Senate Gun Control

Indeed, any male mannequin could fill that role in the personal imagination of a purchaser who wanted to. Likewise, anything that happened to be female could serve the role for a buyer that wanted to. For that matter, so could any mannequin, even one without any specific gender at all. So why, in this one particular instance, did they go out of their way to highlight and sell a specific "ex-girlfriend" archetype to use as a target?

That's sort of a significant part in our whole criticism.

 

has anyone seen this new video going around the web... I think things like this are gonna happen more and more frequently in America.

video is crazy and some might feel its a bit to intense, ut its on youtube so im sure you can handle it.

 

Yeah, it was all over the news media a couple of weekends ago.

 

That video is why the NRA and others who think sensible gun restrictions are bad should keep their mouths shut.

 

According to the London Guardian, 248,751 AR-15s were made in 2010 for the US market. The year before that, 433,662 were made. Compared to the number of mass shootings, we're talking one gun in 50,000 using the 2010 figures, if that.

How is collectively punishing tens of thousands of people who had nothing to do with Newtown, Aurora, or similar shootings sensible?

 

Let me repeat myself from earlier in this thread: People who are not going to be in a war situation (and that includes the majority of us who are not military and will never be deployed to a war zone) do not need guns like AR-15s with bullets that can tear bodies to shreds. If you want something for self - defense or hunting a handgun and/or a regular shotgun should be sufficent for that.

 

How is restricting/banning the performing of background checks on people who want to buy assault rifles sensible?

1. You know what I mean.

2. I believe in and support RESPONSIBLE gun ownership.

 

How is it "punishing" at all, unless you define all instances in which people are denied what they want for the sake of the greater good as "punishment"?

 

most likely the guy from the video had the gun illegally, so all the background checks in the world wouldn't make one shred of difference in this situation...

I don't mind the extra background checks but I also know it wont make much of a difference since most crimes with guns are due to illegal ownership.

That's why this current debate is kinda pointless

 

But what are they supposed to defend themselves with from the tyrannical American government?

 

How does a background check even deny a potential gun buyer what they want, unless they're a criminal?

 

it doesn't, I agree with you but since most of these things happen with illegally purchased guns what do background checks do...

Like I said above, this debate over gun ownership isn't so cut and dry.. But I am for tough background checks.

 

Did you get your advice from Joe Biden? Because Joe Biden is NOT a certified self-defense or firearms instructor.

On the other hand, Massad Ayoob is not only a certified firearms safety instructor, he is considered one of the foremost experts in not only training, but has appeared as an expert witness in deadly force situations. Why don't we see what he had to say?

Seriously, who should I, as an individual, trust to give me advice on the use of a firearm for self-defense?

 

Let me repeat: An AR-15 is a weapon purely designed for war. It has no place on civillian streets.

 

Smuggler, that's called the appeal to authority fallacy you're using.

 

There are places, like Las Vegas and Los Angeles, that are home to a few proprietors who are licensed to allow members of the general public to fire fully-automatic weapons for a small fee plus the cost of ammo. I can tell you from personal experience that these places are TONS of fun. They will also be happy to steer you in the right direction should you wish to go through all of the legal hassles and permit applications, etc. if you want to own one. I have no interest in owning an assault rifle, because quite frankly I don't need one, and it's a huge pain in the ass to get one...unless I want one that doesn't happen to be legal.

Anyone who's willing to jump through enough hoops to obtain an assault rifle legally is not someone people need to worry about. It's the guy who wants one RIGHT NOW for a below-market price without having to justify his need for having one we need to worry about.

The problem with gun violence in America is not the guns, much like the drug problem is not the drugs.

Sorry, I am kind of right-wingy when it comes to guns. I own some. I don't abuse them. I don't hurt people with them, but I enjoy the right to blow somebody away with them if I feel that someone is about to hurt my children.

Needless to say I haven't had that situation present itself and I hope it never does.

 

like most problems in America its the culture of the individuals that should be closely looked at...

Its never "drugs" are the problem, its the culture in which these people live.

 

It really is as simple as that.

 

Just to clear things up:

A) We know that the guns do not sprout hands and pull the trigger themselves.
B) We know that you and many others love your guns and most people do not use guns to kill people.

 

To the assault rifle wing:

We'll stop trying to take away your guns when you stop trying to take away our health care, mmkay?

 

Let ME repeat:
To punish tens of thousands - if not more - for the misdeeds of a very small minority is not sensible, particularly given what Mr. Ayoob wrote. Given the fact that he has been an expert witness in self-defense cases for over three decades, not to mention his lengthy service as a police officer, I think he seems to know what he is talking about when he says there ARE legitimate reasons for civilian ownership of an AR-15.

The LA riots are one such instance where civilian ownership of AR-15s probably saved lives from being lost or shattered and property from destruction and or looting. There are other cases where a person may want more than ten rounds, or a firearm that is designed more for personal defense than for hunting.

 

From a general note, I think it might help if everyone got on the same page with regards to what guns can and can't do. I'm thinking of Juliet's post above. The problem of perception is that Ar-15's don't "tear bodies to shreds" (that's her term used) by design, at least any moreso than any other rifle. The Ar-15, with it's .22 caliber based design is actually less powerful than a lot of other semi-auto rifles on the market, but then again, without getting too technical, there are also many other factors to consider (bullet type, weight, velocity, distance, etc...) What's ironic is that she also mentions shotguns, which, by design, are much more capable of shredding targets at close range (at least if one uses buckshot) I'm not faulting Juliet here, but this seems to be a HUGE hurdle when discussing the issue, because such perception, not reality, is what seems to be driving that side of the gun debate. Juliet didn't mention Biden specifically, but that's really why Biden's advice was so misguided and dangerous. My point is that unless one happens to know how firearms work, and the capability they have, it seems to be difficult in separating the perception from the fact, but I think that in order to fully examine the issue, one should have a basic knowledge. In other words, both sides of the issue need to meet in the middle.

What's also ironic is that if you go back and examine the DOJ study on firearm violence that was just released, handguns account for 70-80% of all homicides which involve a firearm, out of all homicides. "Assault Weapons" accounted for a statistical zero. The fact is that criminals aren't going to spend upwards of $1200-1400 to get a customizable Ar-15 and then have to conceal it from the police and everyone to carry it around. It's going to be a cheaply made, concealable handgun that ends up being fired less than 6 times.

 

I think your comment here shows where the real divide in a lot of this discussion is.

You say that normal people don't "need" guns like AR-15s. There are many problems with that statement, of which I'd like to focus on the two biggest ones.

First of all, it's outright false. There are many legitimate uses for a "high-capacity" semi-automatic rifle. AR-15s (and the similar Mini-14, which fires the same caliber, but only has a 20-round magazine and no pistol grip) are very popular in the West as varmint rifles. A .223 or 5.56 round is very effective against smaller predators (such as coyotes) when you are trying to protect your livestock. Especially when you are dealing with predators that can run in packs, you want a larger number of rounds that you can fire quickly. Similarly, in many parts of the US, feral hogs are considered a nuisance animal (that is damaging to , and can be hunted without limits. Feral hogs run in packs and can require multiple shots to kill, and the AR-15 offers a very efficient platform for hunting them. As my brother pointed out, there are numerous examples (such as the LA riots) where "assault rifles" have been used for defense against large groups. Just because you can't think of a situation where someone would need an AR-15 doesn't mean that such situations don't exist (and there are people who deal with such situations on a regular basis).

Second, and more importantly, the way you are trying to frame the argument shows a paradigm that I (and many others) outright reject. You essentially argue that if no one needs an AR-15, then the government should be able to ban it. I say that you are completely backwards. It's not the government's place to decide what a citizen does or does not need. In the US, the government is not the sovereign, the People are. As such, the government has only restricted powers, and should only perform the minimal actions needed to carry out the jobs given to it by the People.

It's not about whether someone "needs" an AR-15, or any other firearm. It's about whether or not the government has been given the authority to ban them in order to further a legitimate duty it has been assigned by the People. To that end, I would say that no, the government doesn't have that authority, and that even if it did, it wouldn't significantly further a legitimate duty that it has been assigned. As has been repeatedly pointed out (including in Mr44's recent post), rifles in general (including "assault rifles" are used in a tiny fraction of firearm-related crimes. Banning them would do virtually nothing to stop such crimes (and would therefore not further a legitimate duty of the government). At the same time, the Constitution (specifically in the Second Amendment) specifically limits the authority of the government to restrict firearms.

Quite simply, no law should ever be justified by the phrase "people don't need _____", until and unless you have identified that restricting that item is both within the government's authority and necessary to further its duties.

After all, there are many things that you could argue no one "needs". Are you comfortable with the government banning any or all of those?

 

It isn't a question of "you don't need it so we will prohibit it", it is a question of balance. If misuse of these types of weapons really is turning into an epidemic, like Lando seems to think it is, then it DOES fall upon your government to take action. I'd not like to meet the farmer who wouldn't let a coyote kill an entire coup worth of his chickens if it would bring back the lives lost in the Ecole Polytechnique massacre - which involved use of a Mini-14. Also, as someone who frequently uses a .22 bolt action to scare off small game and scavengers, I can tell you that the sound alone is enough to scare off even the more aggressive pests.

But anyway, I maintain this whole gun control issue is just an ongoing circular argument that provides first-worlders with something to feel self-righteous about, regardless of what side of the argument they are on. Every internet community logs hundreds of pages worth of people like me, and you, and everyone else posting the same phrases over and over again just to feel like our opinions matter - to feel self-righteous about our super-excellent and informed view on the world. The doomsayers buy into the media scare tactics, you buy into their baiting, and I buy into yours.

Do you honestly think you can convince someone who dislikes guns that you have every right to own whatever you want? Could Juliet possibly provide an you with an argument that would cause you to look at firearms in disgust? Will you do anything more than glance over my post and find the easiest target to dismantle and over analyze to make you think you've won some non-existent debate?

This isn't a discussion, it is masturbation.

 

In every debate like this there's some pseud who wants everyone to know they're above the argument.