Is this hypocrisy? - DPChallenge Forums

01/08/2013 07:31:09 PM · #351

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Cars. Guns. Nuclear weapons.

Which one is primarily designed not to kill people?

Yet, strangely the Car is the one that actually kills more people every year by a LONG shot... Irony? I think so! ;)

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

01/08/2013 07:47:29 PM · #352

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Cars. Guns. Nuclear weapons.

Which one is primarily designed not to kill people?

Yet, strangely the Car is the one that actually kills more people every year by a LONG shot... Irony? I think so! ;)

And what does car fatalities have to do with gun control? Heart disease kills more than cars. By your logic we should stop regulating cars until we fix the heart problem in America.

01/08/2013 07:50:52 PM · #353

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Cars. Guns. Nuclear weapons.

Which one is primarily designed not to kill people?

Yet, strangely the Car is the one that actually kills more people every year by a LONG shot... Irony? I think so! ;)

And what does car fatalities have to do with gun control? Heart disease kills more than cars. By your logic we should stop regulating cars until we fix the heart problem in America.

Troll.

I wasn't arguing for or against the regulation of anything. I was pointing out that his argument was amusingly ironic.

Cars are built to be specifically to be safe, and yet they kill more people than every item on the planet designed to kill people.

Irony. Plain and simple.

Message edited by author 2013-01-09 00:55:52.

bspurgeon

Fujifilm x100

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

01/08/2013 07:52:58 PM · #354

Originally posted by Flash:

eta: The NRA's Eddie the Eagle program is specifically designed to teach children about the risks of guns and is further evidence of their committment to promoting the SAFE use of firearms. It is offered free to any school willing to receive it and it is specificlly void of any NRA promotional material or mentions. The sole focus is on safety.

A politically driven program that is far from steeped in altruism.

bspurgeon

Fujifilm x100

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

01/08/2013 07:58:09 PM · #355

Originally posted by Cory:

Cars are built to be specifically to be safe, and yet they kill more people than every item on the planet designed to kill people.

Irony. Plain and simple.

So guns are designed to kill people. Now you are making sense! ;)

I don't find it ironic when it's all about numbers. We all agree that cars are far safer than they once were regardless of the absolute number of fatalities.

Carry on.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

01/08/2013 08:00:45 PM · #356

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Cars. Guns. Nuclear weapons.

Which one is primarily designed not to kill people?

Yet, strangely the Car is the one that actually kills more people every year by a LONG shot... Irony? I think so! ;)

And what does car fatalities have to do with gun control? Heart disease kills more than cars. By your logic we should stop regulating cars until we fix the heart problem in America.

Troll.

I wasn't arguing for the regulation of cars, nor the regulation of heart disease. I was pointing out that his argument was amusingly ironic.

Cars are built to be specifically to be safe, and yet they kill more people than every item on the planet designed to kill people.

Irony. Plain and simple.

Riight, and the 10 other times you brought up cars in this thread?

01/08/2013 08:32:28 PM · #357

Originally posted by bspurgeon:

Originally posted by Cory:

Cars are built to be specifically to be safe, and yet they kill more people than every item on the planet designed to kill people.

Irony. Plain and simple.

So guns are designed to kill people. Now you are making sense! ;)

I don't find it ironic when it's all about numbers. We all agree that cars are far safer than they once were regardless of the absolute number of fatalities.

Carry on.

Would you really be so disingenuous as to try to manipulate that into "all guns are designed to kill people"?

I grant that some guns are indeed made exactly for that purpose - some of them good at it, some not so good at it. However, I also contend that there are many more guns that are not at all intended to kill people, although they admittedly can be used in that way, sometimes more effectively than a gun made for the 'job' of killing people.

Cars protect the user - a man standing on the street wouldn't find the airbags or crumple zones are much to his advantage when he is hit by that car. Again - misused the car really is dangerous.

Guns also protect the user - they have padded grips, recoil absorbers, they are made to not blow up in the users face when fired, they don't vent gasses up the nose of the shooter, and they most certainly do attempt to make themselves comfortable and fun for the user.

By the way, just to be clear on the purpose of cars - there are cars which are built specifically to kill people. And citizens can own those as well. Hell, they can even mount a Ma Deuce on the blasted thing if they want. The line is crossed when someone is threatened with such a vehicle (with or without a gun).

My point should be clear - anything can be misused, and despite the fact that we try very hard to force reality to bend to our will, reality fricken wins dude. Cars are dangerous, and people will have guns. You can pass laws that say cars are to be made safe - and granted - improvements are made - but cars are still very dangerous and kill more people each year than nuclear weapons have EVER killed. (1.2 million a year in cars globally, and a total of about 200,000 from the nukes in all of history)...

Guns are dangerous, as are most fun things. People who misuse fun things to kill people are f*&k#d up. But just because you took away the toys doesn't mean you'll really stop the creative people who want to kill. I have no doubt that Americans are still indeed the conniving geniuses we've always been. Just because the rest of the world needs guns to do this mass killing thing well doesn't mean we need them too.

Message edited by author 2013-01-09 01:44:56.

01/08/2013 09:03:40 PM · #358

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Cars. Guns. Nuclear weapons.

Which one is primarily designed not to kill people?

Yet, strangely the Car is the one that actually kills more people every year by a LONG shot... Irony? I think so! ;)

And what does car fatalities have to do with gun control? Heart disease kills more than cars. By your logic we should stop regulating cars until we fix the heart problem in America.

Troll.

I wasn't arguing for the regulation of cars, nor the regulation of heart disease. I was pointing out that his argument was amusingly ironic.

Cars are built to be specifically to be safe, and yet they kill more people than every item on the planet designed to kill people.

Irony. Plain and simple.

Riight, and the 10 other times you brought up cars in this thread?

Troll.

Cars are a valid comparison. Especially unregulated cars that can go 150+ mph and are street legal.

We have the technology to force drivers to drive the speed limit. We have more deaths from speeding that basically any other cause, and we can solve it - easily.. Yet, we choose to not act - why? Because it's not ok to tell people they can't drive fast, and it's not right to tell them that they can't own a 30 round clip for their gun, or that they can't have a flash suppressor, or a folding stock, or whatever silly things that are somehow supposed to define "people killing" guns from "animal killing guns and paper / tincan killing guns"..

In fact, the guns really meant to kill humans are easy to spot - anything that looks like a pistol and isn't a .500 Smith and Wesson or a .454 Casull. These "assault" rifles are meant for .. well, hell. I don't really know wtf they're good for - but damn it, they certainly aren't made to be good at killing a damn thing - I've shot them, they aren't anywhere near what I would call well designed, accurate, or effective killing machines. Sure, maybe you can fill it with mud and shoot it, or you can hide your flash a little, or maybe you can make it look like an awkward pistol with a stupidly long barrel, and yes, it has a handle for long hikes where you're carrying it. But what it doesn't have is a set of sights which are aligned with the barrel, nor do they shoot "tight" generally speaking, nor are they fully automatic, nor are they really particularly better at killing people than any other gun (in fact they were DESIGNED to wound, as a wounded soldier requires two more soldiers to help them, whereas a dead soldier requires no help - removing three from the battle is better than removing one). The weapon isn't actually great at anything, while being pretty ok for most situations. So, why ban them? They're not really even the best choice for the killing sprees these idiots go on, they're just using them cause they saw the silly things in a movie. A break-action shotgun with a really good shooter? Now that's fricken scary.

I'm not exaggerating when I tell you that I can get shots off out of my break action shotgun fast enough to hit two clay pigeons thrown simultaneously - I think I could do a good sustained 20 rounds a minute, under pressure, at about 9 pellets a round that's about 180 9mm bullets per minute. If I choose to shoot slugs, they will give a flat trajectory out to about 150 yards, and hit like a Mack truck. All from what is ostensibly a sporting weapon which is useless for anything other than hunting birds. It'll never jam, it doesn't misfire more than about one out of a thousand rounds, and even if it does I just carry on like nothing happened. Say whatever you please about banning guns - if your goal is to stop the violence, you must remove all guns from the hands of everyone, as quickly as possible. Otherwise, all it takes is a single SOB who wants to really go big. Even if you ban guns, they'll still figure out what tools will work well from the stock they have available - necessity is indeed the mother of invention - and inventing weapons is a fun and easy hobby - our species has been doing it for ages.

Message edited by author 2013-01-09 02:10:51.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

01/08/2013 09:11:28 PM · #359

Originally posted by Cory:

Troll.

Looks like I was right about gun owners being children. Thanks for proving my point.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

01/09/2013 02:46:36 AM · #360

Originally posted by yanko:

Looks like I was right about gun owners being children. Thanks for proving my point.

You should not make assumptions about all gun owners. I know quite a few completely rational ones. Sadly most Americans only hear the opinion of the fringe gun owners who are rabid in defense of their "gun rights", and their lobby, the NRA.

While 22% of Americans own guns, only about 7% of Americans support the NRA. But while most NRA members (54 percent) wanted to make gun laws less strict, only 25 percent of gun owners who were not NRA members felt this way. The plurality of them (45 percent) wanted no change; 25 percent even supported stricter laws.

Most gun owners can be rational, but most are very scared. They are scared of criminals breaking into their houses. They are scared that other gun owners will shoot them, and mostly they are scared that the 79% of the population that does not own a gun will take their guns away from them. Living in fear can make you seem childish.

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

01/09/2013 04:19:02 AM · #361

Tell ya what, come see how scared I am. You'll find that I don't need a gun to make you piss down both legs. Just pm me and I'll send you my address.

For the record, I've had death threats of a serious nature leveled at me in the last year, and my guns are still nowhere near my door. The camping hatchet, kitchen knives and claw hammer make me feel like I'm on level ground with anyone. So your premise seems pretty silly to me, hell pretty much anyone who knows me will tell you that fear isn't really in my nature.

For just another example, a couple of years ago I ran down and tackled a car thief who had just crashed into an old lady's car. I was unarmed. Scared indeed. In fact, even my girlfriend wasn't scared. When another witness asked her why I had taken off running, she asked my girlfriend if she was worried... Kyla's response was pretty witty.. "yeah, I'm worried -- that my boyfriend might really hurt the guy."

Heck, I'll even tell you what scares me: Cancer.

So, go back and see if your reading comprehension is sufficient for you to actually comprehend my reasons for not supporting this.

The idea that you'd like to just boil this down to the premise that gun owners who don't want new laws are scared shows me you've read nothing of my posts. Frankly its about as childish as you can get.

I like you, but I'd like you better if you didn't try to make me feel as though I've written everything I've written so that you could just come to whatever unsupported conclusion you'd like. Basically have enough respect to actually read and understand what I've said. I have been rather clear on my reasons.

Message edited by author 2013-01-09 10:33:37.

cowboy221977

Canon EOS-60D

01/09/2013 04:39:20 AM · #362

The only thing that Im scared about is that my constitutional right would be taken away and it would not fix the problem. Banning guns won't fix the problem...It's just a knife in the back of all LEGAL gun owners in the US

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

01/09/2013 05:50:39 AM · #363

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Cory:
You know, I can agree that guns are dangerous, and have done so, twice in fact, in this very thread.

But to be fair - they are only dangerous when used in a dangerous way - the same can absolutely be said of any object, including a NERF gun.

And that's why you're also in favor of training in the proper use of NERF guns, and knives, and chairs?

Never heard of mass murder being committed with any of those objects.

Heck no.. I do not support those silly measures either! I suppose you might now support them since I've pointed out the reasons to ban basically anything the TSA won't let through in your carry-on. (and even some of those items are pretty dangerous in the right hands..)

There have been plenty of examples of mass stabbings, some of which clearly qualify as mass murder.

Hell, a loose friend and and acquaintance in high school were nearly beheaded with a sword in one of the most unusual crimes Farmington NM has ever seen.. The murderer was known to me as well, and I would have absolutely picked this guy as a "winner" in the psychofuck lottery. So you can see that I'm not full of shit - to the point that I KNEW the victims of one of these crimes. Matthew wasn't a small guy really, but he wasn't a huge guy either, the guy who killed him was a big guy, who was strong and liked to hurt people. I do wonder if things would have been different if they were fighting over a gun instead of a sword. (the sword was an item in the store)... My guess is that I might have gotten to be good friends with Matt. I'd only gotten to know him a few weeks before this happened, and was in the store visiting with him and Joseph his co-worker/buddy... So yeah, I'm pretty sure I'm not just making this crap up, and that knives really do work if used correctly.

And all of these guys really lacked imagination - all the knife incidents have been very simple knife attacks - get someone who really puts a tactical knife plan into action, and you're gonna see some serious carnage. A long blade, especially with a trained, or at least well practiced, person behind it is an extremely scary thought to me. To discount blades as extremely effective killing machines is to discount centuries of human history. The only reason they fell out of favor was the appearance of good guns. There is a reason many military units have a sword as part of their uniform, and it's not just because they're pretty.

All the same, I'd rather take my chances with a maniac wielding a knife than a maniac wielding a semi-automatic weapon. If you happen to be the unfortunate victim in such a knife attack, you'd have a much better chance of surviving and a much better chance of escape. The point is, how easy do we want to make it for the maniac to carry out these kinds of massacres? Let's try at least to cut down on the number and severity, as a starting point. If we do nothing, then no positive change will occur. I still haven't heard anyone suggest that semi-automatic weapons are necessary for any civilian purpose, other than as toys. So because they are the weapon of choice for the maniac intent on committing mass murder, and because the well-intentioned gun lover's desire to play with them can be fairly easily accommodated in a way that keeps them out of the hands of the maniac, I would think that banning the private ownership of these weapons would cut down significantly on these kinds of tragedies and not be overly burdensome on the gun lover. It's worth a try, no?

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/09/2013 05:56:53 AM · #364

Originally posted by Flash:

Bear - The NRA clearly focuses on SAFE gun handling practices and makes it a paramount factor in any firearm training. Thus the NRA understands the inherant "danger" in the potential mis-use of firearms.

Yeah, you're right, sorry. I was trying to think of a relatively acceptable name to attach to people like cowboy/spork who seem to be denying that "guns are dangerous", and my brain went out to lunch.

01/09/2013 06:20:25 AM · #365

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

I agree with your desire to reduce the severity and frequency.

I also happen agree with the desire to own a nice car.

The problem here is the trade-offs.

Just the same as I don't think it's worth it to spend $1500 a month on a car payment, because the value I get out of it isn't worth the cost, I don't think that giving up freedoms to prevent 40 or 50 deaths per year (about the total of all of these mass murder shooting incidents across the US) is worth it either.

I think our real disconnect is just around the issue of cost vs. benefit. You are more of an optimist than I am.

But here's a fact: Any ground lost here will never be regained, no matter what the outcome of the proposed experiment.

I'd just like to remind you that Timothy McVeigh and the 9/11 folks didn't need guns to kill lots of people, and the next SOB who wants to make his impact won't really need guns either. All they really need is a strong desire and a commitment to kill.

Mike

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

01/09/2013 06:43:17 AM · #366

Originally posted by Cory:

I'd just like to remind you that Timothy McVeigh and the 9/11 folks didn't need guns to kill lots of people, and the next SOB who wants to make his impact won't really need guns either. All they really need is a strong desire and a commitment to kill.

and had they had explosives capable enough to do what hey intended been readily avaible they wouldn't have had to go through what they did in order to accomplish their goals, might i remind you they tried to take down a towers with a van packed with explosives that failed. on 9/11 to careful planing and a lot of luck, remember a fourth plane never made it to its target.

you are never going to rid the world of evil but you sure can try to make it difficult for people who want to hurt or kill people to do so.

cowboy221977

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

01/09/2013 06:44:30 AM · #367

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Flash:
Bear - The NRA clearly focuses on SAFE gun handling practices and makes it a paramount factor in any firearm training. Thus the NRA understands the inherant "danger" in the potential mis-use of firearms.

Yeah, you're right, sorry. I was trying to think of a relatively acceptable name to attach to people like cowboy/spork who seem to be denying that "guns are dangerous", and my brain went out to lunch.

Pretty much anything can be labelled as dangerous. Lets start with knives. Knives are dangerous so lets ban them. How about blow darts...(yes I know both are weapons and both are harmless unless there is an individual using them) As Cory said earlier about the hammer. A hammer is dangerous so lets just ban them too. My point is....attack the problem at it's root. 1st of all safety classes offered in school. Teach our young how to use and handle firearms. (this would help minimize accidents) Next enforce the laws already on the books. If you are a felon and posses a firearm, you get another felony with a heafty jail sentence. This would be a good start to making this country safer.

01/09/2013 06:49:53 AM · #368

Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by Cory:

I'd just like to remind you that Timothy McVeigh and the 9/11 folks didn't need guns to kill lots of people, and the next SOB who wants to make his impact won't really need guns either. All they really need is a strong desire and a commitment to kill.

and had they had explosives capable enough to do what hey intended been readily avaible they wouldn't have had to go through what they did in order to accomplish their goals, might i remind you they tried to take down a towers with a van packed with explosives that failed. on 9/11 to careful planing and a lot of luck, remember a fourth plane never made it to its target.

you are never going to rid the world of evil but you sure can try to make it difficult for people who want to hurt or kill people to do so.

Umm. Really? Do you even KNOW who Timothy McVeigh was? I assure you, his plot didn't fail, nor was he trying to take down the towers of the World Trade Center.

My point has been made - guns don't have exclusive rights to killing people. In fact, the most successful attacks in terms of casualties didn't even use guns. (bath school, WTC, OKC)

Now, tell me again why you think guns are the best tool for this job? Is it because they're used more often? Frankly, people drink at Starbucks often, but that doesn't mean it's good coffee.

..

ETA: Might I point out that explosives are actually easily available?

Message edited by author 2013-01-09 11:52:13.

Mike

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

01/09/2013 07:15:38 AM · #369

Originally posted by Cory:

ETA: Might I point out that explosives are actually easily available?

try and buy a large amount or any chemicals to make them.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/09/2013 07:44:14 AM · #370

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Flash:
Bear - The NRA clearly focuses on SAFE gun handling practices and makes it a paramount factor in any firearm training. Thus the NRA understands the inherant "danger" in the potential mis-use of firearms.

Yeah, you're right, sorry. I was trying to think of a relatively acceptable name to attach to people like cowboy/spork who seem to be denying that "guns are dangerous", and my brain went out to lunch.

Pretty much anything can be labelled as dangerous. Lets start with knives. Knives are dangerous so lets ban them. How about blow darts...(yes I know both are weapons and both are harmless unless there is an individual using them) As Cory said earlier about the hammer. A hammer is dangerous so lets just ban them too. My point is....attack the problem at it's root. 1st of all safety classes offered in school. Teach our young how to use and handle firearms. (this would help minimize accidents) Next enforce the laws already on the books. If you are a felon and posses a firearm, you get another felony with a hefty jail sentence. This would be a good start to making this country safer.

Yes, correct, anything can BE dangerous, to one degree or another. There's like a continuum of danger involved. On the one end, things that are really, really innocuous, like, say, kleenex? On the other end, things that are ferociously dangerous, like, say, nuclear waste products. Where do GUNS fall on the continuum? Way up at the high end. So do cars. Cars are VERY dangerous.

Adam, I don't see ANYBODY in this thread advocating a complete ban on private weapons. I'M certainly not advocating this. But what's wrong with better regulation, both of the product (guns) and the users (shooters), just like we have on cars and drivers?

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

01/09/2013 07:46:22 AM · #371

Originally posted by Cory:

Umm. Really? Do you even KNOW who Timothy McVeigh was? I assure you, his plot didn't fail, nor was he trying to take down the towers of the World Trade Center.

Mike wasn't referring to McVeigh. There was a previous attempt on the WTC with explosives in a vehicle in the underground garage. It failed.

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

01/09/2013 07:48:46 AM · #372

Hi all! It has been a long time since I posted.

First let me say that my heart still goes out to the families and friends of those who were killed or wounded in the Newtown shootings. My wife grew up in Ridgefield CT. which is minutes from Newtown. She knows people involved in and with the tragedy.

I am a NRA member, a VERY responsible gun owner and a competitive shooter. I shot my first gun when I was 10. I also apprenticed as a gunsmith from 16-21. I have been a certified NRA firearms instructor (no longer) and have a great deal of training. I also have a concealed carry permit. To top it all off I live in AZ and was born in Tucson where we had that tragic shooting 2 years ago. With this said I have NEVER used my gun for self defense (Thank God) and I do not hunt and have never killed any living thing with a firearm.

I keep my guns locked in a 950LB safe that is bolted to the floor. Most of the guns I own are one of a kind custom competition firearms. However I also own several Modern Sporting Firearms (read AR-15).

I would like to answer a few of the repeating questions in this thread:

Guns were designed to kill or wound.

Guns are inherently dangerous/deadly if used incorrectly (or correctly in some situations).

Guns are NOT TOYS and they are not to be "played" with.

Driving a car is a privilege (license required)

Owning a firearm is a Guaranteed inalienable right (license not required)

Now the AR-15 Semi-Auto functions the same way all Semi-Autos (Pistols, Rifles & Shotguns) work - One round fired with each single pull of the trigger. It is just the that the (Black) guns are vilified and when the perpetrators of these mass shootings kill themselves or are killed there is no place to direct the anger and hate but to the inanimate object.

Who needs an AR-15? I do and most of the varmint hunters I know do, 3 gun competition shooters do (if they want to be competitive). Again they function the same as any other semi-auto. I also have friends that hunt medium and small game with the AR-15 platform because you can build a highly accurate, reliable,safe and capable hunting rifle using this system.

Hi cap magazines: A gun is capable of killing with one shot if that is the INTENTION of the shooter. Restricting the number of rounds in a magazine will not prevent tragedy. This is especially true if the Criminal is highly skilled. Some will counter that in Tucson it was the fact that the shooter needed to reload, even though he started with a 30 round magazine and that is when he was taken to the ground (Thank god) but if he had 2 guns then the magazine becomes moot. There was someone at the scene that had a concealed firearm but did not use it as he felt unsure (if that was the case I am glad he did not use it) however I believe that if you chose to carry concealed and are confronted with a situation where you can stop a deadly violent act it is your civic duty to do so. If you are incapable of meeting this responsibility then you should not carry.

As far as skill is concerned I would like to demonstrate what I mean. This video is of a Professional Revolver Shooter. Mind you not a Semi-Auto: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw

I agree with Cory in that this is a freedom (Right) argument to own a firearm and I believe that it is the Federal Governments responsibility to protect that right. There are over *300 Major federal and State laws with 1000â��s of related laws regarding gun control and gun violence and to this date the â��bad guysâ�� continue to ignore said laws and my guess is that even with more regulation this will not change.

On regulation, I believe that should be left up to the State (this is where I start to differ with the NRA). I will agree that there are many less than responsible/untrained/ignorant gun owners out there, that is why I evangelize safety and responsibility to the point where I have a standing offer to take out to the range and educate any and all who wish to learn. Safe Gun handling and responsible ownership is paramount. I do and will continue to abide by the Federal/State laws pertaining to Gun Ownership. But laws are only followed by the law abiding so in that more legislation will only make it more likely that a law abiding citizen becomes a law breaker. And this is my fear, that I will be forced to make a decision that the fore fathers guaranteed me I would not have to make.

On the AW Ban that they wish to re-institute, all it has done and will do in the short term is to sell more guns. And with an estimated 270 million guns in the US I canâ��t, as a logical being, believe that this legislation will have any effect on gun violence. Pandora's box has been opened.

The only difference between a Knife and a Gun is the distance required to use the tool. With that said the * FBI statistics shows most gunfights happen within 10-15 feet and a motivated knife wielding assailant is a very scary thought. 10 feet can be covered in 2 seconds and you would be just as dead if mortally shot. I would want a firearm in either situation to defend myself.

I also would like to ask that anyone participating in this thread who states any statistic to please back it up with a reference to the info quoted otherwise it holds no weight in the discussion.

OK I said my peace, I know it will not make a big difference because this is an emotional issue and as such minds will not be changed easily but I believe that the focus should be on mental health, education and training not creating a slippery slope for those who wish to take away my individual freedoms.

*Gun Laws (Very liberal reference) //www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/gunbook4.pdf
* Officer involved gunfights //www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/2002 (I can dig up more stats if needed.) //www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2011-crime-statistics

Message edited by author 2013-01-09 13:01:19.

Mike

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

01/09/2013 08:03:39 AM · #373

Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Owning a firearm is a Guaranteed inalienable right (license not required)

wrong, the right to bear arms was given to the people of the US per the 2nd amendment, it however says nothing about what constitutes a "firearm" and second the inalienable rights are given in the Constitution itself, a second amendment wasn't needed to cover those.

one can and has argued that the rights (or interpretation of them) given in the second amendment infringe on the two of the three inalienable rights given by the original constitution.

Message edited by author 2013-01-09 13:04:02.