Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Everyone bandies about the stats of 250 to 300 million guns in the USA, 13 million or more AR-15s, etc. If most gun owners were as violent and bloodthirsty as some paint them to be, wouldn't we be like Syria or Somalia right now?
I would say that because of that number of guns (of any type) and owners who might be violent/bloodthirsty, that is why we are not like Syria or Somalia.
Actually, if a U.S. citizen has no criminal record and pays a fee for a federal tax stamp and I think, has a Class 3 Federal Firearm License, and are willing to pay a huge sum, they CAN own a full auto machine gun/rifle/pistol.
Funny thing is, these people, and the vast majority of concealed carry folk, as well as the layperson gun owner, don't commit the crimes everyone is so worried about.
Everyone bandies about the stats of 250 to 300 million guns in the USA, 13 million or more AR-15s, etc. If most gun owners were as violent and bloodthirsty as some paint them to be, wouldn't we be like Syria or Somalia right now?
We are better off than Syria and Somalia if that is the standard but as far as civilized countries we are in last place. If gun ownership was such a deterrent we should be the safest place on the planet, we are not.
We must recall that the good people of Connecticut are not being deprived of owning guns, but a subgroup of guns.
Other states have similar restrictions on these type of semi-automatic, high velocity, weapons, which the Federal appellate courts have consistently refused to strike down in challenges.
I guess that the Courts believe that, if there are 100 types of 'guns' available on the market, and some 10 (let us say) are 'banned', those interested in owning guns still have 90 types of guns available to purchase for hunting, target shooting, and self defense. It is not a Second Amendment right to own every type of gun imaginable. Recall that fully automatic weapons (machine guns) are still banned.
I did enjoy an interview on a local radio station the other day: the personality (whom does sports, but likes to get some politics involved) was interviewing some person about his argument about the necessity of being able to own the AR-15 and such.
Said person talked about the benefits of the semi-automatic rifle versus the 'single bolt' action, stating that if one is out hunting for deer with a single-bolt rifle, and shoots at, and misses, a deer, then 'that hunter will not get a second shot, and he will be unable to provide food for his family that day'.
Now, I believe that there are still some hearty souls, mainly in the wilderness of Alaska, that do indeed depend on getting that deer or moose for food. However, in this modern time (and especially in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, where the interview was done) there are few families in that situation. It was a rather nonsensical argument. If I were to go out to hunt a deer, and miss, I would stop by the store on the way home and so provide for my family.
I also saw, on television, an interview with a person that maintained that it was his right to own such a weapon so he could go out to the target range and shoot at targets.
I will say that if the 'assault rifle' ban was again placed (as it was for some years), I could easily see an exception being made for owners of target ranges. They could legally own such weapons and, for a fee, a customer could rent the weapon and proceed to shoot at the paper target.
Of course, I understand the concerns of some. One friend of mine, years ago (for we have lost contact with each other) owned several such weapons, for he was convinced that, uh, 'darkies' (not the word he used) would rise up, and I guess travel to his neighborhood, and riot outside his house. Of course, even if such a ban was introduced in Congress (which I doubt anytime soon, even if Hillary Rodham Clinton were president), he would still be allowed to keep those weapons he already owns.
Do you really think that Alaska is the only or "main" place where people hunt for their primary source of food? Seriously? There are areas throughout the United States where entire families live on less than $20k per year, and hunting is their main source of meat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grampaTom
the term 'reasonable people' keeps coming to mind when I hear the gun debates on tv, in conversation or on public forums.
I think 'reasonable people' would agree that a private citizen does not really need an automatic rifle for hunting. Many hunters do not even use a semi-automatic rifle even though it is legal.
The sticking point is always home defense. I personally do not think private citizens really need fully automatic, high round capacity rifles but there are plenty of people out there who do think they AT LEAST should have access to them even they don't need them.
I have heard the argument 'when the government comes to take......whatever' --- I'll need my guns. Well guess what folks -- if the government 'comes to take' they will 'get' and you won't be able to stop them no matter how many guns you have locked and loaded
Reasonable people - or at least educated people - know that automatic weapons are already next to impossible for the average citizen to own. Methinks you've been watching too much mainstream news.
I'm saying that is how the game is played today, regardless what we both think.
The Supreme Court has always been politically appointed, to play party politics and the power of advantage.... That is not new news.
The power play in the Supreme Court before the Civil War broke out and during Wilsons reign, makes what is happening today look like cake & coffee time.
Oh, I see. To you, democracy is a game to be played.
We are better off than Syria and Somalia if that is the standard but as far as civilized countries we are in last place. If gun ownership was such a deterrent we should be the safest place on the planet, we are not.
You make a good point, and I agree we should not set the bar so low.
That said, there are good examples on both sides that still can't be shoehorned into the USA.
Japan, guns are banned, and they have low but not nonexistent gun-related murder.
Mexico, guns are banned, and they have a death toll that is staggering.
Honduras, guns are banned, it's the murder capitol of the world right now (I think).
Switzerland, most able-bodied citizens have a rifle at home, low gun-related murder rate.
The USA is damn near the most diverse melting pot of cultures and backgrounds that you can find. It's hard to compare apples and oranges.
We are better off than Syria and Somalia if that is the standard but as far as civilized countries we are in last place. If gun ownership was such a deterrent we should be the safest place on the planet, we are not.
Actually, if you look at violent crimes, we're doing pretty good. It's hard to get a true comparison, due to different definitions of what a violent crime is, but the US is on the bottom end. That seems to get lost in all this arguing.
Get rid of a few key cities, and we'd probably be the lowest.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
]
