Question for the Anti-Conceal Carry people......

[Logical]

What evidence do you have that citizens of any state with CC (Conceal Carry) want to ban CC?

States have moved towards CC at an amazing pace since 1986. See graphic below!

So where is the evidence that any current CC state will all of the sudden decide that CC needs to be stopped? What State Legislatures have started debating reversing CC laws? What states have indications that the citizens of the state have started to consider reversing CC laws? None that I know of.

So please explain to us CC supporters why you think CC needs to be fixed? And also explain why honest citizens should not have concealed weapons when the criminals always find a way to obtain guns and carry them.

[rrneck]

1. ...

:popcorn:

[William769]

2. As a pro CC person myself, whos sayiong this shit?

Being a Gay person I already don't have rights afforded to heterosexuals. They will have to pry my gun out of my cold dead hands.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spin]

4. Don't expect a lot of replies from the people who wish to ban concealed carry ...

Probably the most you can ask for is one poster who will ask why you need to strap on several guns before you leave your home.

That question always intrigues me as I know a lot of people who regularly carry concealed and not one civilian carries more than one handgun. It may be that the poster reads gun magazines where the idea of buying a BUG (back up gun) is pushed in order to promote sales for the firearm manufacturers who advertise in the publication.

[Hoyt]

8. Naw, when you guys start showing yours (posting your rig so to speak), some mention they carry two.

I think it is important to include them in this forum and discussion.

[ileus]

10. Speaking of BUG sized pistols, Have you seen the Beretta Nano?

Pretty small 9mm no slide lock is the only drawback.





at 475 and from a good company I can see this being a successful CC product.

[spin]

11. I owned a Beretta 96D and it was a very reliable pistol ...

But it was a bit large for concealed carry. This model looks like it would be a great carry weapon.

[Callisto32]

142. Indeed.

I prefer to think of BUG's as "small primaries."

[krispos42]

5. Well, it's a demonstrable fact that the politicians dont' listen too well.

However, it's also a demonstrable fact that the voters don't know too much, either.

:shrug:

[billh58]

6. I find that your

use of the term "anti-conceal carry people" automatically sets up an "us and them" confrontational premise on your part, and on that level appears to be flame-bait. I will not rise to the bait, but I will attempt to honestly answer your questions.

First of all, I have not seen any great call for "banning" either guns or the practice of concealed-carry where it is legal, by average American Democrats or anyone else -- outside of those organizations who flatly oppose 2A. I am not one of them.

The remainder of your questions are all self-answering, or of the "have you stopped beating your wife" category, so I will not bother to address those directly. Like most laws, a large percentage of the CCW laws on the books were passed by elected officials (state legislatures and City/County councils) and were not up for a general vote by the public. The repeal of these laws is not likely to appear on any ballots any time soon either.

I did find an article on Gallup about a poll on concealed-carry which was conducted in 2005, and I believe that the general findings still apply. The country is almost evenly divided about this issue, as it is on most issues which have been politicized. To quote from the article:

"The poll asked Americans which groups of people should be allowed to carry concealed firearms in a public place. The greatest number, 44%, say "only government safety officials, such as police officers" should be allowed to do so. An additional quarter thinks concealed firearm privileges should be extended beyond government safety officials to include those who have a clear need, such as people who transport large amounts of cash as part of their jobs. Only about one in four Americans believe the right to carry a concealed firearm should be extended to any private citizen who does not represent a threat to public safety (such as having a criminal record)."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/16822/Public-Wary-About-Broad-Concealed-Firearm-Privileges.aspx

There are some more interesting demographics shown, and all-in-all the poll seems to be fairly objective (and yes, I know it is from Gallup). The conclusion from Gallup on this particular poll states:

"The data suggest that most Americans favor quite restrictive rights on carrying concealed firearms, but in most states the laws are not very restrictive. That disconnect could be because state gun policy might not attract the kind of public attention and scrutiny that more high-profile state issues such as abortion or the death penalty might. It also might be due to the strength of the pro-gun lobby, and perhaps to the fact that these laws have been on the books for a long time and the status quo is difficult to change." {Emphasis added}

My views are much the same as the above conclusion. I don't want to ban guns, and I don't want to overturn CCW laws in someone else's locality. I would like, however, to see uniform rational regulations and restrictions on the practice of CCW which follow the "reasonable man" premise in law. I would also like to see more stringent enforcement of existing firearms regulations.

http://www.answers.com/topic/reasonable-man

[Logical]

7. Nice post, but some questions.

First off, here is a Gallup poll from 2009 where Gallup says "Gallup finds a new low of 44% of Americans saying the laws covering firearm sales should be made more strict. That is down 5 points in the last year and 34 points from the high of 78% recorded the first time the question was asked, in 1990. Today, Americans are as likely to say the laws governing gun sales should be kept as they are now (43%) as to say they should be made more strict. Until this year, Gallup had always found a significantly higher percentage advocating stricter laws. At the same time, 12% of Americans believe the laws should be less strict, which is low in an absolute sense but ties the highest Gallup has measured for this response."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/123596/In-U.S.-Record-Low-Support-Stricter-Gun-Laws.aspx

I hear a lot of people saying "more stringent enforcement of existing firearms regulations" or something like that. Which regulations are you talking about that you feel are not being enforced? And which ones would keep the guns away from criminals?

I would also like to hear your reasonable man type of laws for CC. I think there should be a standard that includes legit training and proof of knowledge of gun laws and handling a gun. And we need state laws to prevent guns from being accessible to kids. I would like to hear yours.

Over 15 millions guns will be sold 100% legally this year. 14 million last year. What regulations will reduce that number? Or maybe you do not think 15 million new guns a year are an issue but many people on this forum seem to think it is an issue. If they are an issue then I see no possible way to stop gun sales that has any chance of making it through congress in any form in the near future.

At least 90 Million handguns are owned in the USA. A percent of those will be stolen every year. Estimates range between 200,000 - 600,000. More than enough to supply the criminals with an ample supply of guns. And since about 10,000 people die a year from gun murders then the stolen guns can easily cover the amount needed to commit 10,000 murders.

I am maybe not a typical gun owner or CC supporter in that if we could remove all the handguns from the USA tomorrow and stop the new sales of handguns, I think I would not be too upset about that. I would still have my long guns for home protection if needed. And long guns are fine for preventing the over throw of the citizens by the government, not that I think that will ever be needed. But we are way past the point of being able to control guns.

Let me know your thoughts.

[billh58]

9. I don't wish to get

into a pissing match with you, and I respect your views about self-protection. I don't share them, but I respect them. 44% of Americans is still almost half of the country, but the poll you cite concerns firearm sales and possession, and not specifically concealed-carry. I do concede your point, however, that Americans are becoming more accepting of gun rights in general, but still favor some restrictions.

As for more stringent enforcement of existing laws, you pretty much answered your own question: keep guns out of the hands of criminals by all means possible. Like hard drugs, guns are much too easy to acquire illegally in this country which creates a profitable black market for them. I don't have any specific methods to suggest, but to me stepped-up enforcement of illegal-carry would be a start. Another possibility would be to educate gun owners on their responsibilities to take steps to prevent the theft of their legally-obtained weapons. Guns themselves are not the problem, keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is the problem, and that is where we need to concentrate our efforts.

You need to remember that many sections of our country, especially the rural areas, do not experience crime at the extremely high rates of urban areas. Gangs are not as prolific in non-urban areas, or in the many high-end gated communities across this country. Not every one feels the need to carry for self-protection. I have lived on Maui for all of my teenage and adult life, and I have never felt the need to own a gun for self-protection. In fact, we seldom lock our doors even when we leave the house.

I have no desire to infringe on your civil rights, but carrying a lethal weapon carries a much greater responsibility than driving a car, or using a shovel. Reasonable restrictions on concealed carry have been upheld in many court cases over the years, and Heller pointed out that restrictions on public carry in places like schools and government buildings are the norm, and were not affected by their ruling in the District.

Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this issue rationally with you, and I wish you all the best. I am not your enemy, even though we may disagree on the fine points of CCW. I am an American who feels as passionately about constitutional rights as you, and I even carried a gun for my country for a while, but I don't need one now.

[PavePusher]

12. A point of contention...

"...carrying a lethal weapon carries a much greater responsibility than driving a car, or using a shovel."

Both of your examples are lethal weapons. Just because most people don't think of them as such, does not reduce their potential lethality.

[billh58]

13. But cars and shovels are not

concealed, nor are they readily concealable. You are correct that anything can potentially become a lethal weapon, but few "tools" have the capability to be easily carried, and take out widely-spaced multiple targets from a distance with little effort by the user. That is most likely why there are no requirements for concealed-carry-automobile, or concealed-carry-shovel permits. I would not recommend bringing either an automobile or a shovel to a gun fight.

I understand your argument, and yes driving an automobile also carries a hefty responsibility. Most people, however, have been driving for years, are insured against liability, are re-licensed occasionally, and are easily seen to be driving an automobile in public. For some occupations and sports endeavors guns are indeed necessary tools, just as automobiles are a necessary tool for most people's livelihoods.

If you don't believe that the additional steps (waiting period, background check, training, etc.) required for purchasing a weapon and obtaining a CCW (as opposed to a driver's license or buying a shovel) for public carry imbue additional responsibility on the carrier, then why go through the motions? Illegal carriers and criminals certainly feel no such obligation.

Different subject: Does the "good samaritan" law apply to gun carriers in the same way it does to automobile drivers (at least in some states)? If you are carrying and see a hold-up in progress, are you obligated to intervene? My very uneducated guess would be yes, there is at least a moral responsibility to prevent crime if you have the means and opportunity. Not so much if you're in the fast lane on the freeway and only have an automobile for a weapon. In the latter case all you could do is stop and render whatever aid you could after-the-fact, and/or call 911.

Increased responsibility? I would hope that CCW holders who actually carry in public would at least consider the concept. Sometimes it's good to remember that ALL civil rights carry a certain amount of civic responsibility by those who exercise them.

[PavePusher]

19. I don't think the "good samaritan" laws do what you think.

They do not set forth a duty to help, they shield the helper from being sued if their attempt to help is not successful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Samaritan_law

For myself, I would feel a moral obligation to assist if I thought I could do so effectively and without further endangering others.

[billh58]

27. I stand corrected, as I

was thinking of "failure to render aid" statutes in some states.

http://floridavirtuallawoffice.com/legalinfo.asp?firm=&level=3&id=183

[Starboard Tack]

15. "But we are way past the point of being able to control guns."

Here lies the rub. And I agree with you.

I am maybe not a typical gun owner or CC supporter in that if we could remove all the handguns from the USA tomorrow and stop the new sales of handguns, I think I would not be too upset about that. I would still have my long guns for home protection if needed. And long guns are fine for preventing the over throw of the citizens by the government, not that I think that will ever be needed

So, trying to be logical - we accept the fact there is a problem. First we have to identify the problem.
Is it gun proliferation? Is it an increase in crime? Is it the 10,000 gun murders a year? Is it the NRA? Is it the 2A? Is it ineffective gun legislation? Or is it all of the above?

"if we could remove all the handguns from the USA tomorrow and stop the new sales of handguns, I think I would not be too upset about that."
I agree 100% with you there. The key word though is "IF"
You, obviously, have given up any hope of controlling or eradicating handguns, even though that would be your preference.
I think that may well be the real problem we need to resolve. As a society, we should not give up just because it looks like we're losing. I don't believe in "If we can't beat them, we might as well join them." I'm not prepared to relinquish my freedom that easily.
Selling more handguns and expanding toting laws is no different than expanding settlements on the West Bank. A recipe for disaster.
I believe it is possible to remove all offensive weapons if we so desire.

[Logical]

18. Good post! I see your point.....

I just think the problem is beyond fixing. I really do. And I am the type who looks at it from all possible solutions.

I just see no way to reduce gun sales at this point when they increase every year. More people do not own guns than do own them but even the non-gun owners tend to think owning guns is OK. So I see no possible set of people who is going to help change the gun laws.

And there is still the issue with removing 90 million handguns from the American public. That will never happen. Even non-gun owners would not want the government to be able to do that. All the states that have passed CC have had a majority of citizens behind them on any public votes. People just do not trust the government to control guns.

And again, the criminals would never lose their guns. Only the honest citizens.

I think gun control is like Prohibition. Drinking was beyond controlling and so are guns at this point. No practical implementable way to remove them from the public.

And remember, I am very different than most gun owners on this topic. I am not in the "pry them from my dead hands" mode. Many here are.

[Starboard Tack]

26. The most important thing is, you recognize there is a societal problem concerning handguns

But you think it is beyond fixing. Well, one thing is for sure, futility is not the solution to fixing any problem. You say you are the type that looks at all possible solutions. That's a big statement and it indicates that you now discount any possible solution. So, we might as well all give up, go out and buy handguns, just to survive in this world.
That is a decidedly defeatist attitude and yet you appear to be a thoughtful, intelligent individual.
You say "I think gun control is like Prohibition." This is a common, but false analogy. Alcohol is still controlled, but not prohibited. There are many federal, state and local restrictions on the production, sale and use of alcohol.
Controlling the manufacture, sale and possession of certain types of firearms, such as handguns, sawed-off shotguns and military grade weaponry is not prohibition. It is good sense.
The important thing to remember is that growth inevitably incurs some pain, but the result is usually worth it. I would not want only a portion of society to be armed or have the right to be armed. That includes law enforcement. That's why I look to the UK as an example of what is possible. I don't advocate the exact same policy here, but we can learn a lot from them.
It is always refreshing to have an intelligent conversation around these parts.

[gejohnston]

31. One problem with the alcohol analogy

Controlling the manufacture, sale and possession of certain types of firearms, such as handguns, sawed-off shotguns and military grade weaponry is not prohibition. It is good sense.

Are you implying that guns are not as regulated as closely as alcohol? OK, I'll give you that the ATF has to approve bottle labels before your winery can use it.
Do bars have to maintain detailed inventory records for ATF inspection?
Do bars need a federal license?
Is shoplifting a six pack a federal crime?
handguns, sawed-off shotguns and military grade weaponry are controlled on the federal level. In fact, all firearms are controlled are more so than alcohol. The latter two much more so. Given that one does not have to fill out forms, go through a background check for booze, that makes handguns more controlled than alcohol.
I can legally buy a bottle of Jim Beam in any state or territory in the US and walk out the door with it. Not so with handguns. Under federal law since 1938 (strengthened in 1968) I can only do that in one state. Currently it happens to be Florida, which has a three day waiting period.

[Starboard Tack]

36. " Are you implying that guns are not as regulated as closely as alcohol?"

No, I'm saying that the prohibition analogy is bogus

[Callisto32]

145. Not for the reason you stated.

No, sir, they are both prohibitions. Whether or not you believe a prohibition to be good sense or not has nothing to do with whether or not it is a prohibition.

Get your intellectual ducks in a row before you type, or don't bother wasting our time.

[Starboard Tack]

156. "don't bother wasting our time." Good luck with that attitude.

The picture becomes clearer and clearer why some feel the need to strap a gun on each day before confronting the world.

[Callisto32]

192. Yes.

Don't bother wasting our time telling us that a prohibition is not a prohibition.

Don't type "A is not A" and expect me to not call you on it. I don't take logical fallacies from far more skilled debaters than you, and I expect to be called out when I make one myself.


Frankly, your statement that a prohibition isn't a prohibition shows that your thinking on prohibition is lazy, and based more around your personal feelings about the social propriety of something than on any kind of rational thought.

You thinking it is a waste of time, you typing it here is a waste of time, and frankly my typing this in response is probably a waste of time.

Most of what you type here is a waste of time. Half the shit you say makes less sense than the half-sense shit most antis spout.

At least my personal insult isn't thinly veiled.

[Starboard Tack]

195. Don't bother wasting our time with your Libertarian platitudes

This is a forum for progressive liberal Democrats. Bye bye.

[Simo 1939_1940]

197. The "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Nice try.

[Starboard Tack]

200. Did you read his tagline?

[Simo 1939_1940]

211. Oh - you're right. I guess it's the genetic fallacy that applies. NT

[Callisto32]

202. Sorry to mislead by my mere presence!

I am a gungeon dweller who is a registered Libertarian. I am not a Democrat, and don't pretend to be one, nor do I play one on TV. HOWEVER, I like political forums, and don't like to waste time in one's where I just agree with everyone all the time. At DU, that means that I pretty much will be agreeing with everyone on everything but welfare and guns. Typically, I find talking about economics to be exceedingly dry when done on the internet, so I avoid that and just get myself embroiled in quagmires around here.

Despite what the Anti's may think, I am not a prick, and have had long, civil discussions where both sides fully disagreed with the other. I do have a low tolerance for bullshit, and will call you out on it. I actively ask others to do the same to me. Garbage in, garbage out. It's true with math, and true in the marketplace of ideas. We can't hash out the best ideas if we entertain bullshit. When I say bullshit, I don't mean "stuff with which I disagree" I mean stuff like logical fallacies. I get short with repeat offenders, they sometimes snap back, as you can see.

In short. This is a great, active forum with a lot of quality posters and its share of B.S. and trolls. Hell, I confess to having spent a little time under a bridge myself, but I do try to not make it a habit. Stick around, post often, and resist the temptation of the "ignore" button.

I guess what I am trying to say is...You are right about the fallacy, but I am not a Scotsman.

[Simo 1939_1940]

214. Thanks for the clarification, Callisto -

I failed to recognize until now that your response was directed toward me. Well said, all.

[Callisto32]

201. HMMMMM

I posted:


"Don't bother wasting our time telling us that a prohibition is not a prohibition.

Don't type "A is not A" and expect me to not call you on it. I don't take logical fallacies from far more skilled debaters than you, and I expect to be called out when I make one myself.


Frankly, your statement that a prohibition isn't a prohibition shows that your thinking on prohibition is lazy, and based more around your personal feelings about the social propriety of something than on any kind of rational thought.

You thinking it is a waste of time, you typing it here is a waste of time, and frankly my typing this in response is probably a waste of time.

Most of what you type here is a waste of time. Half the shit you say makes less sense than the half-sense shit most antis spout.

At least my personal insult isn't thinly veiled. "


That isn't about my philosophy, it is about you ignoring reality. You didn't even respond to my calling you out on your logical fallacy. You simply pointed out that my philosophy is libertarian. This is another fallacy. You aren't doing well so far.

Either your head is so far up your own ass that you can't read English, or you are a troll.


Edit: I come here SPECIFICALLY to have my ideas challenged. If you can't handle someone challenging your ideas a pointing out your logical fallacies, then you are no better than a God-Damned Freeper in that respect. Think about it.

P.S. platitude |ˈplatiˌt(y)oōd|
noun
a remark or statement, esp. one with a moral content, that has been used too often to be interesting or thoughtful : she began uttering liberal platitudes.
• the quality of being dull, ordinary, or trite : educators willing to violate the bounds of platitude.

None of that occurred in the post to which you responded. Please learn what a word means before using it in the future.

[Starboard Tack]

213. I'm sorry. Did I forget to say bye bye.

:nuke:

[Callisto32]

215. Head up ass theory=Confirmed!

[hack89]

44. No - the social problem concerns violent criminals using handguns.

why not solve the real problem. For example:

1. End the war on drugs. A very large percentage of gun violence is associated with the drug trade. Lets legalize drugs and treat it as a public health issue. In the mean time, taking away the profit incentive will go a long way to minimize drug violence.

2. Refocus the criminal justice system on violent offenders. A relatively small percentage of our population creates a disproportionate percentage of violence. Lets make the top priority of the justice system to get those folks out of circulation. Add additional years in jail for the use of guns during a crime.

A very tiny portion of the population is misusing guns - lets focus on them.

[Starboard Tack]

45. Couldn't agree more.

So are you saying if we accomplish all that, people won't feel the need to tote?
I'm a great believer in behavioral modification.

[hack89]

57. I don't own guns because of fear - it would not effect my behavior

can't speak for the rest of society. I will point out that as violent crime has plunged to historic lows, gun ownership has increased. So I am not sure what the result would be.

[Starboard Tack]

58. Do you routinely carry a gun? If so, why?

[hack89]

64. Sure - usually just for practice and principles.

civil rights need to be routinely exercised so no one can turn around and say "you don't need that one anymore."

Since people like me are not the problem, why does it matter what I do with my guns?

[Starboard Tack]

70. You routinely tote "usually just for practice and principles"?

What are you practicing? What principles? And what are those reasons that are not usual?

[hack89]

79. Practicing concealed carry. Principle is exercising all my civil rights. nt

[Starboard Tack]

87. And the rest of the time. Why do you carry then?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

91. His answer was crystal clear the first time.

Could you stop with the obfuscation and sophistry? You're really not doing yourself any favors.

[Starboard Tack]

114. "obfuscation and sophistry" how original

I'm really not here to do myself favors. I'm taking time out to contribute to this forum. You are under no obligation to engage me in any way, but apparently you feel the need to.

I'm sure he doesn't need you to answer for him, but you appear to have this insatiable need to take over. You could seek help for that. I'm sure I'm not the first to bring it up, but guns in the hands of control freaks is a bad mix.

[Straw Man]

122. You're trying to dictate who can and who can't respond to your posts...

...and you're calling other people control freaks?

Priceless.

[Starboard Tack]

136. I'm not dictating anything, just commenting on your style

[Straw Man]

152. It's not MY style you were commenting on.

I'm just interrupting an interruption. Is that OK with you? And while I'm here, let me point out that telling someone they "should get help" for something goes beyond "commenting." I would say that it's a strong indication of your opinion that the person should stop doing it.

[Starboard Tack]

163. Yes, of course it's OK. Sorry if I got a little testy.

However, if you are going to quote someone, it should be accurate, because that is the definition of quote.
I said "You could seek help for that." which you quote as "should get help".
Big difference between "could" and "should".
Offering someone a helping hand is not the same as telling them what to do. No offense was meant. I have some knowledge and experience in the area of behavioral psychology and have worked in various therapeutic situations that have helped me. If I wanted advice about what kind of weapon to buy and where to buy it, I would come to someone like you, because you obviously have more expertise.

[oneshooter]

164. Seems like you have no trouble "misquoting" others posts. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

172. Please cite an example of my misquote.

I hope you're not still whining about my criticizing your brandishing your weapon at those big muscled, knife toting young guys who were ogling your tools the first time you told it and then, in the retelling, were wheeling them down the street.

[Straw Man]

169. Misquote

I said "You could seek help for that." which you quote as "should get help".
Big difference between "could" and "should".

Sorry for the misquote, but the difference is not nearly as large as you claim. The suggestion is that the person needs psychological counseling. One is worded somewhat more strongly, but the intention is the same. And pardon me, but I doubt your sincerity: the imputation of psychological disturbance to those whose viewps are different from your own is not only offensively condescending, but also disturbingly reminiscent of the practices of totalitarian regimes.

[Starboard Tack]

173. My friend, we could all benefit from therapy.

Whether we seek it or not depends on our needs and desires. That does not imply a need for psychological counseling. You don't have to be ill to benefit from therapy.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

174. Obfuscation, sophistry....

and lets add condescension, misdirection, redirection and insults to the mix...

[Starboard Tack]

182. Are these all on your resume

you might add myopia.

[Straw Man]

179. Oh, yes, we all could.

My friend, we could all benefit from therapy.

Whether we seek it or not depends on our needs and desires. That does not imply a need for psychological counseling. You don't have to be ill to benefit from therapy.

And I'm sure your suggestion was motivated by pure altruism and had nothing to do with any position that your interlocutor took or opinion that he or she expressed.

Please credit me with at least a glimmer of intelligence.

[Starboard Tack]

183. Such grandiosity. What a shock!

[hack89]

101. Sometimes I go to areas with high crime

not often but sometimes.

[Starboard Tack]

115. Interesting. I can relate to that.

Are there times when you don't carry?

[hack89]

117. Many times I don't carry. No real need. nt

[Starboard Tack]

137. OK I find that fascinating and I find it rational. Thanks for your honesty.

From other posts by those who say they tote, I had formed the impression that most CCW holders toted handguns everywhere, every day and that it was important to do so. What's your take on that?

[Straw Man]

153. In my unsolicited opinion...

...rational people make rational decisions about their own actions, taking circumstances into account. For example, if you said you only wear your seatbelt when you think you're going to get in an accident, I would call that foolish. On the other hand, if I insisted that you should wear your seatbelt to pull your car out of the garage so you can move the lawnmower, that would be somewhat extreme.

When laws seek to severely limit rational choices in pursuit of an elusive common good, I object.

Now you can go ahead and tell me you weren't talking to me. Don't disappoint me.

[Starboard Tack]

165. No, that's OK. I'm over my confusion.

And I agree. Very rational post.
I love the seatbelt analogy. I spend much of my time in a very remote and rugged area. No paved roads and lots of switchbacks. Normally I travel by foot or bicycle, but occasionally in a friend's SUV, which has only one door handle which works properly and one window. Both are in the driver's door. So, my dilemma is always "Do I use the seatbelt or not?" It's a 25 mile drive to the nearest store, so my transportation options are limited. I usually fasten my belt. He never uses his, which is somewhat unnerving, especially as his is the only door that opens from the inside.

[PavePusher]

21. So define "offensive weapon"....

As I have stated before, pretty much any object can be employed as a weapon, offensive or defensive. Merely because the general public does not perceive this does not make it any less true.

By removing commonly perceived and easily employed weapons, all you do is place a determined criminal at a greater advantage to the average target victim. Limiting the options available for defense is immoral in the extreme, unless you offer some compensatory tool or strategy in return, up to and including your services as personal security.

[Starboard Tack]

30. Good question.

For the purpose of this discussion, I would define "offensive weapon" as a weapon designed specifically to kill or injure human beings.
Of course, any object can be used offensively, including one's tongue, but removing handguns, sawed-off shotguns and military grade weaponry in no way detracts from one's ability to defend oneself. But it would undoubtedly save thousands of lives annually.

[oneshooter]

34. Since all long arms are derived from military grade weaponry then all would be removed.

Better study up on the subject before making your laws.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Starboard Tack]

38. Thank you for clarifying that.

I'm sure, with your knowledge and expertise, you could help us classify which weapons should be banned from civilian use. Your input could be invaluable.

[oneshooter]

41. You need to learn to understand what you read.

"Better study up on the subject before making your laws."

If you are too lazy or ignorant to learn what it is you want to ban, then expect no help from me.
You will sound like C. McCarthy and S.J. Lee.

[Starboard Tack]

47. Very well

I would ban any weapon designed specifically for use against humans. That leaves a lot of good hunting weapons.

[hack89]

66. Here's an excellent hunting rifle

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQZwN_QHCQfJQKhy7JgcEpiG_a5bNeOp0CMPu30CjMhRqM1D6JS_-vt2AZGVg

[Starboard Tack]

67. Doesn't look very sporting, does it?

What is it an AR-15?

[hack89]

69. Sporting describes use not design.

what makes unsuitable for sporting use - what design features do you object to?

[Starboard Tack]

74. I didn't mean to stir up a shitstorm.

I just meant it didn't seem like fair play, like gillnet fishing.

[hack89]

82. Then stop dancing around the issue and give a straight answer.

you can't usually hunt with 30 round mags - most state limit you to 5 round mags. Does that make it fair?

[Starboard Tack]

98. Hey, sometimes you have to dance around

especially if you haven't made up your mind about everything. I like to stay flexible. That may sound odd to some, but I'm open to changing my mind on a lot of things, especially when it comes to defining which kinds of weapons, and how they are used, are conducive to a healthy society.
The 5 round mag seems very fair.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

108. If one's mind is too open...

...things start to leak out. At some point you've got to accept some things as fact.

[Starboard Tack]

131. Of course, but if it's too closed nothing gets in.

Sometimes it's not so bad to let shit leak out. The only thing I accept as fact is infinity. Everything else is just a possibility. Once you start to accept things as facts, the atrophy sets in. I'm not there yet. I may be getting along in years, but I'm not yet ready to surrender my cognitive and perceptive powers. If I had that kind of Eyore mindset, I might as well become a Republican and be done with it.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

155. On this issue at least....

your mind appears as open and effective as a screen door on a submarine...

[Starboard Tack]

158. Wow! You actually have a sense of humor. Nice one. Keep it up.

I prefer you that way.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

83. What is unfair about it?

Seriously. Its not like going fishing with dynamite. You still actually have to hit the target...

[Starboard Tack]

99. We all establish our own parameters for fairness.

It's only my personal preference. If I'm going to kill something for "sport", or just for dinner, I don't want it to be too easy. I'm not into shooting sitting ducks.

[PavePusher]

106. What about an ergonomic hunting rifle makes hunting "too easy"?

Seriously, it's starting to sound like you think they are some magic talisman that loads/sights/aims/delivers a nuclear explosion all on its own.

[Starboard Tack]

132. Hey, it's not a big deal. In fact I'd probably really enjoy hunting with one.

Certainly target shooting with one. It's been a long time since I hunted and never felt that good about it and I never did it for sport. Just vermin and dinner. But I have no issues with hunting for food. Trophy hunting or fishing, not so much.

[hack89]

112. Since "assault" rifles fire such moderately powered rounds

an AK-47 would give a deer a sporting chance of survival. Short range and moderate hitting power are much more fair than a 30-06 which has twice the range and three times the hitting power. I know what I would rather be shot with.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

113. I'd rather be shot with...

...an AK at 200yds than a .30-06 at 500 that's for damn sure....

[Starboard Tack]

133. You're probably right. I've never hunted deer

I've thought about hunting deer occasionally, but I think a bow appeals to me more. Just seems fairer. Maybe I'm wrong. Seems like it would be harder with a bow. Has to be hard, right? So you feel you deserved the kill.

[oneshooter]

143. Longbow or compound bow? Prefer a longbow or recurve, no sights. n/t

[Starboard Tack]

159. Long bow - no sights.

[oneshooter]

162. What weight pull? Do you lock on your chin or your ear? n/t

[Starboard Tack]

168. If and when I try it, I'll let you know.

Haven't used a bow since I was a kid.

[Starboard Tack]

160. Isn't it great when we agree on something?

[PavePusher]

146. It's nice to have the luxury of being able to make hunting more difficult than neccesary.

Some people, even in our society, don't have that luxury. And others don't need or want it. When I hunt, it's about obtaining nutritious organic food as efficiently as possible, while throwing a hike in the woods/plains/mountains into the mix. (I'd probably be doing the hike anyway.)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with getting food as efficiently as one can.

[Starboard Tack]

161. I agree. Nothing wrong with that.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

204. How about you answer the question?

What is unfair about using an AR-15 pattern rifle for hunting?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

42. Oh man - that's easy.

None of them.

[Starboard Tack]

49. That's why we have a problem

[We_Have_A_Problem]

84. No - its why YOU have a problem.

The rest of the country seems to understand the concept just fine.

You do not ban something just because an infinitesimally small subset of the population misuses it. Doing so does nothing but punish those who are acting responsibly, and as prohibition SHOULD have taught you, does not work. Ever.

[Starboard Tack]

86. 10,000 gun murders a year isn't a problem for you?

Then what is a problem for you? Is 10,000 not enough?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

89. We've been over that.

No, 10,000 in a nation of 310 million is irrelevant and frankly, even if it were 10 million a year, i STILL would not recommend banning the tool the criminal chose to use. The tool is morally neutral and does not cause the problem. PEOPLE cause the problem, and punishing those who have done no wrong in an attempt to prevent the criminals from acting again is stupid at best.

Look at the root cause of the crimes. I'm willing to bet the bulk of them are drug related. Why not address THAT issue first? Perhaps by recognizing that prohibition didn't work with alcohol and it isn't going to work with drugs?

I realize you want the simple solution of banning firearms to somehow make a difference, but it doesn't ST. The reason it does not is simple - people who are going to kill others will do so. It has been going on since Cain decided Abel need his head flattened, and it isn't showing any signs of stopping.

Putting aside your desire to ban firearms as a simple (and simplistic) solution to a very complex problem, what other things do you believe society could do to address the root cause in a more effective manner?

[Starboard Tack]

105. "PEOPLE cause the problem" You said it. Thank you.

People who confuse handguns with all firearms and other tools of self defense. Very myopic. Do you want to legalize all drugs?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

109. I have been saying all along

people cause the problem. I do not advocate addressing the tool people use, i advocate addressing the actions the criminals take.

The one demonstrating severe myopia is you my friend. You have ruled out any other solution than limiting the public from access to firearms.

[Starboard Tack]

135. I have not ruled out other solutions.

I find it extreme to have to ban anything, but I think it is a small enough and very worthwhile sacrifice that individuals can make for the greater good.
Please feel free to come up with a better solution, besides legalizing drugs (which I support). I base my opinion on what I've seen in the UK, where drug laws are similar to here and violence is just as prevalent, if not more so. But they took guns off the table. Result is, there are very few in circulation and those few are in the hands of a tiny percentage of criminals and a tiny percentage of cops.

Unlike, the UK, though, I would prefer few, if any, restrictions on long guns.
Try to be more open and creative. Start contributing thoughtful alternatives instead of bashing other people's ideas.

[PavePusher]

39. "removing handguns, sawed-off shotguns and military grade weaponry in no way detracts from one's...

ability to defend oneself."

Un-freakin'-believable... :spray: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[hack89]

43. You just banned every deer hunting rifle in America

30 caliber bolt action rifles were the standard infantry weapon going into WWII. You cannot draw a clear line between military and non-military rifles.

[Starboard Tack]

46. Don't be silly. You know I support long guns

You know exactly what I meant, but feel free to correct me and list the ones you would ban.

[PavePusher]

50. No, we don't know what you meant, because YOU don't know what you mean.

Every hunting firearm currently in use is derived from a weapon designed for military use.

Either be more specific, or learn something about that which you want to restrict, or be more transparent in your goals.

I suggest all three at once...

[Starboard Tack]

51. All weapons designed specifically to be used against humans. OK

Excuse me! Did you all get that?

[PavePusher]

54. And which ones are those?

My Yugoslav Mauser, designed specifically as a German military weapon? My SKS, designed as a Russian military weapon? My Mosin-Nagants, designed as Russian military weapons? My 1917 Eddystone, designed as an American military weapon? My AR-15, original ancestor designed as an American military weapon? My Mossberg 500-series shotgun, which is used by police and military forces throughout the world, but with the right barrels is also a bird or deer gun?

Did you get all that?

[Starboard Tack]

60. Yes, thank you. All of those should be banned along with all handguns.

You can keep the Mossberg if you change barrels.

[PavePusher]

61. So, you do want to ban hunting rifles.

See how much better the truth feels?

[Starboard Tack]

62. No, not hunting rifles designed specifically for hunting.

Only those modified from military versions like the AR-15. Not a very sporting gun, is it?
I'm a big fan of Winchester rifles and shotguns.

[PavePusher]

65. How is it "Not a very sporting gun"?

Before you answer, I invite your attention here: http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-750.aspx

and here: http://www.remington.com/product-families/firearms/centerfire-families/autoloading-model-r-25.aspx

Which one is "Not a very sporting gun", and why....?

P.S. As has been said before, every "hunting" rifle in existance is derived directly from a military application. (Edit: Including your Winchesters.) Again, which ones do you want to ban and why?

[Starboard Tack]

72. Don't like the R-25. Over the top. Unnecessary.

However, I think it's a much better idea to start with handguns and see how the figures dwindle. Nobody likes having to ban anything, but with so many nutjobs running around killing people, logic demands we do something. What's your suggestion? More "good" guys with guns?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

85. What is "over the top" about it?

I see nothing but an ergonomically designed rifle.

[Starboard Tack]

93. Not a big deal really, but I'm a bit of a purist when it comes to certain things

I admire it's style, design, engineering. Just isn't my preference. I'm a sailor, not a power boater. I have a Prius, not a Hummer, but prefer to ride a bicycle. Get the picture?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

95. Yes I do....

In short, you want everyone else to live as you do, and you're willing to have other, shall we say, not so meek men with guns force your lifestyle upon those who do not wish to do so.

[Starboard Tack]

125. I certainly do not want everyone to live as I do.

The rest of your post is incomprehensible. Are you studying Rick Perry's debating style, or what?

[hack89]

103. So my Constitutional rights are dependent on your aesthetic taste? No thank you. nt

[Starboard Tack]

126. Not at all. Why would you say that?

[PavePusher]

110. Now that is starting to make a bit more sense, and something most of us can appreciate.

If you'd started there, instead of insinuating some mystical powers/abilities/attributes to certain firearms that just don't exist, you wouldn't be being grilled so firmly to come up with a concrete argument.

[Starboard Tack]

127. That's OK. I don't mind. I'm far from perfect and happy to learn

[hack89]

68. What makes none "sporting"?

it appears to me that if a rifle comes into common use for sporting uses, then by definition it is a sporting rifle. There is no unique functionality that differentiates a sporting rifle from a non-sporting rifle as far as I can see.

It appears to be that you have unilaterally defined sporting rifle as "guns that don't look like the ones I want to ban."

[Starboard Tack]

73. By sporting I mean fair play.

High capacity mags and scopes tend to detract from that IMO. But that's just me. Not a big deal.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

77. In what way?

You're seriously suggesting only iron sights allowed? Scopes have been used for hunting for a LONG time...

You also seem utterly unaware of the fact that the majority of firearms owners do NOT hunt, and never have.

[Starboard Tack]

96. Not suggesting that at all. Just my personal preference.

People do lots of things I don't like, but I have no desire to prohibit them. Prohibition doesn't work, never did, never will. Enlightenment works.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

107. So you admit prohibition does not work...

...yet in other posts in this same thread you suggest prohibition as a solution....

Have you been partaking of some medicinal herbs perhaps?

[Starboard Tack]

128. There is a huge difference between banning handguns across the board and prohibition

Handguns are one type of weapon that is responsible for the majority of gun murders. It's not a happy choice, but worth it IMO. A small sacrifice to save thousands of lives. The OP said he would not be sorry if handguns disappeared. He just doesn't think it is doable. I do. Most folk think either like him or like me, but we all would be happier in a world without handguns. How do you feel? Would you be OK with a world without them, or have you become so attached to them? I think compulsive toting is a form of addiction. What do you think?

[hack89]

80. So limit hunting to 5 round mags like many states do.

scopes are not uniquely military. They are common for many "sporting" uses like target shooting.

[Starboard Tack]

97. I like the 5 round mag idea and scopes are cool for target shooting and sniping.

[hack89]

102. And don't forget hunting - only way to hunt at long ranges. nt

[Starboard Tack]

129. Yeah, maybe. Depends what you're hunting. I've only hunted birds and rabbits.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

111. Glad you like that idea.

You are free to impose that limit upon yourself. Others may have a different opinion.

[Starboard Tack]

130. I impose nothing on anyone. I try to live by example.

[Straw Man]

154. You impose nothing on anyone?

So would you agree with removing all legal restrictions on gun ownership? Or is it OK if others do the imposing for you?

[Starboard Tack]

157. Yes I would remove all legal restrictions on ownership.

But I would remove the availability of handguns and outlaw their use. Pretty simple.

[Straw Man]

170. A not-so-pretty piece of sophistry.

Yes I would remove all legal restrictions on ownership.

But I would remove the availability of handguns and outlaw their use. Pretty simple.

How do you remove the availability without legal restrictions on ownership? In practical terms, please.

Define "use." They can't legally be carried? Fired? Used to weight down papers on one's desk?

[Starboard Tack]

171. Therein lies the problem. How to implement?

I don't think it is sophistry, though. I think the idea makes a lot of sense.
The pain is in giving up all handguns, as a society. The UK did that, so it isn't impossible.
The gain is no further restrictions on ownership of long guns.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

175. Please explain how it could occur...

...in the United States under our current legal system. Please also explain what the actual benefit would be - not what you THINK it would be, but what it provably would be.

Remember, crime has actually increased in England since their handgun ban, and criminals can still get them when they want them - and England is an island for pete's sake...

[Starboard Tack]

181. I have no idea how it would occur. That's our challenge.

Can't prove what will happen beforehand. We all know that.
As you say, crime has increased in the UK and guns can still be had. Fact is, criminals rarely use them. Cost/benefit analysis and all that. 50 gun murders a year is more acceptable than 10,000. Us having 5 times the population that would translate to 250 in this country. Big difference. You explain it. Oh, sorry I forgot. It's an island LOL

[Straw Man]

178. Problems and sophistry.

I said "remove all legal restrictions on gun ownership." Do you think that outlawing handguns is compatible with that statement? That's some textbook sophistry right there.

There are at present very few restrictions on the ownership of long guns in the US. It's hard to see what gains could possibly compensate gun owners for the draconian ban you suggest. Lots of pain, virtually no gain, from a legal gun-owner's perspective.

The UK had far fewer handguns to begin with, and a lot less concern with rights. Still plenty of violent crime there, however.

[Starboard Tack]

187. "The UK had far fewer handguns to begin with, and a lot less concern with rights."

Right, they were concerned with protecting life. The actual right to stay alive. Not the right to kill. Quite a barbarian concept.
They had fewer handguns to begin with and it worked then compared to here. So, our answer is more handguns. We really are fucking brilliant.

"Still plenty of violent crime there, however." What's that supposed to mean? Nobody said it was crime free. They just don't settle differences by shooting each other. What part of the logic are you having trouble with?

[Straw Man]

189. You've got your rights confused.

The right to use a weapon in self-defense is not a "right to kill." It is a right to preserve one's own life. Hardly a barbarian concept. Any action taken with said weapon will be subject to severe legal scrutiny. Always has been, always will be.

Nobody said it was crime free. They just don't settle differences by shooting each other. What part of the logic are you having trouble with?

Sometimes they do. And sometimes they settle them by stabbing, bludgeoning, stomping, poisoning, drowning,or strangling each other. Somehow you find that more acceptable than shooting. I'm not sure why. That's the part of the logic I have trouble with.

I'll grant you that their murder rate is lower than ours. However, it was lower even before they instituted their gun control measures. Furhermore, our non-firearms murder rate is higher than their overall murder rate. It seems that we are violent people, regardless of the choice of weapons. I would look to cultural and economic factors for the reasons and the solutions.

[Starboard Tack]

190. The right to self-defense is a universal right.

Apparently there are states that permit shooting thieves as they flee. Not to mention those who break windows. Ask your friends here who support government sanctioned murder.

[Straw Man]

191. I know of no state that permits "shooting thieves as they flee."

Perhaps you could point me to this legislation so that I can evaluate it for myself. As for breaking windows, context is everything. A stray baseball is one thing. A home invasion is quite another.

"Government sanctioned murder"? Are you talking about the death penalty? I oppose it.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

193. There is at least one.

Texas clearly permits shooting a thief in flight to recover property.

[Straw Man]

198. I'm opposed to that in principle.

I'd have to see the actual wording of the law to form a final opinion. Nothing about still posing a threat?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

206. Nope....

In Texas he need not even pose a threat to begin with - and in that regard, there are quite a few other states which do not require any kind of threat to be present. The simply judgement of the homeowner is sufficient. Hell man, the law still allows for hanging in the case of cattle theft down here.

[Starboard Tack]

199. Apparently Texas is one.

Several of our Texas brethren have brought this up. We also have those who support the Nussbaumer shooting in Fla cheering the shooting of a naked guy in the street after he had ceased to become a threat, if he ever was one.
Several members have recently stated that they would shoot "anyone" who broke their windows, and that any malicious intent warranted being shot.
I thought you spent more time here. Apparently, self defense extends to windows and other kinds of property, regardless of personal danger.
I cannot name those fellow members, except for We_Have_A_Problem, as they are not participating in this thread.

[PavePusher]

104. I don't recall any state that allows "high capacity mags" (a rather nebulous/tenuous term)....

for hunting game animals. 5 rounds is the maximum that I am aware of. Hunting coyotes or wild pigs as pest species, I think you can use normal or large magazines.

[Starboard Tack]

185. Hey, well that's great.

All we need to figure out now is the handgun problem

[We_Have_A_Problem]

76. What is unsporting about an AR?

it is simply an ergonomic lightweight medium-power rifle..If I'm not mistaken, Mr. Stoner originally designed the AR-10 (the forerunner of the M16/AR15) to be chambered in .308 - which is a pretty standard hunting caliber.

[Starboard Tack]

141. I'm working on that. My mind is still open

[We_Have_A_Problem]

210. You specifically stated...

...you did not believe it was very sporting. Why not? Surely you had SOMETHING in mind when you said that...

[Starboard Tack]

212. I know and I didn't, but I've been rethinking it some.

I still don't think it is very sporting compared to a bow or a spear, but it's still somewhat sporting. So, I guess I'm OK with it. See how flexible I am?

[friendly_iconoclast]

121. Your argument has one small issue- Army sniper rifles ARE hunting rifles

Behold the M24 sniping system, which is really a Remington 700 with a synthetic stock and a telescopic sight:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=206669#206746


Bolt-action deer rifles started out as military weapons, and still serve in that capacity. But the qualities that made them useful to the military also made them useful to hunters.

A Winchester Model 70 in .30-06, or a Remington Model 700 in .308 Winchester, are both civilianized military Mauser derivatives chambered for high-powered military calibers, and the Remington "deer rifle" is still used as the primary U.S. military sniper rifle.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M24_Sniper_Weapon_System

The M24 Sniper Weapon System (SWS) is the military and police version of the Remington 700 rifle, M24 being the model name assigned by the United States Army after adoption as their standard sniper rifle in 1988. The M24 is referred to as a "weapons system" because it consists of not only a rifle, but also a detachable telescopic sight and other accessories.

The M24 was designed to use the "long-action" version of the Remington M700 BDL. This was chosen because the Army wanted the ability to rebarrel the rifle from 7.62 NATO to the .300 Winchester Magnum cartridge if needed, which required a long action receiver. Due to using a short action cartridge in a long action receiver and magazine box, rounds must be pushed to the rear of the magazine in order to ensure reliable feeding....

So I guess you really will be going after hunting rifles.

[Straw Man]

123. Winchesters?

Like this?



Or this?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

205. Do you not realize...

...the list of firearms presented to you encompasses virtually every long arm on the market with the exception of single-shot and double-barreled shotguns and rifles.

Those firearms are the basis for just about every modern firearm design.

This is where your lack of understanding creates a problem. You say you only want to ban things designed for military use yet you ignore the glaring problems with that. One of them is that almost every type of firearm in existence was designed for military use at one point. The other one is that military weapons are quite specifically intended for private ownership according to the US Supreme Court ever since US v. Miller.

As a footnote, you're also unaware of the fact that some truly interesting types of firearm would become quite legal under your requirement which you had never considered - the .45 Thompson Submachinegun and the .50BMG rifle. Both of THOSE were designed specifically for the civilian market and adopted by the military after the fact.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

75. So then essentially

you want to ban ALL weapons. Gotcha.

[Starboard Tack]

184. Do you honestly believe all weapons were designed specifically to kill humans?

You must be a city boy

[hack89]

56. There is no reason to ban any

they don't pose a problem - it is not like they are commonly used for violent crime or murders.

[Starboard Tack]

59. So, just ban handguns, is that what you are saying?

[hack89]

63. No - they are useful too. Lets hammer violent criminals - they have no use. nt

[Starboard Tack]

71. But if you leave handguns, they will be available to those violent criminals.

Not to mention those law abiding citizens who become violent criminals with one slip of the trigger. People who play with fire usually get burnt sooner or later.

[hack89]

78. Take away a constitution right from the law abiding 99.99 percent

because of the actions of a tiny minority? No - violent criminals are the real problem. Solve that without diminishing the freedom of the rest of us.

[Starboard Tack]

88. What Constitutional right specifies handguns?

I don't want to take away any rights, but I would like to see less killing. Gives us a lousy image.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

90. Specifically....

...the 2nd Amendment.

Remember, the Constitution does not define all the rights of the people. It defines powers granted to government and restrictions on those powers. Even if the 2nd Amendment were not there, the right to be armed would still be protected under the 9th and 10th Amendments.

In short - the Constitution need not specify that handguns are permitted, however to ban ownership, it would have to specifically grant that power to government. Unless you can identify where government is specifically granted that authority, it does not exist.

[Starboard Tack]

116. So 2A covers suitcase nukes too?

How about RPGs? Are those bans specifically granted to the government by the Constitution?

[hack89]

119. Arms implies a soldier's individual weapons

Not artillery, explosive devices or crew served weapons. The line was drawn almost 80 years ago - aren't you familiar with our present gun laws?

[Starboard Tack]

138. Sorry if you thought that was a serious question

It gets quite confusing when I try to respond to a rational individual who joins in a thread which feels more like a therapy session. But it sure does get entertaining around here at times.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

147. Arguably yes.

It is legal to own an RPG already. The ammo is controlled by the NFA, but there's no reason you couldn't have one if you wanted it.

As far as nukes, thats a silly point to bring up. Nuke ownership is severely limited simply by the financial cost.

Currently all uranium in the US is owned by the federal government as are all reactors which could refine the material to weapons grade. The government is under no obligation to actually sell any of those to a private party.

So, to privately obtain a nuke, you'd have to either buy one on the black market at an absurd cost, violating a billion laws in the process, or you'd have to build your own from scratch. By that, I mean from mining the raw material to the final finished product. The sheer cost of that alone limits the buyer pool to Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and ...well that's about it.

[Starboard Tack]

186. Fucking brilliant! You are definitely one of a kind.

I must admit, I thought you were just another fringe toter with a Texas type take on things, but no, you win the prize of the week, which is saying something around here.

As far as nukes, thats a silly point to bring up. Nuke ownership is severely limited simply by the financial cost.

It's very comforting, for all of us, to know that the only thing preventing you from having one is the cost factor.
Thank God Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are not into it.

Must be a real hoot being you!

[We_Have_A_Problem]

207. No need to insult

The point being made is the nuke argument is nothing but inflammatory bullshit which falls apart the moment one stops to think about the actual logistics involved. Add in the fact that a man portable "suitcase nuke" does not exist and you've got the same kind of craptastic grandstanding as the plastic gun that can get through a metal detector.

[Starboard Tack]

209. What insult? I call it as I see it.

Your whole response was about the difficulty in obtaining a suitcase nuke. The expense and logistics. The potential consequences of private ownership seem to be irrelevant to you.
Now you switch tack and say they don't exist. Nice little dance there.
You might not be able to carry one, but most of us could.

A suitcase nuke or suitcase bomb is a very compact and portable nuclear weapon and could have the dimensions of 60 x 40 x 20 centimeters or 24 x 16 x 8 inches. The smallest possible bomb-like object would be a single critical mass of plutonium (or U-233) at maximum density under normal conditions
http://www.nationalterroralert.com/suitcasenuke/

I have no idea why you bring up plastic guns and metal detectors.

[hack89]

100. The 2nd Amendment. nt

[Starboard Tack]

118. I don't recall it mentioning handguns, just arms.

The government has a right to decide what kind of arms are allowable under 2A. If the government can control alcohol content, pepper spray content, where and when and how we assemble, protest and speak, it sure as hell has the right to determine which kinds of weapons we can own. If that weren't the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[hack89]

120. You are 80 years too late

that line has been drawn. As an aside, hand guns, rifles and their ammo have always been considered arms in the context of the second amendment - they are the traditional weapons of the individual soldier.

[Starboard Tack]

139. Yes. Thanks. I understand that.

The debate now is about removing or redefining what kind of handguns, if any we want to continue to protect under 2A.
This is the really hard discussion that is necessary, if we want to significantly lower the murder rate. I agree it is a tough choice and grossly unfair to many people, but as a nation, would we be better off? That's the question. I'm leaning that way because nobody is offering anything better than the status quo.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

148. First off....

the government has no rights.

Second, no, it has no authority to decide what kind of arms are allowable. Perhaps you didn't quite get the whole "shall not be infringed" part.

[Starboard Tack]

188. Methinks you live in a fantasy world.

"The government has no rights" Except the right to enact laws.

The Supremacy Clause
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

194. That grants government no rights.

Do you need me to explain that to you?

What this means is, any laws made in full compliance with the Constitution are the supreme law of the land.

In other words, laws made outside of that authority, have no effect. Laws which exceed the clearly defined federal powers have no effect. This has been ruled upon repeatedly by no less an authority than the US Supreme Court.

In short, no, the government cannot do whatever the hell it wants. It may do ONLY what it is constitutionally permitted to do.

This is basic grade school civics my friend. Did they not teach this on your planet?

[Starboard Tack]

196. Duh! Do you have a point or are you practising to be a kindergarten teacher?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

81. So what?

They will also be available to those who are non-violent law-abiding citizens.

Your logic is the same as banning cars to limit drunk driving. In short, retarded.

[Starboard Tack]

92. Are you so desperate as to resort to that hackneyed false analogy.

Cars are transportation tools. Alcohol is an intoxicating beverage. They are not designed to go together. When combined they are potentially dangerous.

Handguns are designed to be dangerous and if used for their designed purpose, they kill or injure.

My logic may be retarded, but at least it exists.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

94. Sigh....

You are missing the point entirely.

Combating drunk driving by banning alcohol or cars is just as stupid as attempting to combat crime by banning guns. For it to work in EITHER case would mean the very people who don't have the sense to use those tools responsibly in the first place would somehow magically begin to after it was made illegal.

Yes, handguns are designed to be dangerous for whatever is on the business end. So what? It is still a TOOL, nothing more. Sometimes one must harm someone or something. It happens. Such is life.

[Starboard Tack]

124. I don't advocate banning guns, eradicating handguns is something I could live with

Nothing stupid about that. Your analogy is beyond ridiculous.
"Yes, handguns are designed to be dangerous for whatever is on the business end. So what? It is still a TOOL,"
And that is just testosterone laden drivel. Sometimes you have to take life as it comes and deal with it. Such is life.

[rrneck]

134. So

all those people who are unable to prevail in a contest of strength are just fucked, huh? Can't have the inconvenience of considering the most vulnerable members of society when our sense of self importance is at stake. Ideology comes first.

[Starboard Tack]

140. Two wrongs don't make a right.

People compensate for their inadequacies in many ways. Strength comes in many forms. An agile mind will often prove superior than a handgun in dealing with those who would persecute. There's always going to be someone bigger and stronger. Do you think most toters are puny and frail? Most toters I've actually met were supersized.

[PavePusher]

149. Defending oneself with a firearm is not a "wrong".

Perhaps you didn't mean to imply that, but that's sure how it comes across.

[Starboard Tack]

166. I didn't mean to imply that.

I was just using an old adage to make a point. Probably should have used one without the word "wrong" in it.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

150. Could you at least TRY to be consistent?

On the one hand you say you have nothing against self defense, then you say that self defense is wrong. You say you don't want to ban firearms, then say you do. Do you even know what you want?

If a person decides that a firearm is his best option for self defense, who are you to question that? If he wishes to carry a handgun instead of a long arm, what business is it of yours?

You may believe you are simply searching for answers, and perhaps you are, but you're doing it in such a way that it appears you have already decided on the solution and you're trying to find a way to rationalize it.

[Starboard Tack]

167. Ah, consistency. Let me see.

Self defense. Never said self defense was wrong. Please show me where I said that?
Where did I say I want to ban firearms? Doing away with handguns is not banning firearms.
Doing away with freon did not ban refrigeration.
I think you are the one trying to rationalize his behavior. I don't need to rationalize not doing something. You are the one who is part of a tiny fringe minority who feel the need to tote handguns around. You are not average gun owners. Why are you surprised by the curiosity of others and their bewilderment.
Your carrying a handgun is no business of anyone else until you advocate it as a normal, healthy behavior. Then it becomes everyone's business and fair game for discussion, especially if you claim a Constitutional right.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

176. You have not said specifically...

...that self defense was wrong. What you have done is stated how it is wrong to defend yourself or your home when the criminal may just simply want to break the windows....Or did you forget that one?

You have said you want to ban not only handguns, but long-arms which are of a military pattern and any other weapons designed for or derived from military use. Wow...ok then.

The freon thing is not quite the same. Freon was phased out after a suitable alternative was created. You are not allowing an suitable alternative to handguns.

I'm not rationalizing squat. Yes, I am an average gun owner. Carrying a handgun IS normal and healthy behavior and it most assuredly IS a constitutionally protected right. I'm sorry you disagree with the entire Supreme Court, but that is not my problem.

[Starboard Tack]

180. This is what I said and what I say. No need to make shit up.

Everyone has the right of self defense and defending their home.
Shooting people for only breaking windows is not self defense, but murder or attempted murder.
I have said that I don't want to ban anything, but banning handguns would be a solution I could easily live with. I modified my opinion on the "Military style" weaponry after receiving good info. So, the jury is still out on that.

I am allowing for all kinds of suitable alternatives for handguns - from Mace (pepper spray), whistles, tasers, cellphones to anything non-lethal you can come up with.

You ARE rationalizing. You are NOT the average gun owner. The routine carrying of a lethal weapon is aberrant behavior. Nothing healthy about it. You are in denial about that, as are many of your ilk. It being Constitutionally protected does not make it normal, rational, sane or right. Just legal.

My disagreement with SCOTUS is definitely not your problem, nor is it mine. It is just a disagreement.

Now, how about a nice cup of tea. You'll feel a lot better.

[rrneck]

151. Two wrongs?

You're still spinning and framing. You assume there's something wrong with carrying.

There are questions pending. What remedy do you offer when your ideology fails?

Parsing the issue to reframe the question is disingenious. Try to avoid intellectual dishonesty. What right do you have to deny others the right to choose their means of self defense?

[oneshooter]

208. How far back are you going to extend this "offensive weapon" ban. Trapdoors, Percussion

muskets, flint long rifles, wheel locks, match locks?

The same with handguns. Flint, percussion, pinfire, rimfire?

Lets get down to the brass tacks.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[We_Have_A_Problem]

203. Could you explain to me....

...exactly how the existence of handguns is somehow an attack on your freedom?

In case you have once again forgotten what you have said, i refer you to this phrase:

"You, obviously, have given up any hope of controlling or eradicating handguns, even though that would be your preference.
I think that may well be the real problem we need to resolve. As a society, we should not give up just because it looks like we're losing. I don't believe in "If we can't beat them, we might as well join them." I'm not prepared to relinquish my freedom that easily."

The way that is written, it clearly indicates you believe handgun ownership in the US is an attack on your freedom. Please explain.

[Starboard Tack]

14. How refreshing to see a sane post in this forum

If only our all toter friends had the same kind of mental equilibrium. Unfortunately, the proliferation of handguns and CCW permits continues, as does the expansion of "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand your ground" laws, resulting in lower murder rates as homicides become reclassified as self defense. This climate of every man for himself vigilantism puts us on a potential slippery slope toward anarchy.

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. You're poisoning the well (again), and claiming telepsychological ability...

..by prounouncing a medical diagnosis of people you do not know and have not met.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

[Starboard Tack]

17. Nonsense, but your grandiosity doesn't surprise me.

It is not necessary to know people to diagnose their illnesses. Psychological evaluations consist of observations and analysis of statements made and answers to questions. Not that hard for a trained professional.

[PavePusher]

23. Absent any knowledge of the persons circumstances and history...

you are quite likely to make an incorrect diagnosis.

I doubt your methods of mere 'net-skimming are medically approved.

[friendly_iconoclast]

25. Meh. Not our first 'telepsychologist', by any means.

The most prominent other one here in the Gungeon also poses as an expert on multiple subjects. That one purports to
be a firearms expert and a student of the deomgraphics of California's Bay Area...

[Starboard Tack]

32. You'd be surprised

[PavePusher]

55. So would my medical-field relatives, as it happens... n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

24. You've administered the MMPI (or similar tests) to *how* many people here, again?

Thought so...

[Starboard Tack]

33. Do you really think the MMPI is the only way to read people?

Thought not...

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. No, but a personal interview *is* a requirement. Remote sensing doesn't count.

Even if your DD214 shows service in the First Earth Battalion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Men_Who_Stare_at_Goats

[Starboard Tack]

48. Nonsense, you've obviously never read Conan Doyle

[friendly_iconoclast]

52. A mystery writer as an authority? You *are* aware that "Murder, She Wrote" wasn't a docudrama?

I need to update my CV. My extensive reading of science fiction should land me a nice gig with NASA or the European Space Agency...

[Starboard Tack]

53. Why not go for Hilary's job?

[Logical]

20. Can you really prove the "stand your ground" law is being used to cover up.....

murders? Because I want to see your claims proved and stats listed.

I know many cases where the extreme gun fans are mad because the law is not used enough.

Like the druggist in Texas who came back and shot the kid on the floor. Most here agree the shooting was murder. But many in Texas are throwing a fit over it.

Please provide some facts!

[Starboard Tack]

28. No, I can't prove it with stats, but it seems logical

after reading posts both here and in other places. And I don't think the cheerleaders are all extreme gun fans, they just lap up what tabloid journalists serve them. Sensationalism sells, period. Read the comments in the various Florida news sources in reaction to the Nussbaumer shooting. Almost all are typical of, or even more extreme than the extreme members of this forum. Facts in the form of stats are not always the most enlightening and are often skewed to suit one side of the argument.
If stats were that important to our decision making, we would have adopted UK style gun legislation a long time ago. However, what people say in Knee-jerk posts are facts that illustrate trends in thinking.
The Preston Oates case is another classic example of trying to legitimize homicide as an acceptable form of problem solving.

[Logical]

35. Many gun owners think he is guilty. Lets wait to see how it plays out before we....

decide he got away with murder.

[Starboard Tack]

37. You're right. Many do and many don't.

And many won't, even if he is found guilty. Therein lies one of our problems. There is a growing mentality out there that sees everything in terms of black and white, good guys and bad guys, simple solutions, bang bang.

[PavePusher]

22. Again you equate self-defense to vigilantism.

You are wrong, of course...

[Starboard Tack]

29. You are wrong. I do not equate self-defense with vigilantism.

I equate shooting people who are fleeing in the back and publicly executing those you differ with vigilantism.
I am very pro self-defense. Shooting someone who does nothing more than break windows is not self-defense. Pointing a gun at someone who has made no credible threat, but you feel afraid of, is vigilantism.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

177. This is where the problem lies...

Shooting someone who has actually done nothing more than break a window IS self defense in virtually every state in the Union, and you couldn't get a jury to convict even in the most rabid anti-gun communities. Why? Because it is a credible threat to a reasonable man. Yes, there is the possibility that the person is merely breaking the window for the hell of it, but the probability of that is extremely low. Highest probability is that he broke the window with the intent to enter the home and do harm.

[Callisto32]

144. "It's probably just that you don't like anything being labled "anti."

I think phrasing questions adversarially is fine. (Disclaimer: Just got out of law school and passed PA bar exam. I am excited... w00t!1!)

There is no other good way to ask such a question. You are specifically asking someone to challenge your idea. You are saying "I believe this idea to be correct, and am attempting to create the same belief in you. If you disagree, tell me why I am wrong, and back it up with evidence." Such discourse is inherently adversarial, but that doesn't mean that it need be uncivil.

Many people think that labeling the other side "anti-x" is somehow backhanded, but frankly, we all need to be able to get past that and use accurate labels to discuss our ideas.