Gun Control (v.2)

>>>> David K. Felbeck
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Director, Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners
http://www.mcrgo.org <<<<

WHO?

WHERE is Michigan? Or should it be Michigun?

Hey, how ironic, MICHI-ne-GUN?

There is something there. I'll have to consult my local witch doctor to see if there is.

Hardly a credible organisation. I'll invstigate with our local member of Parliament... he is from the Australian Shooter's Party. Now, that is a credible organisation.

 

Mr44 I understand your objection, but I must re-iterate that you and I have no proof and will never have proof and therefore cannot possibly make the statement that these people would have definitely killed themselves without guns in the household. Therefore, it is definitely relevent to the argument.

We can ponder and suppose and argue all we like, but we'll never really know.

 

Wow, its amazing to see this topic still going strong as ever. I watched this thread from the beginning pages, and just now have come back to it.

I must say, the arguments shown for both sides is quite impressive. At times, a little off topic but still none the less very interesting. The comments from others living outside the US are impressive as well.

This is just such an explosive topic its amazing. When Europeans landed on this continent (America,) they brought along muskets and rifles, mainly for food and for the defense of the unknown. So the argument of when guns were brought to this country, it actually was for both, food and defense. Fear is an amazing feeling, and with a weapon in your hand that can project an object at a safe distance away from your opponent is very inticing, more to the point seductive.

Anyone who has ever held a powerful hand gun such as a .45 in their hands can feel the rush of power you hold in your hands. Holding that weapon in your hand can give you a since of euphoria. And if pointed at someone, you literally hold that persons life in your hands. You are God to that person. You have the ability to say whether or not they live or die. Or, if you are not a great shot, you can change the course of their life forever with just one squeeze. Also, with the threat pointed at someone you have the ability to coerce someone into doing as you say. So, in fact you are God, you hold the power in your hands. So, with this said, it can be construed as a true statement that the posession of a firearm can make one feel invincible. Not a raving murderer, but someone invincible who can bring out the power at anytime he or she feels like it.

I speak this from experience. I am ex law enforcement, I had to retire due to an injury. The right to own a gun is stated in the constitution. I for one (and I know I will probably be flamed for this) think the Second Amendement needs a little tuning up. This Amednment was formed when the United States was young and still practically colonized. Sure, the right to bare arms was necessary at that time. There was no guarantee that the US wouldn't be attacked by ways of the frontier by the french or even the English. And the right to form a malitia was also necessary. As for modern day, I don't think California has to be worried about an invasion force from Nevada. And isn't the Police and Sheriffs Offices malitias? Like I said, everyone in the US is guaranteed the right to own a gun. Rifles have been a way of life since this country was founded, and I would not stop anyone from owning a rifle or shot gun. They both are used for hunting purposes. It's a lot harder to conceal a rifle or shot gun. But hand guns are different. There should be some kind of regulations there. Don't we all have to go through some formal training and be tested before we get a driver's license? When you do have a license, you are now in control of a 2300 pound ballistic missle. I think the same should be said for owning a hand gun. As for an assualt weapon General Wessley Clark said it best when he said "if you want to own an assault weapon, join the military."

A few quick statistics from a Law Enforcement point of view. Most officers die during two duties they perform. One, the highest is Domestic Violence calls. In LA two officers responded to a domestic violnce call and followed procedure by parking two to three houses down from the DV house, and walked up in the dark, using front yards as concealement. What they didn't know was the woman was dead and her enraged husband, was waiting in the bushes, with a rifle and night vision scope and head shot both officers. They never had a chance to react. The bastard then took his own life. It was found out later, he was a convicted felon of DV and was released three months earlier. He bought the rifle at a gun show.

The second deadliest duty is walking up on a car during a traffic stop. In that five seconds it takes for you to scout the car out and make your approach is the deadliest five seconds you will encounter during that s

 

The right to own a gun is stated in the constitution. I for one (and I know I will probably be flamed for this) think the Second Amendement needs a little tuning up

Yeah, you'll probably get arguements from Moriate and Special_Fred about how guns are necessary to defend yourself against the government; Fred will then link a bunch of stories from KABA or another rabidly right wing pro-gun site then not understand why noone else thinks they're objective. Uruk will say one thing related to guns in Australia and that'll spark about 5-6 pages of cyclic arguements with both sides calling each other stupid and yet feeling compelled to reignite the argument after, oh, a 10 minute rest...

E_S

 

And then we shall get another wistful, derogatory, arrogant remark by E_S talking with such an elitist, above-it-all countenance that betrays his obviously condescending, ignorant attitude towards people of opposing viewpoint.


Ciou-See the Sig

 

Play the ball, not the man.

We should all remember that in this thread (me included).

 

Hey, how ironic, MICHI-ne-GUN?

Isn't it also ironic how Michigan's crime rate dropped by 10.5% in just three years after passing a "shall-issue" concealed carry bill?

Hardly a credible organisation.

Why, exactly, are they not a credible organization? What heinous act have they committed that makes them so terrible in your opinion?

I for one (and I know I will probably be flamed for this) think the Second Amendement needs a little tuning up.

Sorry, but the language of the Second Amendment is quite clear and easy to understand, and needs no "tuning up" whatsoever.

And isn't the Police and Sheriffs Offices malitias?

No, they isn't. The militia consists of every able-bodied American citizen. And as I've said many times, police officers are an extremely poor substitute for a gun.

[image=http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_faster.jpg]

Like I said, everyone in the US is guaranteed the right to own a gun.

We don't just have the right to own "a gun". We have the right to own any kind of gun, and we have the right to own as many of them as we can afford.

It's a lot harder to conceal a rifle or shot gun.

Really?

[image=http://www.serbu.com/sus3s.jpg]



Don't we all have to go through some formal training and be tested before we get a driver's license?

Is the "right to drive" in the Bill of Rights? Didn't think so.

As for an assualt weapon General Wessley Clark said it best when he said "if you want to own an assault weapon, join the military."

Could you do me a favor and define 'assault weapon'? What feature(s) make an ordinary gun an assault weapon, specifically?

In LA two officers responded to a domestic violnce call and followed procedure by parking two to three houses down from the DV house, and walked up in the dark, using front yards as concealement. What they didn't know was the woman was dead and her enraged husband, was waiting in the bushes, with a rifle and night vision scope and head shot both officers. They never had a chance to react. The bastard then took his own life. It was found out later, he was a convicted felon of DV and was released three months earlier.

Doesn't the law prohibit convicted felons from possessing firearms? [face_shocked] You mean criminals disobey gun control laws???

It sure would be nice to know if when I run the plates the information would come back if the registered owner also had a gun permit and owned a gun.

What if this person has a gun that, for some unfathomable reason, they've decided not to register?

I say stiffer penalties for sellers at gun shows, and gun shops.

Penalties for what, exactly? What part of a legal transaction should become a punishable crime, in your opinion?

And as for my own personal firearms. They are locked up in a fire retardent safe, underneath my bed.

So you've rendered them effectively useless if you ever need to get to them in a hurry. Why?

I have an ASP (Collapsable baton) and a can of pepper spray next to my bed if someone is foolish enough to break into my house.

What happens if there are four or five of them? Methinks you're dead.

 

Moriate, you may have fallen in the pittrap that so many young, American males fall into.

You see things in blacks and whites; and when you encounter a grey, you nudge it into one of those two camps rather than try and expand your horizons.

Let's revise what I've said, shall we, point by point, and instead of me drawing conclusions, I'll let you do that.

1) Guns don't kill, people kill: Having owned two very nice Walther firearms - a PPK/S in .380ACP, a KK Match GX 1 in .22 - and currently having a Mauser rifle in the house, I can appreciate that guns are as dangerous as the user.

2) Guns, however, were designed to kill, and handguns were designed to kill people - therefore, they require a great deal of responsibility to own. I don't think many Americans truly appreciate this.

3) Gun control laws don't work. They don't. They target people who don't break the law. Wow, progressive!

4) Australians, and in fact pretty much every other Western nation, don't and never did see firearms as something to have for self-defence. It was mainly something you had and needed on a farm; it you had one in town, it was maybe a .22 rifle you didn't really use anymore.

5) Fred's posts, and therefore KABA's reasoning, is that crime involving firearms in other nations is because of gun control law. False hoc; he nor they can prove that the pre-gun law climate in any way was responsible for lower crime rates, nor that people used guns for self-defence back then.

6) Americans will never, ever use the 2nd Amendment to keep the Federal government in line for two reasons; one you have no need to, it's the 21st Century for Chrissakes! and two, because you're too complacent.

7) Basic Common Criminal Law 101: You have absolutely no right, WHATSOEVER, to kill an intruder unless you can prove, beyond reasonable doubt, your life was in danger. Nor do you have a human right to own a gun. It's a privlidge, and I'm sorry, but I think the sheer failure of the US firearm society model proves that. You've got Canada showing you up, and Europe and Australiasia having numbers in support. Owning a gun is a tremendous responsibility and a privlidge; and in a society that's abdicating responsibility at an almost daily rate, guess why I don't trust most of you...


E_S

 

Fred's posts, and therefore KABA's reasoning, is that crime involving firearms in other nations is because of gun control law.

More accurately, crime involving firearms in "gun-free" nations demonstrates the failure of gun control law.

...it's the 21st Century for Chrissakes!

Which changes what exactly?

...and two, because you're too complacent.

Try to take my guns away, and I'll show you complacent.

Nor do you have a human right to own a gun.

All law-abiding citizens have the right to self-defense. There is no reason to infringe on this right by banning effective, easy-to-use tools that don't even have to be fired most of the time.

You've got Canada showing you up...

With a $2 billion gun database that has failed to solve a single crime...

...and Europe and Australiasia having numbers in support.

By "numbers in support", do you mean they outnumber us in population (which must be relevant somehow), or that you believe statistics from certain "reputable scientific journals"?

 

More accurately, crime involving firearms in "gun-free" nations demonstrates the failure of gun control law.

No.

Again, the two aren't related.

Which is what brings me to "post hoc ergo propter hoc" - after this, therefore, because of this.

Your assumption basically could be summed up like this:

"After guns were banned in Australia (as an example), gun crime went up; therefore, gun crime went up because guns were banned."

Assumption 1:

That the crime rates correlate only to the firearm availability.

Assumption 2:

That pre-legislation, the Australian people had firearms for defence, and that the legislation denied them this basic tool of self-defence.

I don't know what to tell other than that's utterly and completely incorrect.

Your assumptions work fine, but it's like trying to solve an algebraic equation by creating a value for the variable "x". Sure, the theory is fine, but unless you truly know "x" it's just an assumption.

As I've said, many times, your assumption is based off the idea that the American normative values are universal. That is, "Americans view firearms as necessary for self-defence; therefore, other nation-states must view it the same way. Thus, if their firearms are restricted by legislation, it must mean their right to self-defence has also been restricted, because guns must be seen as a tool for self-defence".

What happens to that hypothesis when you remove the American perception of firearms? It can't support itself.

I don't disagree that gun control is idiotic. I do disagree that anything you've said recognises the cultural implications of firearms in different nations. I'm sorry but not one single thing you've posted from KABA or AHR or any other site, about Australia, has been accurate, or in context.

For about the 500th time in this thread, I'll repeat myself on this: Only in the USA are guns liked to self-defence. Doesn't make you wrong or us wrong, it makes us different. So you can see now why you and Uruk have been talking past each other?

E_S

 

I've met quite a few of your type Fred. I didn't say what I said to be mean. I tried to stay peaceful and calm. But your insult of Police officers just shows your inability to grasp the situation that is getting out of control. I imagine your version of gun control is a steady aim correct? You probably have a white sheet in your closet eh Freddo? The county next to mine has got several "Constitutionalists" in it such as yourself. Your love for guns, is an apparent effort to make up for your "short comings." The bigger the gun, the smaller your "tool" eh freddy boy? I can just imagine you in a picture holding an AK-47 in one hand, in your camo fatigues, with a Rebel flag behind you, holding a sign in the other hand with the words "down with government." Your mentality borders on that of a backwoods country hick (red neck is a step up from you), who's mom and dad are brother and sister.

Your type always makes me laugh. You yell and scream for the government to stay out of your business, but any mention of changing the second amendment, you come flying out of the woodwork and cracks in the floor to protect your rights as gun toting fat belly biggots.

So, if I sound a little irritated, it is correct, because when you say cops are poor excuses, then you are insulting me. I was a damn good cop. Helped alot of people in my career. Besides, it really takes a brave man to say something like that here (rolls eyes) you would be pissing in your pants if you said that to me face to face. I would laugh my a$$ off if someone actually stood up to you, and all you had left was to call 911 for the police. I would probably say, "so sorry, I am on my donut break."



I apologize to the rest of you in here who are trying to debate the real facts, I applaud your efforts. And to the Mods, sorry for the attack on freddy boy, but he drew first blood.

I will leave now. Bye bye freddo, make sure you polish them thar guns perty and shinny now, ya hear?

 

I'm locking this for now. Everyone needs to cool off.

Kimabll Kinnison