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.
This is directed towards those in favor of gun control legislation to ban firearms.
What is it about firearms that warrants banning them? Some of the justifications I've heard so far include: they were designed for the sole purpose of violence, firearms are more efficient at killing compared to other weapons, banning them would decrease crime, and other countries with more strict gun laws are safer.
Go ahead and add any other arguments I've overlooked.
With the story posted up above, I'd like to bring up a point. The 71 year old guy in Florida was able to intervene with a simple handgun. The 2nd amendment laws protecting the right of gun ownership should remain intact. One question that begs to be asked though is why is it that automatic assault weapons such as the ones used in Aurora and Newtown are in the hands of civilians?
Why is it that we must have the extremes. What is the purpose of having the NRA crowd vehemently defending civilian rights to own assault weapons firing up to 50 rounds per minute. Do we really think that our 18th century forefathers envisioned this when authoring the Constitution? And at the other extreme why must the discussion of gun regulations be a threat to the NRA crowd, since when does that have to mean taking away all guns for use of self defense?
While the weapon used is called and "assault" weapon it was not an automatic weapon.
The forefathers included the 2nd amendment to insure the government could never have more or better weapons than the people so they always knew if they got out of control the people had the power to put them down and restore proper government. They envisioned that any weapon the government had the people could have as well.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,750 posts, read 23,828,256 times
Reputation: 14665
Quote:
Originally Posted by DentalFloss
You probably should have remained silent, for all you did was to prove your initial sentence correct.
The power of a weapon is determined by the rounds it uses. The "high powered, military grade, assault type guns" you seem to favor banning are no nor lethal than other weapons that use the same type of round.
F=ma
For the science challenged, that means Force equals mass times acceleration, though in the case of firearms the acceleration is negative. That means if Gun-A puts a 55 grain .223 bullet downrange at 3000 fps, it will do the EXACT same damage as Gun-B, assuming it also puts a 55 grain .223 bullet downrange at 3000 fps. That one of them may "appear" to be "high powered, military grade, or assault type" does not change the physics.
So you should just bully your opionion to silence people who have concerns about mass shootings in our schools and public places? Why does it always have to be all or nothing?
I believe that the primary reason for having the 2nd amendment actually put on paper was to leave no doubt that people had a right to defend themselves from their own government if they had to. The hunting, plinking, and burglar-shooting aspect was just an added benefit. Unfortunately, most people would rather talk about hunting and plinking because they're too uncomfortable and sheepish to acknowledge that governments have a tendency towards despotism from day one.
While the weapon used is called and "assault" weapon it was not an automatic weapon.
The forefathers included the 2nd amendment to insure the government could never have more or better weapons than the people so they always knew if they got out of control the people had the power to put them down and restore proper government. They envisioned that any weapon the government had the people could have as well.
This is the best argument I hear advocating for gun ownership. Another benefit is that it makes the United States a virtually unoccupyable country. There are historic records from WW2 that show that the Nazis were very apprensive about invading the United States because the population was so armed. They had plans to eventually try and go through with it anyway but they did recognize that it was going to be a blood bath. Fortunately, the Nazi party fell before anything could be done to set the plans in motion.
However, the self defense against home invasions argument is rubbish. Statistically, there's a greater chance of an accident happening involving your firearm than your home actually being invaded by an armed intruder. I can see the self defense argument if you live in an area where you might be prone to attack from animals (wooded, rural areas) but not humans. Owning a gun for self defense in an urban area is not a good reason to own a gun (unless you make it a habit to get involved with the wrong people).
I don't own any guns. I see no reason to. If a revolution against a tyrannical US government ever starts, I'll be sure to pick one up from someone and learn how to properly handle it.
So you should just bully your opionion to silence people who have concerns about mass shootings in our schools and public places? Why does it always have to be all or nothing?
What I posted was not opinion. It was fact. Any weapon that uses the same ammo as another weapon will inflict the same damage. Regardless of whether or not it looks scary, or "military like".
I share your concerns about mass shootings, and I'd be open to ideas on how to lessen and mitigate them. But banning a certain type of firearm because of how it looks will not do either one. Personally, I'd like to see a handful of staff members at all schools trained and proficient with firearms, and carrying (concealed) at all times.
Why do you think nutjob went to a school instead of a police precinct? Because he knew he'd be the only person in the building with a gun!
This is the best argument I hear advocating for gun ownership. Another benefit is that it makes the United States a virtually unoccupyable country. There are historic records from WW2 that show that the Nazis were very apprensive about invading the United States because the population was so armed. They had plans to eventually try and go through with it anyway but they did recognize that it was going to be a blood bath. Fortunately, the Nazi party fell before anything could be done to set the plans in motion.
However, the self defense against home invasions argument is rubbish. Statistically, there's a greater chance of an accident happening involving your firearm than your home actually being invaded by an armed intruder. I can see the self defense argument if you live in an area where you might be prone to attack from animals (wooded, rural areas) but not humans. Owning a gun for self defense in an urban area is not a good reason to own a gun (unless you make it a habit to get involved with the wrong people).
I don't own any guns. I see no reason to. If a revolution against a tyrannical US government ever starts, I'll be sure to pick one up from someone and learn how to properly handle it.
Well I live out in the county. I can shoot squrales and sometimes even deer right off my back deck. I have a high powerd rifle with a scope on it and a shotgun for hunting. I also have weapons that will shoot .223 cal bullets so if there is ever a need I will be able to replenish my ammo from any dead or wounded soldiers I run across. It's the most common ammo used on earth today. Both the AR15 (M16) and the AK47 us it. Well the AK47 uses something so close it can shoot the .223. But the AR15 cannot shoot the AK47 ammo.
Though I've seen some AR variants that use 7.62, so there may also be some AK's that use .223...
You can use .223 in a 5.56 chamber but it's not suggested you use 5.56 in a .223 chamber. The .308 and the 7.62 are about the same. And I stand corrected. The AK does use the 7.62 and not the 5.56. I posted before I thought.
I find the psychology behind the arguments on both sides of the issue to be fascinating. While I'm not a gun owner, I can understand why people would want to have guns for protection or sport. And I think the idea of banning most firearms, which is sometimes presented from the left side of the (American) political spectrum, is as unfeasible (not even factoring in Constitutional issues) as "putting all illegals on buses and deporting them" which one hears from the right.
But some gun owners' mindsets seem inexplicable to me and my personal experience. Do most gun owners believe it's quite likely that someone will kick in their door and that they, the gun owner, will have to have weapons at the ready to fight them off? Do you live in a constant state of fear or anxiety without a gun? When gun owners talk about keeping an arsenal at home to "defend against tyranny," does this imply that they expect or anticipate a likely scenario where they would have to barricade themselves against government agents and fight to the death?
As I said, I like to hear where people are coming from, and I'm not a judgmental type, but I don't understand this perspective. It seems that even in places where there are less restrictive gun laws, I hear more cases of accidental or family argument shootings than the more justifiable Florida Senior Citizen types. I think I share the OP's perspective that both extremes tend to fetishize firearms (They are the root of all violence and evil and must be completely banned vs. Any and all weapons should be available to nearly everyone at all times). But I could be mistaken.
No, no more of a "fear" than those who may prepare for any other type of possibility, be it as simple as someone wearing a helmet or as serious as having fire emergency plans for a household.
As for government tyranny, it is more of an issue that when the populace is armed, the government is more likely to tread softly. If such a situation were to ever occur of the government becoming tyrannical, it will be those who are armed to which will seek a solidarity of resistance and have the best chance of preserving liberty.
The fact of the matter is that when you are dealing with tyranny, there is no discussion, there is no "reasoning" as they have stepped over those bounds and are now dictating their will. The solution to tyranny is forceful conflict by the elimination or submission of the oppressor.
Do those who prepare for such believe it "will" happen? Well, if we pay attention to history, we know eventually it will. The question then is when it will happen and like a fire drill, it is better to be prepared and never have to apply it than it is to be unprepared and be forced to accept the consequences.
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.
