ForumGarden

OK, here it is. The other thread was for about who is going to protect you since the police are not obligated to protect, but only investigate crimes. The point being that if there is a crime, than it's too late because there is then a victim. And how do you keep from being a victim?



This thread I would like to have as a gun topic. I am sure it has been brought up before, but I am relatively new here and so are a few others and I would like everyones opinion.



I have my opinion and am the kind of person who believes I am right but am willing to let others try to prove me wrong. And if I am proven wrong will admit and change my perspective.

RESPOND TO EDITOR E-MAIL STORY PRINTER FRIENDLY FOXFAN CENTRAL

Americans Sharpen Shooting SkillsMonday, June 21, 2004



VIDEO

•

Shooting Sports







writeScroll(openTab1,'1');

LOS ANGELES ” Shooting for sport is becoming more and more popular across the country.

Along with Pilates and windsurfing, clay target shooting (search) and handgun target shooting (search) are some of America's fastest growing sports. Some 20 million Americans participate in recreational gun activities.

Those who shoot clays call it "golf with guns."

"It is being looked at more as a sport and recreation, it is not all about hunting," said Rick Matulich of the San Diego Shotgun Sports Association (search).

Target shooting dates back to the 14th century, and it became an Olympic sport in 1896. And while some worry about recreational gun safety, the government says a person is more likely to get hurt riding a bike, playing basketball or swimming.

"It is a great sport," said Bret Erickson (search), 2004 U.S. Olympic shotgun team member. "It is a sport for all ages; it is a sport for the whole family and it is a huge growing sport."

Hey Bullet...I love this topic, and will always take part, however, you're not going to get much debate from me. I love guns. I love hunting, (though I mostly hunt with my bow), and I love to skeet shoot as well. My fiance owns many guns, his most recent purchase the AK-47. (Thank God for the ban being lifted, huh?) We went to a gun show and he bought the 30-round clips for it, and he's looking to get a scope for it next. I can't WAIT to shoot that one!!! He's like a kid with his favorite new toy. What type of guns do you own? Do you hunt? Or are you trying to stay away from the hunting debate that is sure to come from this thread? :yh_peace

I believe in the right of the citizenry to own personal handguns, rifles. Assault rifles, machine guns, no way. Should be strict registration of all firearms and all weapons purchased from any dealer or gun show should require backround checks.

Lon wrote: I believe in the right of the citizenry to own personal handguns, rifles. Assault rifles, machine guns, no way. Should be strict registration of all firearms and all weapons purchased from any dealer or gun show should require backround checks.OK....Why? :yh_eyebro

may i ask why a citizen needs an AK-47?

lady cop wrote: may i ask why a citizen needs an AK-47?
Hi Ladycop...I knew we'd be hearing from you! Doing well?



My fiance is a collector, and since the ban was lifted, he felt his collection was incomplete without one.

America Have Gun Will Travel. Do you really need them? Thou shall not kill? American pie and all that about God. Makes one wonder? :-5

capt_buzzard wrote: America Have Gun Will Travel. Do you really need them? Thou shall not kill? American pie and all that about God. Makes one wonder? :-5
Have gun, will travel, yes. But only where the CCW's allow it....



What does it have to do with need? It's a right, first of all, and a sport, hunting AND target shooting. And no one is talking about killing a person. That is the commandment. Were an armed burgular to break into my home, it would probably be the last mistake he ever makes, sure, but owning a gun does not mean I want to shoot a PERSON. I don't ever want it to come to that, that's not what it's about.



I always laugh when I hear "Why do you NEED them?" I don't! I want, and I can. Period.



And remember Captain? I'm agnostic... :yh_rotfl

i've posted huge, massive amounts on this topic on USENET, though compared to some posters, but a pittance...

i neither love nor hate guns. a gun is a chunk of metal or metal and plastic. it's a tool, and can be used for good or for evil. what matters is the hand behind the trigger. i can kill someone with a baseball bat, pretty easily. one swift whack, and it's game over.



a friend of mine was killed shortly after our class graduated from high school, her husband hit her over the head with a skillet, then showered, came back out and heard her making some gurgling noises, so then choked her to death. thankfully, he's still rotting in san quentin, though offensively enough, he comes up for parole every few years.



do guns make it 'easier' to kill other people? only if there is the intent. i have several guns, two of them evil scary black plastic glocks. i've had them for more than a decade now, and amazingly enough, they haven't killed anyone. they can't even get out of their case without my help, they're that hopelessly inert.



one of the arguments that gun control/gun rights debates tend to get coiled up with is the extent of the freedoms acknowledged in the second amendment. even setting aside the ridiculous 'militia is national guard' canard, the meaning of 'arms' is sufficiently vague that the reductio ad absurdum argument devolves into 'right to bear nuclear weapons' since theoretically a 'briefcase' nuclear weapon could be built.



the problem with that argument - besides the fact that the devolved argument typically then falls into ad hominem as there's little more that can be resolved when it reaches that state - is in what i believe to be a fundamental difference: the theoretical extent of a right, and the practical/real world extent of a right.



for example, i can easily make the argument on a theoretical basis that the right to bear arms extends to the right to own a shoulder fired stinger missile. such weapons are easily carried by a single man, and _could_ be used in self-defense, or defense of the republic, depending upon the circumstances. The countervailing retort is typically then "so you believe one should be able to go into a gun store and buy a stinger missile". no, i don't believe that at all. while theoretically a stinger could be used for self-defense/defense of the republic, in practical terms, as a self-defense weapon it is woefully overblown, and in defense of the republic, it is the sort of arm that would *become* available if the republic were genuinely under attack, so being able to buy one at bob's bait and tackle is unnecessary.



when i say 'become available', i'm suggesting that if our republic were in a state of war domestically, a considerable swath of the social order would implicitly have already broken down. once that happens, the normal rules would have already fallen apart, and a black market in stinger missiles would begin to thrive, and whatever laws there may have been pertaining to them would be a matter for the history books, rather than one of enforcement.



in many respects, this turns on the pragmatic limits on *practicing* a right. according to the supreme court interpretations of the first amendment, as a matter of free speech rights, i can publish pornography. i have that right. but i don't practice it. in much the same way, under a broad interpretation of the second amendment, i have the right to own a stinger missile. it is a right i have; it's not a right i practice. there are practical, and moral limits on publishing pornography. those limits are exceeded by some, sometimes putting children in harms way either indirectly (by exposing them to same) or directly (by the egregious practices of child pornographers). as a matter of rights, *owning* a stinger missile itself would be no problem - it doesn't exceed the theoretical limits of the right. pragmatically, the risk of such a weapon falling into the wrong hands, or being used inappropriately, would exceed the theoretical limits, much as child pornography exceeds the theoretical limits.



yawn. been blathering too long, stepped away, now too bored with what i wrote to continue my thoughts....Adult Attention Deficit Disorder! :p

lady cop wrote: may i ask why a citizen needs an AK-47?
Rights aren't predicated on Needs. Rights are a priori. I hold the right regardless of need.



on the pragmatic level, an AK-47 is indistinguishable from any other semi-automatic rifle. The reason they were banned was because they *looked* bad. Their facility for firing bullets is no different from any other hunting rifle.



Their use in crime was down in the noise. I notice since the lifting of the ban, blood is _not_ running in the streets.



i would buy an AK-47 (if i could) if only to thumb my nose at the anti-gun hysterics. I've never broken a law in my life, besides traffic infractions.



I can't buy an AK-47 because I live in California, where they have their own separate ban on "assault rifles". They also just recently banned .50 caliber rifles, which i'd have liked to own too.

BabyRider wrote: Have gun, will travel, yes. But only where the CCW's allow it....



What does it have to do with need? It's a right, first of all, and a sport, hunting AND target shooting. And no one is talking about killing a person. That is the commandment.
as a matter of fact, the commandment's original interpretation was 'thou shalt not *murder*'. it's only in the last hundred or so years that the notion that killing someone in self-defense might not be defensible has taken over the modern mentality. It was a given - presumed - that one had the right to kill someone if doing so was in self-defense.



no more. shoot someone who has broken into your own home, and expect to be sued by the "victim's" family. And be subjected to a grand jury hearing to determine whether you "really" had a right to shoot someone who had no right to be in your home.

i think it's psychological with me, i relate AK-47s and mac-10s et al with miami drug dealers and also gangs....not the rest of America. i deal with people who are not the average citizen exercising their rights, but with those that want to deprive others of their property and lives, including especially cops. it's a south florida thing. trust me, it's another planet. wasn't long ago,a few months, one of our finest was shot right through his bulletproof vest and murdered point blank. we, the police, are forced to upgrade and escalate our weaponry. we had Israeli moussad out at our academy training us on exotic weapons and urban warfare. we can't simply rely on service weapons anymore. my viewpoint is naturally colored by a certain skewed perception, i wonder when we'll have ICBMs in our cruisers, and have to carry bazookas on our gunbelts....OT. ....thankyou for the kind thoughts from those welcoming me back! i am stronger, but not ready to resume duty. :-5

BabyRider wrote: OK....Why? :yh_eyebro


WHY WHAT?

Lon wrote: WHY WHAT?Again...Starting from the bottom, and working my way up...in relation to the order of the replies...

Lon: I ask "Why what?" because you posted your OPINION, not any facts. You stated that you thought certain weapons should carry with them certain background checks and various other questions. Granted. Certain weapons should NOT be obtained by certain individuals. But why do YOU personally feel this way? I don't want "I think this...or I THINK that..." I want concrete reasons for WHY you believe these things. What is your basis for this opinion?



When the law abiding citizens, whose RIGHT it is to own guns are questioned, you have to ask...What is the most important? Taking the right to own guns; ANY guns, any type, from those who act within the law, or seeing that it is more difficult for the CRIMINALS to obtain them? Because no matter what anyone says or does, RIGHT NOW it is LEGAL for the average American citizen to keep and bear arms of many types, including the assault weapons you speak of. And regardless of if it's legal or not to own any type of gun, the criminals will always get their hands on them, legal or not. That's what makes them criminals. A total disregard for the law. So why is it ok to own pistols, rifles, or any other type of weapon, while assault rifles should be banned from citizen ownership? Each one, in the right hands, has the potential to kill. Each one, in the WRONG hands has the potential to kill. There's a saying: "Guns don't kill people. PEOPLE kill people." And that's the truth. Whether it be with a pistol, shotgun, rifle or any other weapon: Knife, bow, baseball bat, broken bottle, car.....It dosen't matter.



P.S.....Checkthe signature line...

BabyRider wrote: Again...Starting from the bottom, and working my way up...in relation to the order of the replies...

Lon: I ask "Why what?" because you posted your OPINION, not any facts. You stated that you thought certain weapons should carry with them certain background checks and various other questions. Granted. Certain weapons should NOT be obtained by certain individuals. But why do YOU personally feel this way? I don't want "I think this...or I THINK that..." I want concrete reasons for WHY you believe these things. What is your basis for this opinion?



When the law abiding citizens, whose RIGHT it is to own guns are questioned, you have to ask...What is the most important? Taking the right to own guns; ANY guns, any type, from those who act within the law, or seeing that it is more difficult for the CRIMINALS to obtain them? Because no matter what anyone says or does, RIGHT NOW it is LEGAL for the average American citizen to keep and bear arms of many types, including the assault weapons you speak of. And regardless of if it's legal or not to own any type of gun, the criminals will always get their hands on them, legal or not. That's what makes them criminals. A total disregard for the law. So why is it ok to own pistols, rifles, or any other type of weapon, while assault rifles should be banned from citizen ownership? Each one, in the right hands, has the potential to kill. Each one, in the WRONG hands has the potential to kill. There's a saying: "Guns don't kill people. PEOPLE kill people." And that's the truth. Whether it be with a pistol, shotgun, rifle or any other weapon: Knife, bow, baseball bat, broken bottle, car.....It dosen't matter.



P.S.....Checkthe signature line...
Some weapons are designed to kill or maim the most number of people in the shortest period of time. This goes beyond self defense. Some ammo, is designed to rip, shred, and explode when entering a human body. This also goes beyond what is required for self defense or hunting. Both have militlary value, but not civilian value. If it's O.K. for a civilian to own a Browning Sub Machine Gun, why not a mortar or grenade launcher?

Lon wrote: Some weapons are designed to kill or maim the most number of people in the shortest period of time. what design features, specifically, make them so? i can shoot six shots with a revolver in almost the same amount of time as i can do the same with my semi-auto glock. true, i'll have to reload. with a speedloader, we're talking two seconds downtime.



beyond that, call it what you will, but guns are designed to shoot bullets. not to kill or maim. i've shot thousands of rounds through my guns, and have never maimed or killed anyone. if the weapon is designed to kill or maim, then does that mean that when i target practice, i'm misusing the device?





This goes beyond self defense.false. there is no guarantee that a single shot will stop an advancing assailant. there are countless cases recorded of police shootings where the assailant kept coming and coming even after several rounds were put in them. further, as unpleasant an eventuality as it may be, one can also miss the target. in a state of extreme fear, one can miss. if you only had one bullet, then you're out of luck. two bullets? miss with one, hit them in the arm with the other, still out of luck. three bullets? miss with one, hit them in the arm with another, and hit them in the chest with another - still might not stop them. then what if there are more than one assailant?



so what's the limit? at what limit does one say, 'that's as many bullets as you're allowed to fire during this life-or-death game'? well, frankly, i'll take as many bullets as i can, thank you. if i don't have to fire all of them, great. if i need them, then...





Some ammo, is designed to rip, shred, and explode when entering a human body.
the best self defense rounds expand, and/or cut, when entering an assailant. if you are shooting someone in self-defense, you are shooting to stop the assailant. the only way to stop an assailant is to cause massive, rapid, blood loss. no, it's not pretty. but it's the only sure way of stopping someone. shooting them in the leg is not an option. it's a more difficult target to hit for one thing (see 'shooting under duress', above), and may not incapacitate the assailant. if you point a gun at a human being, you'd better be prepared to kill them. if you don't kill them, but still stop the attack, great. most confrontations where the victim is armed with a gun end that way - no shots fired, bad guy decides he'd rather be in philadelphia. nevertheless, once committed to stopping someone (because they have committed to harming you) then you must do whatever is necessary to stop them, and that means expanding/cutting rounds. solid point rounds tend to go through the body anyway, retaining a goodly amount of their velocity, so pose a greater threat to others. expanding rounds lose their velocity quickly. exploding rounds are not available to civilians, period. same with the imaginary "teflon-coated cop killer bullets", which were never available to non-law enforcement, and have never been used against a cop.





This also goes beyond what is required for self defense or hunting.as above. it's perfectly legitimate, and desireable, to use expanding (hollow point in common vernacular) rounds for self-defense.



i don't know anything about hunting so can't speak to that.







Both have militlary value, but not civilian value. If it's O.K. for a civilian to own a Browning Sub Machine Gun, why not a mortar or grenade launcher?reductio ad absurdum. by that logic, since you can take it further and use 'briefcase nuclear bomb' as a further example, then it's not okay for any civilian to own any weapon.



theoretically, the second amendment acknowledges a right to any arm you can carry. or even ones you can't carry. defense covers an extremely wide spectrum of threats and scenarios. a militia can defend a neighborhood from violent crime, or a terrorist attack.



practically speaking, grenade launchers aren't helpful in stopping violent personal attacks, because of the likelyhood of 'collateral damage' to say the least. shotguns are good self-defense weapons, but for some reason a short-barreled shotgun may or may not be a weapon of war. the supreme court never ruled on that one, contrary to popular belief. but it is illegal to own one.



ah well, blather rant number, what is it, five today? must be having a manic episode! or woudl that be mannix episode.....

Lon wrote: Some weapons are designed to kill or maim the most number of people in the shortest period of time. This goes beyond self defense. Some ammo, is designed to rip, shred, and explode when entering a human body. This also goes beyond what is required for self defense or hunting. Both have militlary value, but not civilian value. If it's O.K. for a civilian to own a Browning Sub Machine Gun, why not a mortar or grenade launcher?
Again....What is your POINT? The guns in my home are all legal. ALL of them. The ban on assault rifles was lifted. I am ALLOWED to own this gun. I am ALLOWED to own EVERY gun in my house. The purpose of each gun is not relevent. Everyone can gripe and complain and say "What's the point?" till they are red in the face. The simple, unmitigated fact is this: I CAN and WILL own guns. All types, all makes, any ammo that is legally available to me. Whoever thinks they are unnecessary for whatever reason, makes no difference. You say that some weapons are designed to kill or maim the most number of people in the shortest period of time, and you're right. But that is NOT the reason I have them. I am a fan. I love guns. It is a sport just like any other. You learn about it, you practice at it, you are proud and feel a sense of accomplishment when you become proficient at it. And HELL YES, if I could legally own a grenade launcher and become good at that, I would.

You will notice the constant use of the word "legally" in here. The law-abiding gun owners of the country are not the problem, it's the whackos who will get their hands on the guns even if they were ALL outlawed. Why not expend some energy trying to keep the guns out of THEIR hands???

This thread is moving along nicely. One thing I've noticed is that nobody has denied the fact that guns are a persons right.....yet. (Must be mostly republicans here) Anastrophe has brought the most reasonable opinion in my mind. Thank you, and sorry about your location. I sometimes refer to Cali as the republic of California. :wah: I completely agree that guns are tools and can not harm anyone with out a person to pull the trigger. None of my guns have ever attempted to harm me or anyone else. But we are not a society of accountability, and look to blame even inanimate objects for our own short comings. Pity.



I also own an AK-47. It is the most durable and reliable rifle that I've ever known. It's characteristics are based in it's simplicity, and have been proven over time. You could literally leave it in the mud for a week, and shake the dirt out of it, load it and it would fire like there was nothing wrong. It is economical, usually $300-$500, and around $.10-$.20 per round. It is extrememly versatile in it's possible applications. I am a fan. AND, my AK has never been shot at a person, and most likely never will.

BabyRider wrote: The simple, unmitigated fact is this: I CAN and WILL own guns. All types, all makes, any ammo that is legally available to me. Whoever thinks they are unnecessary for whatever reason, makes no difference.
I like you, BabyRider, so I'm gonna argue with you - my twisted form of respect. LOL ...and yes, I mean that. (it's hard to tell on a forum sometimes) ~



Whoever thinks they are unnecessary for whatever reason has every right to think that.



It's interesting to me to see how this issue divides itself. Generally speaking, those who are more urban tend to be against gun ownership, or at least against owning assault weapons. Those with more country backgrounds or some experiecne with the outdoors on a regular basis tends to be for gun ownership.



For the urbanites, if the only experience you have with something is negative - in the form of blaring headlines of who killed whom with what type of gun...this fear of the unknown is compounded by the fact that this particular unknown could randomly kill you one day.



I totally get that.



Even so, I totally believe in the right to gun ownership with appropriate background checks. I don't believe we should be owning things that can pierce body armor...as Lady Cop said, what should police carry next in order to protect themselves and us when needed?



On defending the right to own any kind of weapon with the intent of hunting and/or target shooting...how much sport is there is killing an animal with a machine gun? And how edible is it afterwards? I don't hunt or target shoot, so I really don't know.



My point is simply that those who oppose gun ownership or want limited weapons available do have a point. We can satisfy both sides.

and because *I* like A Karenina, *I'm* going to take a shot at this myself - so to speak!

:yh_silly

A Karenina wrote:

It's interesting to me to see how this issue divides itself. Generally speaking, those who are more urban tend to be against gun ownership, or at least against owning assault weapons. Those with more country backgrounds or some experiecne with the outdoors on a regular basis tends to be for gun ownership.generally speaking, i suppose. i grew up in redwood city, california. su-bur-bi-a, as far as the eye can see. there were no guns in our home when i was growing up. my father was an expert marksman in WWII, but to my knowledge never held a gun again after the service (beside the time he admired the glock i'd just gotten). i've never been hunting, and have no desire to do so. we went camping every summer when i was a kid, but that meant a tent at a yosemite or lassen campground.



i was vaguely anti gun through my youth - vaguely in the sense that i didn't much think about it, but didn't have any interest in owning one. in my twenties my brother moved to a rural location, and acquired a shotgun and rifles. i found them somewhat interesting, and bought a plinking rifle after that, that got little use.



in my thirties, my then-fiance was stalked by a former boyfriend. i was still definitely anti-handgun at that time. no rational basis for it - simply the media-fed "a man was killed by a gun" nonsense doing it's excellent propaganda work on my mind. her brother was a cop. he loaned her one of his former service revolvers, a smith&wesson .357. i was scared to hold it initially - those things kill people! after going to the range, that all went away. it's a device, nothing more, nothing less. you have to exercise extreme caution with it - about the same caution as when using a circular saw or driving a car - don't point it at people, and nobody will get hurt. i later acquired my aforementioned glocks, and a pump-action shotgun, probably the world's most useful and effective self-defense weapon *psychologically*. if you never, ever want to shoot somebody, even if they are a threat to life or limb, get a pump action shotgun. the sound of the slide being racked is exquisitely effective at making bad guys say 'hey thanks anyway, see ya later gotta go buh-bye'. but i digress.



man, do i love :yh_coffee .







For the urbanites, if the only experience you have with something is negative - in the form of blaring headlines of who killed whom with what type of gun...this fear of the unknown is compounded by the fact that this particular unknown could randomly kill you one day. true, although the likelyhood of being killed randomly "by car" is much greater - but that doesn't get the sensational blaring headlines.





Even so, I totally believe in the right to gun ownership with appropriate background checks. I don't believe we should be owning things that can pierce body armor...as Lady Cop said, what should police carry next in order to protect themselves and us when needed? unfortunately, there's a problem with that. *any halfway decent deer rifle will penetrate virtually any body armor*. so, if people shouldn't be allowed to own such things, that means banning virtually all rifles.



i'm of a mixed mind about background checks. years ago - when the brady bill was first being pushed - 'background check' meant many, many weeks of waiting, often with purposeful delays, for a yea or nay response from the authorities - there wasn't the digital database infrastructure available, so a background check was a tedious, paper-based process.



now however, with digital technology, the background check can be nearly instantaneous, and coupled with both the brady law's sunsetted waiting period (one of the more ludicrous roadblocks the anti-gun-nuts pushed on everybody), the instant background check, and the required destruction of the records, i'm no so terribly against them. they act as a good deterrent to those who aren't supposed to have them trying to get them from the gun store. doesn't address the black market though, where most are gotten anyway (and which is the crux of the 'if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns' argument, which is valid).



man, do i love :yh_coffee .





On defending the right to own any kind of weapon with the intent of hunting and/or target shootingthe second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. the use of the 'sporting purposes' argument by the anti-gun-nuts is exceedingly offensive to me (and no, i am not lumping you in with the anti-gun-nuts).



the 2nd amendment is about the right to defense. defense of self, defense of society, against personal attackers, foreign invaders, or a government that's gotten too big for its britches. at the time the amendment was written, defense of self was a given. it was so obvious, so fundamental, that spelling even that out was not even considered.



i'd love a good debate about the meaning of the second amendment. but that's for another topic!





man, do i love :yh_coffee .









...how much sport is there is killing an animal with a machine gun? And how edible is it afterwards? I don't hunt or target shoot, so I really don't know. very few hunters use machine guns. it's a popular 'bubba' image of hollywood, with little semblance of reality.



i'd like to own a machine gun. it's clearly an 'arm' in the spirit of the second amendment. the amazing thing is, machine guns don't fire lots of bullets fast...unless someone pulls the trigger. the other amazing thing is that they aren't capable of killing a lot of people quickly...unless someone pulls the trigger.



it all turns on intent. where there is no intent to harm innocent people, there is no risk.







My point is simply that those who oppose gun ownership or want limited weapons available do have a point. We can satisfy both sides.sure, and actually, one of my arguments for gay marriage applies in a very similar way. i've argued regarding gay marriage that if you don't want to marry someone of the same gender, then by all means, don't. if someone else does, by all means, do. nobody in between is harmed.



if you don't want to own guns, then by all means, don't. i fully support that. if someone else does, then by all means, do. nobody in between is harmed.



man, do i ....nah, i've played out that joke already!

anastrophe wrote: what design features, specifically, make them so? i can shoot six shots with a revolver in almost the same amount of time as i can do the same with my semi-auto glock. true, i'll have to reload. with a speedloader, we're talking two seconds downtime.



beyond that, call it what you will, but guns are designed to shoot bullets. not to kill or maim. i've shot thousands of rounds through my guns, and have never maimed or killed anyone. if the weapon is designed to kill or maim, then does that mean that when i target practice, i'm misusing the device?



false. there is no guarantee that a single shot will stop an advancing assailant. there are countless cases recorded of police shootings where the assailant kept coming and coming even after several rounds were put in them. further, as unpleasant an eventuality as it may be, one can also miss the target. in a state of extreme fear, one can miss. if you only had one bullet, then you're out of luck. two bullets? miss with one, hit them in the arm with the other, still out of luck. three bullets? miss with one, hit them in the arm with another, and hit them in the chest with another - still might not stop them. then what if there are more than one assailant?



so what's the limit? at what limit does one say, 'that's as many bullets as you're allowed to fire during this life-or-death game'? well, frankly, i'll take as many bullets as i can, thank you. if i don't have to fire all of them, great. if i need them, then...





the best self defense rounds expand, and/or cut, when entering an assailant. if you are shooting someone in self-defense, you are shooting to stop the assailant. the only way to stop an assailant is to cause massive, rapid, blood loss. no, it's not pretty. but it's the only sure way of stopping someone. shooting them in the leg is not an option. it's a more difficult target to hit for one thing (see 'shooting under duress', above), and may not incapacitate the assailant. if you point a gun at a human being, you'd better be prepared to kill them. if you don't kill them, but still stop the attack, great. most confrontations where the victim is armed with a gun end that way - no shots fired, bad guy decides he'd rather be in philadelphia. nevertheless, once committed to stopping someone (because they have committed to harming you) then you must do whatever is necessary to stop them, and that means expanding/cutting rounds. solid point rounds tend to go through the body anyway, retaining a goodly amount of their velocity, so pose a greater threat to others. expanding rounds lose their velocity quickly. exploding rounds are not available to civilians, period. same with the imaginary "teflon-coated cop killer bullets", which were never available to non-law enforcement, and have never been used against a cop.



as above. it's perfectly legitimate, and desireable, to use expanding (hollow point in common vernacular) rounds for self-defense.



i don't know anything about hunting so can't speak to that.





reductio ad absurdum. by that logic, since you can take it further and use 'briefcase nuclear bomb' as a further example, then it's not okay for any civilian to own any weapon.



theoretically, the second amendment acknowledges a right to any arm you can carry. or even ones you can't carry. defense covers an extremely wide spectrum of threats and scenarios. a militia can defend a neighborhood from violent crime, or a terrorist attack.



practically speaking, grenade launchers aren't helpful in stopping violent personal attacks, because of the likelyhood of 'collateral damage' to say the least. shotguns are good self-defense weapons, but for some reason a short-barreled shotgun may or may not be a weapon of war. the supreme court never ruled on that one, contrary to popular belief. but it is illegal to own one.



ah well, blather rant number, what is it, five today? must be having a manic episode! or woudl that be mannix episode.....
You are debating the wrong guy Paul. I own four guns, three rifles and two hand guns. Irrespective of your lengthy responses, I still feel their are some weapons better left to military or police use. I don't agree with the folks here in NZ, politically speaking, or their attitude towards guns, but they also don't have 8 year olds blown away by drive by shootings or the deaths per 100,000 from accidental shootings. The saying "guns don't kill people, people do" doesn't wash. Death is pretty permanent. Just locking up the baddies won't do it. My whole point, and I did a poor job of making it, is that there should be some kind of control on who owns a gun and severe penaltys for those that have em and shouldn't. I am not sure what form this should take, but there must be a middle ground between the two extremes that exist today. From those that's want guns of all kinds banned to those that think it's fine to own ANY kind of hand gun or automatic rifle.

Lon wrote: You are debating the wrong guy Paul. I own four guns, three rifles and two hand guns. Irrespective of your lengthy responses, I still feel their are some weapons better left to military or police use. I don't agree with the folks here in NZ, politically speaking, or their attitude towards guns, but they also don't have 8 year olds blown away by drive by shootings or the deaths per 100,000 from accidental shootings.
just a data point, deaths from accidental shootings are vanishingly small. and have been dropping each year for the last 100 years. are they unfortunate? of course. but a kid is many orders of magnitude more likely to drown in the backyard pool than to be accidentally shot.



The saying "guns don't kill people, people do" doesn't wash. Death is pretty permanent. Just locking up the baddies won't do it.
why not? again - the overwhelming majority of violent crime is perpetrated by repeat, violent offenders - people who went to prison for harming innocent people, got out, and went right back to their chosen 'profession'. our society would be vastly safer if the 'repeat' were taken out of the formula. and one of the best ways to do that is with a double whammy: decriminalize most drug use. that removes the profit from that venture, thus reducing that aspect of violent crime, and secondly it frees up huge amount of space in prison for the people who are supposed to be in there in the first place: people who harm *other people*, not people who might harm themselves (and usually aren't, anyway).





My whole point, and I did a poor job of making it, is that there should be some kind of control on who owns a gun and severe penaltys for those that have em and shouldn't. I am not sure what form this should take, but there must be a middle ground between the two extremes that exist today. From those that's want guns of all kinds banned to those that think it's fine to own ANY kind of hand gun or automatic rifle.
okay, but i don't understand what we're lacking. there are severe penalties in the US for merely having a gun if you are barred from having one (felons). there are tens of thousands of gun laws in the US, few if any of which do anything to fight violent crime. controlling the *weapon* is not how you control *crime*.



two related and important points: the murder rate in the US using non-firearms is higher than the overall murder rate in many other countries. if it's the easy availability of guns that is ostensibly responsible for the high murder rate in the US, then why would the non-firearm rate also be high? secondly, over the last ten years or so, homicide rates have been steadily dropping in the US. both *gun* and *non gun* rates. if the dropping rates are ostensibly due to gun control, then why would the *non gun* rates also be dropping?



why is it that in the UK, the homicide rate continues to climb, even after a near total ban on firearms, while simultaneously it continues to drop in the US, without a near total ban on firearms? does that not suggest that violent crime is not reduced by controlling the weapons?



coffee. mmm-mmm good.

visit www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars or wonder.cdc.gov. Accidental death statistics from 1903 forward are available from the National Safety Council.



Firearm-related deaths have decreased every year since 1993. Overall, they have decreased 49% since 1993.

Firearm accident deaths have been decreasing for decades. Since 1930, the annual number of firearm accident deaths has decreased 76%, while the U.S. population has more than doubled and the number of guns has quintupled. Among children, such deaths have decreased 84% since 1975.

Firearm accident deaths are at an all-time low, among the entire U.S. population and among children. In 2000, there were 776 firearm accident deaths, including 86 among children.

The firearm accident death rate is at an all-time low -- 0.3 per 100,000 population. It has declined 92% since the all-time high in 1904.

Firearms are involved in only 1% of all deaths, and in only 1% of deaths among children.

Firearms are involved in only 0.8% of accidental deaths. Most accidental deaths involve, or are due to, motor vehicles (43%), falls (13%), poisoning (13%), suffocation (6%), drowning (3%), fires (3%), medical mistakes (3%), and environmental factors (2%). Among children, firearms are involved in only 1.5% of accidental deaths. Most accidental deaths among children involve, or are due to, motor vehicles (45%), drowning (16%), suffocation (14%), fires (10%), poisoning (1.6%), environmental factors (1.4%), falls (1.4%), and medical mistakes (1.2%).



Where are the activist and back yard pool control people? Why are we not banning cars when they kill 43 times the number of people than guns do? Isn't it ironic that doctors kill more people than guns do?

posted by anastrophe

why is it that in the UK, the homicide rate continues to climb, even after a near total ban on firearms, while simultaneously it continues to drop in the US, without a near total ban on firearms? does that not suggest that violent crime is not reduced by controlling the weapons?


See previous forum discussion. Fascinating stuff that makes me very glad I am not american. I would strongly recommend you leave comparisons with the UK out of it it's a completely different ball game that most americans cannot grasp and a pointless comparison that will take you off topic.

It's your problem it's up to you how to solve it.

gmc wrote: See previous forum discussion. Fascinating stuff that makes me very glad I am not american. I would strongly recommend you leave comparisons with the UK out of it it's a completely different ball game that most americans cannot grasp and a pointless comparison that will take you off topic.



It's your problem it's up to you how to solve it.
as i've said many times, gmc, i agree with you on the comparisons. that's my point. the fact that the UK's homicide rate continues to rise after a near total ban, while the US's falls without any kind of ban, suggests that *something else is at work here* other than simple availability of guns.

BabyRider wrote: Have gun, will travel, yes. But only where the CCW's allow it....



What does it have to do with need? It's a right, first of all, and a sport, hunting AND target shooting. And no one is talking about killing a person. That is the commandment. Were an armed burgular to break into my home, it would probably be the last mistake he ever makes, sure, but owning a gun does not mean I want to shoot a PERSON. I don't ever want it to come to that, that's not what it's about.



I always laugh when I hear "Why do you NEED them?" I don't! I want, and I can. Period.



And remember Captain? I'm agnostic... :yh_rotfl A.OK BabyRider :-6

capt_buzzard wrote: A.OK BabyRider :-6
Did I sound gruff, Captain? Not my intention, at all. Yes, I love this debate, and THANK YOU BULLET for posting those statistics, but I meant no disrespect in what I was saying, nor was I laughing AT you. I'm just very passionate about this issue! (Could ya tell???) :yh_rotfl

Anastrophe

as i've said many times, gmc, i agree with you on the comparisons. that's my point. the fact that the UK's homicide rate continues to rise after a near total ban, while the US's falls without any kind of ban, suggests that *something else is at work here* other than simple availability of guns.


Now I get you. A lot of our gun crime is drug related, we have a particular problem with west indian "yardie" gangs using weapons and rival gangs responding in kind and things escalate from there, plus a lot of weapons are available from eastern europe that weren't before plus east european criminal gangs getting involved. What we don't have is teenagers walking in to school and shooting their classmates like columbine. or kids getting hold of their parent's guns and killing each othet accidentally. Haven't a clue as to how prevalent that type of thing actually is in the US obviously our press report stuff like that when it happens.

Our cultural attitude to guns is so different it's almost a different dimension never mind different country.

There are obviously other factors at play other than availability of guns-I gather Canada has similar gun ownership. Maybe it is a culural thing? Apart from finding it interesting I don't feel anyone I should comment on US gun control as the attitide is kind of hard to understand when you don't live there.

Anastrophe, you make me laugh!



As usual, I agree with you and find little to argue about. We are going to have to stop this - it becomes dull. LOL



I grew up rural, my dad had guns in the house since I can remember. My mother was from Brooklyn, had never experienced guns at all, but now she target shoots for fun. Let's discuss my over 60-years old, Brooklynite, gun-toting mom another day. I don't own a gun, and have little interest in owning one...so clearly not everyone is going to fall into the general pattern I stated. However, I have noticed this trend among political groups that I've worked with (or against).



What I do believe is that whenever one group refuses to budge to any degree on an issue, the issue is unlikely to become resolved. If ownership of weapons is not related to crime (and I agree with you that it's not related), then we will have developing statistics to prove it. These kinds of statistics have already been posted here - crime is going down, the rates of death by motor vehicle are much higher than by gun, and most tellingly: more murders occur without a gun than with one.



I've used many of these same arguments myself to defend gun ownership.



But!!! <~~~~ The evil and necessary "but"... It doesn't erase the fact that people do get killed by guns, particularly in urban/high crime areas. We do have drive-by shootings, gang killings, and so on.



To me, it's unfair to overlook these very real events and to disregard another person's viewpoint because we disagree with them overall. When I get to this part of my philosophy, I always hear Rodney King's voice in my head...."Can't we all just get along?"



Over the long haul, just because we have a law today doesn't mean we will have it tomorrow. We can find a balance that respects both sides, until more education and more information is available to people...and the issue defuses itself over time.

A Karenina wrote: Anastrophe, you make me laugh!



As usual, I agree with you and find little to argue about. We are going to have to stop this - it becomes dull. LOLnah, not dull. plus, don't forget "guest". good old "guest" is watching, sometimes a hundred at a time. "guest" may agree or disagree with us, but won't post his/her comments, because "guest" is a lurker by nature. but we can influence "guest"'s opinions with our onerous ramblings here.



in other words, as any skillful actor will do - play to the audience!





What I do believe is that whenever one group refuses to budge to any degree on an issue, the issue is unlikely to become resolved.i agree. the problem is, the group that's always accused of 'not budging' is the gun rights people. we believe we have a Right with a capital R. when we're asked to 'give up a little bit of freedom', it's as offensive as someone saying 'look, we know you dislike george bush, but we're going to pass a law that if you intend to criticize the president, you must submit the criticism in writing so that we may perform a background check - to ensure you aren't a terrorist or inciting insurrection. there will be a two week waiting period before you can publicly utter your comments. sure, it's a first amendment right, but come on, be reasonable. give a little. it's for the good of the country. what harm is there in having to wait two weeks?'



secondly, while 'we' (which transliterates in the press as "bubba NRA member") are portrayed as 'never giving an inch', we have in fact had law after law heaped upon us. absurd layers of laws. waiting periods (zero value in preventing crime), limits on the number of bullets in a magazine (are they aware of how fast one can change magazines in a gun? one second. and you can own as many as you want). then there are the laws that are absurd on their face - the "assault" weapon ban namely. the *only* differences between banned "assault" rifles and legal ones are *cosmetic*. huh? how a gun looks affects its danger to society??? just crazy. as is routinely pointed out, there are more than 10,000 gun laws on the books. each state has its own laws - california, where i am, most notably still has a two week waiting period to buy any firearm (the national brady law required one week, and that ended). no 'assault' rifles even after the national ban ended. .50 caliber now banned - never used in a single crime, of no practical value besides target shooting, and absurdely expensive. terrorists? huh? why would a terrorist spend $12,000 on a .50 caliber rifle to bring down a helicopter, when they can spend $1.95 on a boxcutter and achieve so much more?



now they want to require registration for buying ammo.



say, this is some good :yh_coffee !





If ownership of weapons is not related to crime (and I agree with you that it's not related), then we will have developing statistics to prove it. These kinds of statistics have already been posted here - crime is going down, the rates of death by motor vehicle are much higher than by gun, and most tellingly: more murders occur without a gun than with one. actually, no, that's not true. more murders are commited with guns than without.







But!!! now, i'm going to take you to task for a turn of phrase that has become part of the vernacular, thanks to the popular press. even i let it slip sometimes, it's so entrenched. it's propaganda, pure and simple, and extremely effective.



"It doesn't erase the fact that people do get killed by guns".



the same turn of phrase is on the tv news every night. "a man was killed by a gun yesterday".



try this: "a man was killed by a knife yesterday". "a man was killed by two hands yesterday, when they choked his neck". "a man was killed by a baseball bat yesterday, when it hit him on the head".



"killed by a gun" is designed to pull the focus away from intent, and onto the weapon. but you'll note how silly my examples sound. that's because we've all been conditioned by repetition. in my opinion, the anti-gun-nuts won that one. guns kill people. people don't kill people. any other weapon - knives, fists, baseball bats - then people do kill people.





Over the long haul, just because we have a law today doesn't mean we will have it tomorrow. We can find a balance that respects both sides, until more education and more information is available to people...and the issue defuses itself over time.yes, well - from my perspective, on the gun Rights side, and particularly here in california - over the long haul, just because we don't have a law today doesn't mean the anti-gun-nuts won't find a new and bizarre law to apply tomorrow...

yoshman wrote: Baby Rider,

Love your signature.

Some good points here on both sides. Personally, I dont see the difference between the hammer in my toolbox and a gun. Both could easily be used to kill, if that was the use I intend. Both are tools, nothing more.



To the gun control people I would ask, does this mean we should ban/control the sale of hammers? :-5
Thanks! And you're right. Look at what Bullet said, about the backyard pool control fanatics. And banning cars. It's pretty ironic when you consider the statistics.

anastrophe wrote:

i agree. the problem is, the group that's always accused of 'not budging' is the gun rights people. My real life response is to shrug a bit in embarrassment, and mumble that I was referring to the anti-gun people not budging. The ban on assault weapons did little as far as I know, and (grin) you'll correct if I'm wrong on that. But the anti-gun people screeched over the end of the assault ban, and still do. They seemingly only want to look at the causes of crime when things like welfare are under attack. The poor are so convenient.



But, to play to the audience... For all the cold-hearted unreasonable right-wing fanatics - I'm right simply because I insist on it.

If I weren't so sleepy-brained right now, I'd find a way to throw abortion, Iraq, gay civil unions, and the minimum wage in there, too.



anastrophe wrote: secondly, while 'we' (which transliterates in the press as "bubba NRA member") are portrayed as 'never giving an inch', we have in fact had law after law heaped upon us. absurd layers of laws. Pshaw....!! All the Bubbas are in Alabama.



I would love to respond to your thoughts on different types of weapons, ammo, waiting periods, etc but quite honestly, I don't argue when I'm in over my head. I flat out don't know enough to make any kind of intelligent response about that. When deciding my stance on gun laws, I looked at crime statistics over the years, at gun ownership numbers here and elsewhere, and then applied a bit of common sense...including the "guns don't kill people" idea, and the logical assumption that criminals are unlikely to obtain guns through normal, legal means.



I agree that the waiting period is stupid, but the background check might be a deterrant to some not-so-bright criminals. However, if I can get a car loan within 15 minutes, surely the background check can be just as quick and painless.



More on the right of gun ownership versus infringing on freedoms later...I'm really brain-mush at this point. It's a great piece of the debate, and I do want to discuss thoughts on it.



anastrophe wrote: say, this is some good :yh_coffee !What are you having? I've got some wonderful Kona today, one of my favorites.



anastrophe wrote: actually, no, that's not true. more murders are commited with guns than without.? I thought I read in two different places that guns are not the number means of murder. Now I will have to go back and find where I saw that. Shoot! (no pun intended).



anastrophe wrote: now, i'm going to take you to task for a turn of phrase that has become part of the vernacular, thanks to the popular press. even i let it slip sometimes, it's so entrenched. it's propaganda, pure and simple, and extremely effective.



"It doesn't erase the fact that people do get killed by guns".I will hang my head in shame. You're totally right. I did slip into that terminology without thinking. Perhaps more coffee will distract you from my gaffe? :p



anastrophe wrote: yes, well - from my perspective, on the gun Rights side, and particularly here in california - over the long haul, just because we don't have a law today doesn't mean the anti-gun-nuts won't find a new and bizarre law to apply tomorrow...Yep! They probably will find a new and bizarre law to try and apply tomorrow. At the same time that they are trying to deny rights to citizens, they will continue talking about how the government is trying to take rights away from citizens. Irony again! It never seems to occur to a lot of people that by passing "Thou shalt not" laws, it infringes on freedoms. (Generally speaking...obviously the biggies like murder are exceptions).



But, does their attempt at new and bizarre laws release rational people from trying to meet them halfway? I'm not saying that any person should break their principles in order to satisfy another group...but I am saying that sometimes we can meet in the middle somewhere, and let the rest fall into place as it will. I believe you will debate this part, and eloquently too. Since my own train of thought isn't completely clear to me yet, I just about need you to continue, so I can connect my mental dots. <~~~~ A gentleman will let that one pass by without comment.

I said I wouldn't but I will. One thing nobody mentions is that with a gun it is easy to kill, (speaking as someone who has bever fired a gun) Thought and action can be carried out in the heat of the moment. If you don't have a gun you can still kill but by the time you get a weapon or take a swing at someone you have calmed down and are less likely to follow through. We have a considerable problem wih drink related violence, bad enough, but since no one carries guns drunken brawls stay just that, brawls. Road rage incidents, while bad enough stay as incidents because the angry driver doesn't have a gun to use without thought in the heat of the moment. How many gun deaths are as a result of intemperate action made worse because of the availability of weapons?

gmc wrote: I said I wouldn't but I will. One thing nobody mentions is that with a gun it is easy to kill, (speaking as someone who has bever fired a gun) Thought and action can be carried out in the heat of the moment. If you don't have a gun you can still kill but by the time you get a weapon or take a swing at someone you have calmed down and are less likely to follow through. We have a considerable problem wih drink related violence, bad enough, but since no one carries guns drunken brawls stay just that, brawls. Road rage incidents, while bad enough stay as incidents because the angry driver doesn't have a gun to use without thought in the heat of the moment. How many gun deaths are as a result of intemperate action made worse because of the availability of weapons?


Read the statistice I posted on an earlier post on this thread. We have more guns than ever, more people than ever, and gun violence is DOWN!! Availability is not the issue. Or, perhaps it is, due to the fact that a criminal is not sure if his potential victim is armed. And I think that if you get mad enough to kill, searching for a weapon is not going to calm me down, personally, it might piss me off more. As for road rage, I have not heard of a spike in gun related insidents that fit in this catagory. I remember a story about a guy who killed another man in a fit of road rage. Beat him with the radio antenna from his van. The victim died of van-arial disease. (I am sooooo sorry) true story though.

gmc wrote: How many gun deaths are as a result of intemperate action made worse because of the availability of weapons?
gmc, your point is valid, yet I disagree. This blames the weapon rather than the person holding the weapon.



If you've ever been angry enough to want to kill (or at least do some serious bodily harm to another person), then you know the weapon is the least of it. You'll grab whatever is around you and use it, or you'll go with your bare hands.



A tire iron, a baseball bat, a kitchen knife, heck you can drown someone in dishwater if you really wanted to...anything can be a weapon or a tool. It depends on the person and the moment.



I'd like to add that I hardly think that gun deaths are a huge epidemic in the US. Last time I looked it up, there were roughly 30,000 firearm deaths per year, and 18,000 of those deaths were suicides.



Disease is a greater danger, with deaths numbering in 6 figures per year for each of the each top 3 diseases. While I'm certain that the anti-gun people mean well, I can't say they've chosen their issue wisely. We can't save everyone unless we all agree to live in a vacuum. Seems to me, we should concentrate collectively on the largest causes of death - with the added bonus that disease doesn't strip anyone of rights...Of course, that means we'd all have one less thing to argue about!