Off-topic - Guns: the debate

I would disqualify fully automatic weapons for civilian purposes.



re: handguns

DEFINITIONS: (per me)

Fully automatic weapons will fire repeated rounds with a single pull of the trigger until the ammo supply is exhausted.

Semi-automatics will fire repeated rounds each with a separate pull of the trigger until the ammo supply is exhausted.

A revolver fires from separate firing chambers located in a cylinder each requiring a pull of the trigger.

A semi-automatic pistol fires from a chamber located in the weapon's frame, ammo is fled from a magazine.
_________________________________________________
Where this gets "dicey" is the capacity of magazines (or clips). Extended magazine may have the capacity of 30 rounds. Given a "semi-auto" that can lay down an impressive field of fire.

The discussion of guns often don't make these distictions but they are important to rationality. Opponents want to ban ALL guns period. If I thought that would end society's "gun problem" I'd agree but it won't for a variety of reasons.

The way I see it your definitions are spot on but in the early 20th century guns where done differently the colt .45 was referee to as an automatic weapon and lever action guns where know as repeaters. John M. Browning made some amazing guns as did Samuel Colt and bit Smiss and Wesson nut imagine what they could have accomplished if they designed aircraft or cars or engines.

So because some few believe fully automatic (FA) weapons have no place then they should have the power to prevent me or others from owing a fully automatic weapon.

Sorry but I strongly disagree.

Your concern is based on fear and that fear is warranted but not relevent. Your fear is warranted becaus with in all humans are criminals who do not care about rule of law.

Your fear is not relevent to prohibiting my ownership because your desire to restrict my possession can never remove your fear because no criminal cares to follow your law. Rendering your law not worth the paper it was written on

Your law can only infringe on my and other citizens personal freedom of choice

The number of times a fully automatic weapon (FAW) was used to kill people out side of war is A, very rare and B, not ever done by any law abiding citizen (exceptng the even rarer accident)

So lets explore legitimat uses of a FAW by discussing on where a FAW is not a good choice

FAW is a exceptionally poor personal defense weapon rarely required to save lives outside of a infantry squad type environment

FAW is and expensive device requiring more than normal care and feeding

FAW that are ONLY capable of FA firing are not reliable nor accurate

Other than criminals and some few collectors, a garbage FA only weapon can not survive normal market forces

Translation.... FA only are not produced in any quatity suitable for concern because there is no legitimate market for such a device

Carreer organized criminals do not like nor waste money on crap basment built FA only, spray and pray weapons. Gangs and drug cartell folks are much more sophisiticated these days and they buy/ steal very good weapons

All legitimate and usefull weapons that have FA capability are usually well desinged and rate fo fire can be selectable from semi auto (one shot per trigger pull) burst (3 to 5 shots per trigger pull), and Full auto (will fire until trigger is release or ammunition is all expended

Thousands of law abiding citizens gather every week and shoot competition or sport at ranges or back country property

This recreation is conducted in dozens of countries around the world.

This recreation is supported by the fact that all humans should be free to persue happiness and God Granted Right codified in more constitutions that just the American constitution

There is a legal means for me and all US citizens (class III Transfer) to own and shoot a FAW

American citizens shoot FAW every weekend in this country

There is also the legitimat business of selling ammunition and renting a M2HB machine gun and range time. We citizens are free to engage in commerce and there currently is no law prohibiting that enterprise

To recap

Where enacted the law does not work for a obvious reason

There are legitimate uses of full automatic weapons

So I do not understand your notion that you should have power to infringe you misguided fears on law abiding citizens

Yes but you must agree that when guns are as "mainstream" as they are in the US it is a lot easier for criminals to get them, it is easy for certain criminals to get guns in the UK but that is only possible when the criminal is par of a larger organisation whereas in the US any person can get hold of a gun and ammunition very easily.
And one thing that I believe that you probably don't is that
If someone believes they need to carry a gun to protect themselves they should not have a gun!
If a person carries a gun to protect themselves then they are more liable to shoot that weapon when they are confronted with the smallest fear.
And after all people only ever kill for fear!

nitroplane You wrote "If a person carries a gun to protect themselves then they are more liable to shoot that weapon when they are confronted with the smallest fear."

Sorry sir but your assertion is not born out by the facts. Yes sometimes facts can be real pesky and get in the way of ones irrational beliefs

Rather than me regurgitating the facts; Please take the time to research Concealed Hand Gun License statistics for any number of the US states.



Start with Texas and understand this; The State Attorney General does not like posting the data because he fought hard against our Law. The state legislature wrote into the law that the statistics must be kept and publicly accessible. I am glad they are open for all to see because they paint a very stark reality.



As we dabated the issued and sought to gain a freedom/right we believe our constitution grants all citizens, the opponents claimed loud and long that blood would run in the streets and Texas would be the wild wild west with shoot outs in the streets, women and children in more danger, and police shooting the wrong person because they had a gun drawn...Years later those opponets are stone silent because of the facts I hope you take the time to read and understand




I challenge you to also take the time to research the statistics of violent crime in Great Briton and Australia as relates to pre and post citizen gun ownership.... the conclusions are too stark to come to any other conclusion that the societys where guns are prohibited are more dangerous now, that most citizens are disarmed and not afforded the right to self defense in a manner of their choosing, then before the bans


You also said "And after all people only ever kill for fear"

I do not think you thought that statement out too well.

The drug dealer who shots a boarder patrol agent does not kill him out of fear. HE committes a conscious act to murder the agent for the bragging rights, or to clear a path for his buddies to smuggle

The rapist who slits the throat of his victim may indeed be fearful but not the way you mean... he is afraid the victim can identify him

But in one regard you are 100% correct if I ever have to use my concealed pistol to shoot somebody it will be because my training teaches me to only ever draw and fire if my life or the life of somebody else is in danger. An element of affirmative defense for fatally shooting another person is I must have been in fear fro my life.

You should ponder that a few seconds before your Ah Ha knee jerk "told you so" reaction....

If you are in fear for your life, you have a responsibility to save your life. Running away is not always an option.

I shal research those topics.
You said the thing about the rapist and drug dealer but I meant scared in every way:
Fearful for being caught,fearful for not making money,fearful for being killed they are all still fears.
But what you said about Great Britain,
We don't have guns to protect ourselves.
Maybe not and maybe it works in the US but trust me in the rougher parts where people will pull a gun on you for somereason, it is best to give them what they want because it not they WILL shoot you wihout hesitating.
If a law abiding citizen pulls a gun on some one with an illegal gun at least one of those people will die.
This is because criminals are too bold here and think that because thy are part of a gang they think they are safe.
Even I the law abiding citizen shoots the person with the illegal gun, that person will die because the gang will come for revenge.
That is the way it is here.
The reason gun laws work so well for you guys is because the USA has always had guns
To protect yourselves and are all used to it.
If guns were introduced here we would not be used to them and it would not work well with our society.

Ok in the USA if a gun owner went insane or got extremely drunk they could kill a lot of people.
But here if that happened the person in question most like would not have a gun and would probably not be able to harm more than one person.
I will post more later but I find it hard to write a lot on my phone so if you see any
Mistakes please tell me and I will try and correct them.

For the record my real frustration or anger is focused at the people who are so fearful of guns that they desire to impose their belief on all people by use of force. ( threat of punishment, fine or imprisonment by authorities is force)



I think this highly hipocritical and ironic.



You make some points that sound rational but again you back up your argument with extreem example that are not supported by facts. Also you open the door to obvious counter arguments from me using your logic.



example: you wrote "if a gun owner went insane or got extremely drunk they could kill a lot of people"



Well admittedly too frequently this scenario happens with excessive rage or excessive intoxication by licensed automobile drivers.



In this case we citizens seek to focus on the actor (enraged or drunkend DRIVER) we never thought we would ban all automobiles by properly acknowledging this would adversly impact all sane and lawabiding citizens. ( on the other hand I am getting very [bleep] at local and state traffic check points to impeed ALL drivers so the police can try to catch a few drunks) (( this doen negativly impact me and my free travel constitutional right)



Why the incongruity? Certainly the colorary is the same...all automobiles have the potential to kill more people than guns do ( simple math; more cars than guns and the ratio of enraged or drunks with a car is higher that the ratio of enraged or drunks with a loaded gun)



My opinion: Using force/power to limit any select group of people based on flawed logic is imoral and wrong



Example Helmut laws for motorcycle riders. Facts is very few people die from head injuries in a motorcycle accident. NOT wearing a helmut does not put the public at any risk. BUT we have laws in most countries and many states requiring the wear of a helmut to operate a motor cycle.



I can prove that hundres more people die every year from head injuries from slipping in the bathroom. Yet no one would ever think to demand a law mandating a helmut in the shower



No I am not equating helmut laws to gun bans .... I am arguing that imposing laws using flawed logic is irrational and imoral

fredvon4 wrote:For the record my real frustration or anger is focused at the people who are so fearful of guns that they desire to impose their belief on all people by use of force. ( threat of punishment, fine or imprisonment by authorities is force)



I think this highly hipocritical and ironic.



You make some points that sound rational but again you back up your argument with extreem example that are not supported by facts. Also you open the door to obvious counter arguments from me using your logic.



example: you wrote "if a gun owner went insane or got extremely drunk they could kill a lot of people"



Well admittedly too frequently this scenario happens with excessive rage or excessive intoxication by licensed automobile drivers.



In this case we citizens seek to focus on the actor (enraged or drunkend DRIVER) we never thought we would ban all automobiles by properly acknowledging this would adversly impact all sane and lawabiding citizens. ( on the other hand I am getting very [bleep] at local and state traffic check points to impeed ALL drivers so the police can try to catch a few drunks) (( this doen negativly impact me and my free travel constitutional right)



Why the incongruity? Certainly the colorary is the same...all automobiles have the potential to kill more people than guns do ( simple math; more cars than guns and the ratio of enraged or drunks with a car is higher that the ratio of enraged or drunks with a loaded gun)



My opinion: Using force/power to limit any select group of people based on flawed logic is imoral and wrong



Example Helmut laws for motorcycle riders. Facts is very few people die from head injuries in a motorcycle accident. NOT wearing a helmut does not put the public at any risk. BUT we have laws in most countries and many states requiring the wear of a helmut to operate a motor cycle.



I can prove that hundres more people die every year from head injuries from slipping in the bathroom. Yet no one would ever think to demand a law mandating a helmut in the shower



No I am not equating helmut laws to gun bans .... I am arguing that imposing laws using flawed logic is irrational and imoral

I understand all that you have said.
Yes i do open up the argument to you with some of my opinions and facts because i believe in both sides of the argument just i did not see anyone else going to argue the other side.
in fact if i lived in the USA i would probably own a couple of rifles myself.

Yes people have to wear motorcycle helmets even though very few die from head injuries and they dont harm the rest of the comunity.
But suicide is still illegal mainly because of the trauma caused to the families and the rest of the comunity just like seatbelt laws.
But to argue against guns.
Yes drunk drivers do kill a lot of people and cars will not be outlawed for that reason but a car is designed to transport people from A to B a gun is designed to transport people from here to heaven.

One could argue that if your life is in impending doom and death is an imminently clearly forseeable result, clear as a blue sky, would refusing to defend yourself not be considered passive suicide?

If a gang member/criminal engages in a criminal act upon your person and clearly expresses harm upon your person if you do not follow along with demands, why would a person on the recieving end expect a person of such "low" quality to allow survival of the "victim" whom could readily identify the criminal to the authorities?
my first anticipation would be to expect to survive the encounter by luck and or medical intervention only.

If a criminal act is engaged upon my person, that is a definite violation of my freedom regardless of any governments laws.
True criminals will always engage in criminal acts, regardless of firearms laws.

I disagree strongly with the passing of ANY law etc. that limits my freedoms in any way, even if it is a freedom I have and will never indulge in. As long as I do not inmpose on the freedoms etc. of others and am not causing harm or distress to others or infringing on their freedoms, I should not be limited in my personal choice of pursuits of happiness. Or to say that as long as I am in a "no harm no foul" to others or their property, why should my freedoms be limited?


There are many many sports that can incurr danger to others; but for instance auto racing is not regulated as much as firearms are.
Where are the laws that regulate who is allowed to do maintenance on that automobile that travels at high velocity with spectators flocking to watch from as closely as possible?

Why no laws on and who can change the tires etc. for instance?

A number of years ago there was a huge lawsuit against a tire manufacturer who made defective tires, causing accidents.

Are there more humans killed worldwide each decade by natural disasters or firearms ( warfare excluded)

Speaking of warfare, why is it that unsanctioned ( by the u.n. ) wars are waged constantly across the globe, "civil "wars, warlords, etc and are not as large a consideration to the masses as personal gun ownership? Merely because it in not on our doorsteps, so it is not a concern?

Once upon a time, nearly all Americans owned guns, and these guns were carried along through the course of the day for the most part as an everyday commonplace normality, fear of guns or violence was not a factor and neither was terrorism.
If over 90% of people in america carried guns as an everyday common practice as it was years ago, how often would terrorists attack for instance?

A criminal is less likely to endeavor upon your person if you are believed or known to carry firearms. Criminals rarely endeavor boldly with the knowledge that harm to their person is a likely result.
How often have/had Bruce Lee, Chuck Norris,Brandon Lee, Jackie Chan, etc. been mugged, etc. even though they are/were recognizable persons whom would most likely be carrying cash,etc.

How many soldiers in uniforn on leave etc. have ever been mugged?

If you are assumed to be able to defend yourself etc. you are less likely to be endeavored upon by a criminal.


Misguided fears should not be a factor that limits my freedoms

nitroairplane, I am no expert on Great Britain history. Could you tell me, how long ago was it that private citizens in your country were allowed/permitted to own firearms/guns as we currently are here in the USA?

I do know that it was once legal for private citizens to own firearms/guns in Australia, so I would assume it was once so in Great Britain as well.

This topic is obviously going to alienate fellow Cox engine enthusiasts and I am not going to participate any further with point counter point with nitroplane



nitroplane I appologise... I have spent too much time focusing on arguing with your assertions and opinions.



I respect your right to hold any opinon based on your own life experiances



I should be discussing this topic generally, and not zeroing in on you as a person. This can only place a wedge between us and others lurking



Nothing good can come of these exchanges that way I have been "calling you out"



My opinion based on the general utopian view that "If there were no guns we would all be better off and safer"



Background: My use and enjoyment of fire arms goes back to the first BB gun. Another father son bonding event



He taught safety and proper use. Later markmanship, and then the skill, art, craft of hunting. Many good ethical and moral life lessons along the way



If we banned all guns who would do the hunting?

Who would teach children those valuable life lessons?



Yes begrudginly, I agree we would all be safer from firearm violence



however I pragmaticaly know that assault and murder by baseball bat or knife or rock would still be a fact of life

i too owned a bb gun a long time ago.
now in own several airsoft pistols and an airsoft sniper rifle.
i believe too a world with no guns is an ideal situation but that is not going to happen but we will all be safe if we use and sell them in moderation and use them for sport and protection and not acts of crime. And do our best to make sue they only go to responsible people.

Agreed !

Good it appears that we have a rather similar view on this topic.

I apologize for butting into this discussion and stirring the pudding but I have a couple of comments/Questions to consider.

If during one of our country's tragic events such as the shootings at the University of Virginia, one of the victims had been carrying a concealed weapon, would it have been as bad? If the shooter knew there was a good chance he would probably run up against an armed student would he have even committed the act in the first place? Finally, I have never met anybody that has expressed any anger or discontentment over the fact that I carried a weapon on behalf of my country; yet, I constantly hear how it is not "right" or "appropriate" for me to personally own weapons as a civilian. I am a veteran, college grad, small business owner, parent, tax payer (local, state, federal, personal and corporate) who has never done anything worse than get a traffic ticket. Catch and punish the bad guys instead of leaving me defenseless against them.

I think that it is completely inappropriate and irresponsible of our elected officials to "combat crime" by punishing the innocent. It is time that our elected officials fought against the actual problem. I know that as a lower middle class tax payer just trying to get by I am not part of a special interest group and have no lobbyist representing me in Washington but I am still part of a majority of law abiding citizens, citizens losing their right to special intereast groups with lobbyists.

As far as automatic weapons: remember, there is no need for radio control planes and Cox engines in our society either. The need is not the point.

I do not mean to be confrontational or disrespectful. I obviously just wanted to ramble a bit.

Bob

I also was not trying to be argumentative with or toward anyone.

A utopian world without guns might be a bit more boring than the world as it currently is.

Although there is the legitimate arguement that a world without guns would still have warfare,crime and violent deaths. There are still places in the world where firearms are not the primary weapon in warfare.

Proof can be obtained readily. Countries whom have ilegalized firearms still have crime. History from the beginning and prior to the invention of firearms is full of crime and violence.

I think a utopian world would have to have its beginnings in respect. Respect for life and the wishes of others would be paramount building stones for such a world.

Guys it's all fine but let's keep it To the off topic section.

Since I initiated this thread I think it appropriate that I conclude it with some final remarks:

Uptopian societies have been attempt but they never lasted for long. (See Robert Owen's "New Harmony" experiement in Connecticut)

Man, by his very nature, lives by the desire for self-preservation and, idealism aside, that means aggression. Review the opening scences of Stanley Kubrick's 1965 film "2001: A SSpace Odessey" as an example. Ape-like creature soon discover the usefulness of aggression.

The scene then shift to the future were a computer, "HAL" demonstrates the same behaviors. So what's new?

Banning guns absolutely will not eliminate their use by the criminal element who can always find a source legal or illegal. Banning guns will only further complicate the lives of the law-abiding as evidenced by examples world-wide. So, if there IS an answer it lies in the option of firearms training for those that choose to partake. An armed citizenry was the intent of the 2nd Amendment, right? Antiquated you say? I believe not in a much compressed world where hostilities are very abundant.

former S/Sgt. SuperDave
USAR weapons instructor