Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control & 2nd Amendment
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 2422 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 2 of 218 (550239)
03-13-2010 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
03-13-2010 6:51 PM


Answer: it's a better idea.
And there's numerous reasons for this.
One, guns are here to stay. Obviously it'd be better if there were no guns at all (although we still find ways to kill each other, because we did before the invention of the gun). So, with that presupposition, it's safe to say that we will never rid the world of the gun. I hope that is a point that everyone will agree on.
Two, America has passed a gazillion gun laws. So many in fact, that your local police officer is unaware of the amount of laws out there concerning guns. There's local laws, state laws, and federal laws. Most cops (myself included) couldn't tell you the first thing about federal gun laws unless we make it a priority to study them all. Now, even with all these laws, criminals are always going to find themselves in possession of a gun, if they so desire. Why? Because they are criminals to begin with and could care less about the law anyhow. They will buy a stolen gun off the black market, steal a gun themselves, have their "girlfriend" legally purchase a gun in her name and then he takes possession, ect, ect, ect.
Three, a few states, mine included, have already passed CCW permit laws. Thus far we haven't had a problem. The police unions actually did NOT want these permits passed in fear of an increase in road rage incidents and the like but thus far we've not seen it all. Plus, there's still a ton of regulation with the law such as you cannot carry into a bar, school, library, ect. Basically it ensures protection in your home and vehicle or if you're just out and about.
Do I think the average citizen should be allowed to carry a fully auto MP-40??? No. Or park an M1 Abram tank in their back yard?? Again, no. But simple protection that a person desires to protect himself, family, and property should absolutely be allowed in any free society.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-13-2010 6:51 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-13-2010 7:42 PM Flyer75 has not replied
 Message 13 by Rahvin, posted 03-15-2010 12:35 PM Flyer75 has replied
 Message 33 by Blue Jay, posted 03-16-2010 12:40 AM Flyer75 has replied

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 2422 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 23 of 218 (550470)
03-15-2010 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Rahvin
03-15-2010 12:35 PM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
Rahvin writes:
A weapons ban is not actually intended to work the impossible and magically whisk away all firearms within a nation's borders.
A ban is intended to make it more difficult to acquire those firearms. A black market will always exist for nearly any commodity that's been banned; but a gun ban can significantly reduce the numbers of firearms and ammunition in the streets vs. even controlled firearm access.
I understand your point here. I don't agree with it, but I understand your argument. Unfortunately (or fortunately) there is this thing called the 2nd amendment that prevents this from happening.
Rahvin writes:
The real question is whether firearms actually make one safer.
And all of the evidence points to "no, they do not." Rather, gun ownership escalates any situation involving firearms. If an armed intruder is in your home, you're more likely to get shot if you have a gun as well - because the intruder knows that if he doesn't fire first, you might. Most intruders are not looking to add a murder charge to whatever their original purpose was.
I don't see much "evidence" here really, just an opinion. It's hard to bring up other countries and compare them to the US. Why? Because at the same time, we generally have less government regulation on our lives then most of these other countries. Call it the "cost of freedom". The statement rings true that the more oppressive the gov't, the less freedoms one has.
I could also give you numerous incidents just from my city here since I've been on the job where yes, an innocent citizen successfully shot and killed an intruder or robber without getting injured themselves. In fact, I don't think I can come up with ONE incident of a citizen with a gun trying to defend themselves and it going bad on them. (I'm not saying that it hasn't happened anywhere, just saying in my experience, it's the exact opposite of what you are saying). We had a single female blow the head clean off an burglar late at night. Countless gas station clerks shoot and kill robbers. Another point, just because someone enters your house doesn't mean that they are armed. I can promise you, if I wake up and someone is standing in my hallway that isn't supposed to be there....he's bought and paid for. There are very good reasons to own a gun for protection and protection against other guns doesn't always have to be one of them.
Rahvin writes:
In fact, gun ownership increases several other unpleasant statistics as well. Children can't consider Daddy's gun a toy, for instance, when Daddy doesn't have a gun. Obviously Daddy shouldn't be leaving his gun where a child can get it - but the fact is, it happens,a nd it wouldn't happen if guns were banned.
It's already been touched on, but idiot parents are the cause of this. Kids run out in the street and get hit by cars and die. Kids die in accidents at an enormous rate, they wander out of the house and fall in the coy pond out back and drown, ect, ect, ect, ect.....I can assure anybody that my handgun is in a place that I can get to it if an intruder entered my house. I could load it and fire off a round, or 9, before the intruder would know what happened.....it would likewise take my kids hours to try and figure out how to load my weapon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Rahvin, posted 03-15-2010 12:35 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 2422 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 28 of 218 (550501)
03-15-2010 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by New Cat's Eye
03-15-2010 8:56 PM


Catholic, you are correct. Citizens should not rely on the police for personal safety. At certain times they should, such as big public events, sporting events, ect, there is probably a higher requirement for public safety but for the most part, a police officers job is reactionary, not proactive enforcement of laws.
Most of the time, police pull a call that's an hour old (at least), or even in the case of higher priority calls (take a bank robbery for example), by the time the police get the phone call, type it up, send it out to a crew (who might be 5-10 min away), the robbers are loooong gone at that point, the shot was fired into the ceiling and the money snatched. Time to sit back and take a paper report now.
Few times, very few, in my career have I pulled on a crime in progress and that's usually by blind luck (or the grace of God).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-15-2010 8:56 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 2422 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 36 of 218 (550543)
03-16-2010 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Blue Jay
03-16-2010 12:40 AM


Bluejay writes:
I can't help but think that this sounds like stereotyping.
Stereotyping? Who? Criminals? My point was, no gun law out there will keep someone who really wants to find themselves a gun from obtaining one.
Again, from my own experience, we get about 40-50 homicides a year here in my city. That was good for 7th in the nation a few years back....PER CAPITA. Not bad eh? Anyway, of the 50, I'd bet you 47-48 were criminal on criminal crime/homicide. Doper ripped off doper, spurs 4 homicides in a week. Wannabe gang bangers battling it out over "turf", ect. Quite frankly, rarely does the average citizen encounter violent crime, even in the worst of cities. So my point is, these guys that a citizen will encounter if it were to happen, are criminals by nature, they just are....studies show 99% of crime is committed by 6% or less of the population year in and year out, in other words, career criminals.
Bluejay writes:
Not all gun deaths are the result of criminals commiting crimes, and not all criminals are (or want to be) criminals before they kill somebody with a gun.
True, but for the sake of the argument of why we should be allowed to arm ourselves, one of the arguments is of course, protection against criminals.
Blujay writes:
Surely all those deaths can be prevented by gun control, right?
No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Blue Jay, posted 03-16-2010 12:40 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 2422 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 70 of 218 (550935)
03-19-2010 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Hyroglyphx
03-19-2010 7:52 PM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
Hyroglyphx writes:
It's "vigilantism" to protect yourself in your own home?!?!
Okay, you say you are not anti-gun, but you see protecting yourself in a home invasion as "vigilantism."
If you are not anti-gun, what reason do you want to allow for weapons if not for self-defense? It seems odd to me that you have no contention with shooting defenseless squirrels off your porch, but appear indignant by the notion of actually defending yourself against a murderer, rapist, or thief.
Totally agree. If there is any place where an American citizen should be allowed to protect themselves at all costs it's in their own home. This shouldn't even debated. No one should have to make the judgment as to whether the intruder is going to just steal a stereo or slaughter his family. Ya, a car might be one thing, but at home at night....in your bed with the kids across the hall and someone enters that privacy....sorry, they won't be leaving.
Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-19-2010 7:52 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-20-2010 10:25 AM Flyer75 has not replied

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 2422 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 72 of 218 (550950)
03-19-2010 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by RAZD
03-19-2010 9:09 PM


Re: The role of the militia and the role of the people in the constitution.
I'd rather be tried by 12, then carried by 6.
You can decide for yourself, I know what I would and will do if I wake up and there is an intruder in my house. I will not leave it up to a jury to try the fellow who decided to invade my home.
What you are saying, is that in no case has anyone had their kid snatched in the night from their own home??? What about the girl in Utah? Would they had been justified in shooting him? Do you have to wait until the guy is out the door with your kid? On top of your wife? It's not up for a jury to decide this! It's up to you, as the man of the house to decide this. I would hope to God, or whatever you hope to, that you wouldn't let this happen...but it sounds like you would.
Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.
Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2010 9:09 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2010 11:01 PM Flyer75 has not replied

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 2422 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 86 of 218 (551036)
03-20-2010 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by DevilsAdvocate
03-20-2010 11:15 AM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
DA,
You and I agree on this topic but the regulations you listed are in place already. No one can legally purchase a fully automatic weapon. It's hard to even buy certain semi auto rifles. There's a million restrictions on magazine capacity (I, as a cop can carry more then the average citizen), type of ammo, ect. There are waiting periods after background checks. The regulation is there, but does anyone think a criminal cares about these regulations? No they don't, they instead go buy their handgun from a local drug house where someone traded a stolen gun taken in a home invasion for a $10 piece of heroin or crack...only law abiding citizens follow the rules.
There's not a gun out there (for the most part) that if used in a homicide, that can't be traced to where it originally came from or where and who originally purchased it.
Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.
Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-20-2010 11:15 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2010 1:52 PM Flyer75 has replied
 Message 88 by Theodoric, posted 03-20-2010 2:00 PM Flyer75 has not replied
 Message 93 by DrJones*, posted 03-20-2010 2:58 PM Flyer75 has not replied
 Message 97 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-20-2010 4:04 PM Flyer75 has not replied

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 2422 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 89 of 218 (551048)
03-20-2010 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by New Cat's Eye
03-20-2010 1:52 PM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
Catholic, I'll do some searching but I'm nearly 100% sure that you cannot legally purchase a fully auto gun. Clinton banned this in his sweeping gun ban legislation which made even getting semi auto weapons more difficult.
Now, pre ban it might have been easier and guns can certainly be "altered" to be automatic but there's no law in Missouri that would override the Federal ban.
I may be wrong on this but 99.9% (yes, it's going down) sure that you cannot purchase a fully auto weapon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2010 1:52 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Theodoric, posted 03-20-2010 2:06 PM Flyer75 has replied
 Message 91 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2010 2:12 PM Flyer75 has not replied

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 2422 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 92 of 218 (551059)
03-20-2010 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Theodoric
03-20-2010 2:06 PM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
I just read that "shady" looking website and I'm not I see where they are selling fulling automatic weapons. The only line where they even use the term is this: "All the guns on our "autoweapons" page are transferable, which makes them the more desirable guns for most of the population. This is why transferable guns are more expensive." They put the quotes around autoweapons.
You do realize they are selling C and R guns right? These are collectors guns, not modern day AR-15 and Mac-11's. Most of these guns are from World War I or II. Here's the link to wiki and what it says about these guns. You'll see there are many restrictions on these guns too: Federal Firearms License - Wikipedia
There are certain auto guns that apply to this but again, they have to be over 50 years old and still must comply to federal law.
I'm telling you guys, from someone who has worked at gunshows, you can't just go purchase a fully auto AR-15.
Ok, EDIT:
I just got off the phone with a friend of mine who knows all about this stuff....call him a gun nut. here's the deal, yes you can buy a fully auto gun but here's the conditions on it: the website you gave is for C/R guns only which have to be at least 50 years old and you can go read the conditions on them.
There is also a federal law passed in 1984 that banned the sale of automatic weapons. You can STILL purchase auto weapons made prior to that date with the FFL license you mentioned...but here's the thing and I'll give an example: a police department can purchase a fully auto MP-5 made before 1984 for around $1,500. For the average citizen, this price will be around $20K!!!! The average citizen can buy a fully auto MAC-10 or 11 made before 1984 for around 5K but apparently these are totally junk/garbage guns that they aren't even close to being worth that price. Supply and demand (plus rarity and the fact that you can't buy any auto guns made after 1984).
So, you are correct, my .10% won out and I was technically wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Theodoric, posted 03-20-2010 2:06 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Theodoric, posted 03-20-2010 3:05 PM Flyer75 has not replied
 Message 95 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2010 3:10 PM Flyer75 has replied
 Message 98 by Apothecus, posted 03-20-2010 6:33 PM Flyer75 has replied

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 2422 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 96 of 218 (551067)
03-20-2010 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by New Cat's Eye
03-20-2010 3:10 PM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
No, another 5K should not be a big deal for your buddy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-20-2010 3:10 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 2422 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 99 of 218 (551075)
03-20-2010 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Apothecus
03-20-2010 6:33 PM


Re: Guns don't make you safer.
Apothecus,
Maybe the best post yet in this whole thread.
I agree with you and this betrays my conservative leanings: there needs to be gun regulation and there is and maybe even more. The last thing I want to do is pull somebody over and they pull out a fully auto AR-15. I'm left with my .40 cal Glock handgun on my waist, a shotgun locked up in the console, or MAY BE (in rare cases) a partner certified on an AR-15 (semi auto only). If it's just me, and the guy with the fully auto, heck even a semi auto, I'm a dead man, so yes, I'm for gun regulation.
Your dad is correct. I don't know how to do it, I have friends that could, but it is possible to tinker with guns and change the specs. It's totally illegal and can wind you up in a federal prison (if caught of course, especially in the commission of the crime).
And for the couple of you who think we're all bloodthirsty killers just waiting at our doorstep for someone to break in, think again. Even if I kill someone ON DUTY after being shot at, do you know the process one goes through after that. In EVERY case, it will go to the grand jury to determine if you committed a crime or not (thus the possibility of prison time). A cop WILL BE sued by the family, no matter what. In Ohio, one has two full years to sue a cop and they usually wait the full two years, then BAM! you find your self facing a 1984 Civil Rights Violation in Federal Court. So imagine what a citizen would go through by killing someone, especially an unarmed intruder in their home.
Fortunately, the Castle Doctrine has made this less stressful for citizens. The burden of proof has shifted off of the citizen onto the defense now.
Edited by Flyer75, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Apothecus, posted 03-20-2010 6:33 PM Apothecus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024