (Yes, I'm sarcastically using some gun terminology there, that I picked up along the way, lest I be seen as biased for using the phrase kill lots of people.)

That is the kind of rhetoric that makes the pro-gun side easy to characterize as "gun nuts", and the anti-gun side seem to be the more reasonable of the two, and that public perception, moreso than simple statistics, is the sort of thing that will be a factor in future legislative decisions on the right to bear arms.

You don't need a license or background check to buy a car and go on a killing spree with it.

You don't need a license or background check to buy a knife and go on a killing spree with it.

You don't need a license or background check to buy a baseball bat and go on a killing spree with it.

You don't need a license or background check to buy a machete and go on a killing spree with it.

[Aqua Teen Carl]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Oh well. Again, the point of this exercise is just to think about what firearm regulations would look like if we took seriously the right of people to arm themselves for self-defense, but also didn't mind reasonable regulations of firearms using ordinary public safety notions. But I know from experience it isn't possible to find many people willing to occupy that mental space, even hypothetically.

I understand. The problem is that one person's view of "reasonable" is extremely different from another person's. What the past has shown is that politicians either want guns banned all together or want to impose guidelines that will only inconvenience lawful gun owners and not criminals.

Personally, I would like any sort of gun control regulation to look at the person who is acquiring the firearm, not the firearm itself.

[greg42]

Originally Posted by MeinGlanzendMotorrad

I am a huge fan of freedoms of all kinds.

This topic is in regards to guns. Start a discussion on a different topic and I'll give you my views on that, too.

Fair enough. It was just what it made me think of. Not my intention to derail the thread or get it banished to the politics forum (which I don't read).

[MeinGlanzendMotorrad]

The 1994 "Assault Weapon Ban" only banned cosmetic features that had zero effect on the function of the firearm.

Yet people claim it did so much "good."


It's all theatrics.