Honest question, why do you support gun control? [W:244]

[AmericanSpartan]

Not more deadly. More prone to collateral damage, unintended casualties.

So if that is the case, why was their a lack of collateral damage, unintended casualties before the ban?

Why was is the a lack of collateral damage, unintended casualties with machine guns right now given that their are over 500,000 of them owned by police agencies nation wide?

Is it your opinion that just about any regular guy...like myself, even....can fairly safely pick up a hunting rifle, or hell, how about the much maligned AR, 5.56/.223, and either unt with it, or to the more extreme scenario, defend myself from home invaders or whatever, in an urban setting, without causing an excess of collateral damage...that is, can a regular joe with little to no training, use the weapon for it's intended purpose, without ruining the day/lives of others around me?

And what gives you that opinion that he can not defend himself without collateral damage?

Why do you just assume it will end that why?

More over how can you punish others for what might happen?

My answer, my OPINION, is, yes. Yes, I think I can safely use those weapons with minimal instruction or training, and not get someone else killed in the process.

So if you can, no other mere mortals of Earth can, right?

Now, can I do the same with an M16, or an M60? Can I pick one of those up, and with no training or instruction, go hunting, or fire off some rounds, or defend myself in an urban setting, without causing havoc on that setting?

And my answer, my OPINION, is no, I can't.

Hey, how would you know? Do not sell your self short.

Why? Because that's not what THOSE weapons were designed for. Doing such is like trying to use a screw driver to remove a screw that needs an allen wrench. It's like using a carving knife to perform surgery. It might work...but there's gonna be a lot of extra damage, it's NOT going to be easy, etc.

Once again you assume to know the outcome, you can not know for sure..

Case in point full autos have been used for self defense and their was not a a single innocent harmed.

High Volume Shootout: The Harry Beckwith Incident


Situation: A gun dealer faces robbers, again. Tonight the odds are seven to one against him.

Lesson: When the wolf pack has you, an armed citizen needs high capacity defensive weapons.

Self Defense with NFA items?

Gary Fadden Incident

The Beckwith Incident

Again if your logic tells you to remain to the absolute on this argument, then you must, by definition, also support private ownership of bombs, landmines, and other infernal devices of war designed to inflict collateral damage.

You do know those are legal, right?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You know how I can tell when someone is dishonest in this area?

When they react to legitimate complaints about gun policy by pretending that knowing details between different types of weapons is the primary knowledge you need to dictate how weapons should be regulated.

And it happens daily in this sub forum.

Wow that sounds just like gun grabbers..

Indeed. Very specifically, it sounds like an apologism for support of “assault weapon” bans; such bans being very solidly born of willful ignorance about any meaningful details and distinctions between different types of firearms and for what purposes they may or may not be suitable; relying instead on relatively meaningless cosmetic details to distinguish between which weapons are to be covered by such bans and which are not.

It is rather rare to see a wrong-winger come this close to openly admitting such a thing—to admitting that they think it is reasonable to impose legislation that is not written on the basis of actual knowledge about the important details of that which is to be affected by that legislation.

 

[TurtleDude]

Indeed. Very specifically, it sounds like an apologism for support of “assault weapon” bans; such bans being very solidly born of willful ignorance about any meaningful details and distinctions between different types of firearms and for what purposes they may or may not be suitable; relying instead on relatively meaningless cosmetic details to distinguish between which weapons are to be covered by such bans and which are not.

It is rather rare to see a wrong-winger come this close to openly admitting such a thing—to admitting that they think it is reasonable to impose legislation that is not written on the basis of actual knowledge about the important details of that which is to be affected by that legislation.

the purpose of the AWB was to desensitize Americans to gun bans. If guns rarely used in crime but with clear "Miller" militia use could be banned, the scumbags could ban almost anything else

Josh Sugarturds of the VPC said the sheeple could be easily confused and see AW as machine guns and then the war movies could be used to motivate a ban

 

[AmericanSpartan]

Hey, I edited my post...I put the M40 in with the M60, brain fart on my part.

It happens..

The last is not idiotic imo. If you are looking for honest debate with me, you might want to try elaborating. Educate me. Explain why it's idiotic to think that some weapons are designed for different things.

All firearms are tools, designed to one thing, function, how, when, why, what matter manner and to what end is solely up to the operator.

Obviously the only reason to own these things isn't for self defense, it's presumably so you can storm the castle walls when you ELECTED OFFICIALS do something you don't like, lol.

Well if keeps the elected thieves and whores in fear that is a added bonus.

The problem there is, your desire to own that weapon, and to make it readily available for ANYONE ELSE TO OWN, for that purpose, is ludicrous. Because a scenario such as that is about as far fetched as owning a talking horse. And since the potential for higher levels of catastrophy exist with weapons like the M60, or landmines, grenades, etc, I opt to KEEP those sorts of things under TIGHT wraps.

Is preventing a flat out ban making something "readily available"?

They are all legal, yet show me once when they have been used to harm innocent people?

Yeah, sure, with some planning and training, anyone can be deadly with any firearm. Look at the DC sniper.

So why do you label some firearms as "more dangerous" then others then if its the person using them that is weapon?

But that took forethought, training, dedication, etc. Some gang banger picking up an M60 with 1,000 rounds doing a driveby takes only what it would cost to pick up such a thing, in the event they were readily available, and therefor, far far more common. And since the primary reasons for gun ownership don't really apply to those weapons....why then would we increase the risk? Whats the gain?

What gang bang would spend 2 mins [depending on model, ammo brand, ect] with of time housing down a house? Know full well every LEO in the state will be looking for him when a simply pistol will do?

They already are, on the black market, so why has this not happened yet? Maybe because life is not Grand Theft Auto and their is not a paint n spray every 3 miles.

The risk will always be there, it will never be taken away...Maybe end the moronic "war on drugs" and you kill gang and their profits motives..?

What do we gain? we regain our right to keep and bear arms and not be limited to a arbitrary number of arms, limited by a arbitrary date, due to a arbitrary, unjust, moronic law that has done nothing to prevent crime by has ruined the lives of 18,000 plus people since 1986 for only having a device that before this abomination of of a law created via a amendment that was illegally added after failing two votes, were legal and no harming anyone..

You are a created a law that does nothing but turning law abiding persons into criminals not because they are harming anyone but because they own a firearm others people do not like.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

we are talking stuff like An UZI, a Tommy Gun, an M4 or a MP5

how many M60 Machine guns were actually available for private ownership before the ban? and the cost?

A few people where selling them, but when word of the ban was going to end the buying of them, they produced about 500 of then in under a month.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

I have no idea how many, and I don't care. Bottom line is, not restricting the ownership of that weapon would FORCE suppliers to produce more, because people WILL want to buy them, thus making them more common, and ultimately, less expensive.

And why is that bad?

You do know you can buy one on the Black Market for like 8,000$ compared to a legal transferable with at a min are 50,000$.

So you do not want working and middle class people to own certain arms because...Why?

As for the Uzi, M4, MP5, and tommy gun....Honestly, I think there is a fine line on these. With the exception of the Uzi and tommy, these have semi auto civilian versions that are identical, except they have no full auto option. So the question really is, is full auto, that constant spray of bullets, more, less, or equally dangerous, to single shot firing? To be frank, I am more afraid of the guy single shot firing, than the idiot spraying bullets.

So why do you want to ban full auto?

More over why to want to ban something you are afraid of?

I think the MP5 has burst fire, right? Like, 3 round bursts. Can't remember....I'm not a gun nut, I'm a car nut.

Yes it does, and would call a black guy a n-word? No, do not call us "gun nuts".

But I tend to focus less on the gun, and more on what it fires, and what it can do. The

.223/5.56 round is not, by it's nature, armor piercing...it's not a round that's going to go through walls with relative ease. I can't stand in my living room, fire one of those in the general direction of my neighbor's house, and expect lead to be embedded somewhere half a block down. I don't see it as being worse or better, than, say, a .45 semi auto six shooter. More accurate at range, maybe.

Really?

My primary stance on guns is the propensity for collateral damage should they be available for ownership with little to no regulation, required training or education, etc. In other words, would you be comfortable with an 18 year old, ANY 18 year old, ANYWHERE, owning and using one? Rural =/= urban.

Collateral damage will happen, and will be just used as subterfuge to limit our rights.

Yes I would, and if I was not, that does not give me, you, or anyone any right to limit his rights..

 

[AmericanSpartan]

I'm going to express an opinion based on nothing more than anecdotal evidence. Just calling it for what it is, up front.

Hey you are honest, which is a great thing...

I find that people who tend to support NO restrictions what so ever on gun ownership....that is, people who think full auto are fine, and are no more dangerous than semi auto, live in rural areas, places with space.

I live in Vegas, but to be honest you drive 10 mins outside of town and you are totally alone..

I tend to think of southerners here, because having moved to the north, I can tell you, space is very limited up here, compared to what I'm used to.

And cost of living is sky high, taxes and regulations are never ending, and personal freedom, the reason for the founding of the Nation, is being stolen out right.

It's funny. During this debated, I have been of two completely different minds on it. I think of my home in SC, and I think that someone owning an M16 down there would be no real issue at all.

The idea that where you live should determine your rights and freedoms, base on population density, and what "might happen" is a fallacy argument.

Then I think of where I currently live, and I can't think of ANYWHERE one could safely use such a weapon as designed (full auto), EXCEPT at a firing range. In other words, for me to think that owning full auto weapons in CT, I would have to apply some draconian **** to it to prevent idiots from being idiots...stuff like, yeah, buy your AK47, but the ONLY place you are legally allowed to use it is at a gun range, and the rest of them time, it has to be secured. Which....defeats the purpose of owning the thing in the first place, unless all you want one for is to waste amo.

[/QUOTE]

Ever stop to think that is what they IE the gun grabbers want?

 

[AmericanSpartan]

Hypothetically, what would it be like with absolutely no guns?

Where the weak and the few are unable to fight again the strong and the many..

You could learn self-defense in a multitude of ways. The best way to kill someone is with a knife, and that is way more personal.

Tell that to the weak, young, ill, and old..No.

No having something that delivers the same amount over time, regardless of the own`s size, age, or experience is far, far, far better.

Again, that is if there are NO GUNS. None. Zilch. The point of the second amendment was for revolution, not individual protection.

Wrong, it was about wanting to be governed, not rule, to be free, not subjects, and it was sparked over being disarmed..

 

[AmericanSpartan]

the purpose of the AWB was to desensitize Americans to gun bans. If guns rarely used in crime but with clear "Miller" militia use could be banned, the scumbags could ban almost anything else

Josh Sugarturds of the VPC said the sheeple could be easily confused and see AW as machine guns and then the war movies could be used to motivate a ban

They tend to think such things because they and their sheeple followers thing the average man is so dumb and their are "enlighten"..

 

[TurtleDude]

They tend to think such things because they and their sheeple followers thing the average man is so dumb and their are "enlighten"..

sadly, many voters are slow witted dim bats

 

[AmericanSpartan]

sadly, many voters are slow witted dim bats

One can only hope they do not vote often.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

sadly, many voters are slow witted dim bats

I think we should pay them not to vote, it would be cheaper...

 

[Glowpun]

Do you have a source to support that?

All you need to do is read the public announcements set forth by these entities.

 

[TurtleDude]

All you need to do is read the public announcements set forth by these entities.

your claim is inaccurate. what the NRA has said is that peoples' constitutional rights cannot be obliterated by mere suspicion without due process. Gun banners whine that people who are "suspected"of being terrorists should be denied legal firearm ownership merely because someone put the person on a "list" without any due process

its like saying someone who has never been arrested, indicted or convicted should be denied firearms because he is "suspected" of being a "criminal"

 

[AmericanSpartan]

your claim is inaccurate. what the NRA has said is that peoples' constitutional rights cannot be obliterated by mere suspicion without due process. Gun banners whine that people who are "suspected"of being terrorists should be denied legal firearm ownership merely because someone put the person on a "list" without any due process

its like saying someone who has never been arrested, indicted or convicted should be denied firearms because he is "suspected" of being a "criminal"

Thank you..

 

[Crimefree]

All you need to do is read the public announcements set forth by these entities.

Specifically?