Today the US Supreme Court decided to decide if it will strike down Washington DC’s ban on owning a gun. Not much to do with Separation of church and state — but I own a gun, in fact I once was a damn good shot. It’s a .22 — I think it’s as small as they come; a far cry from the assault weapons you can get at a gun show.Should ALL guns be outlawed? To do so would literally repeal the 2nd Amendment. If we do that, should we worry about those who wish to repeal the 1st Amendment?
anadrol;
I’ve got to go with mxracer on this one.
You may have indeed seen a shotgun or two in your life, but you don’t really know enough about “guns” to be blabbing the bullshit you are.
You don’t seem to understand the difference between the terms “auto”(machine gun) and “semi-auto”(reloads each time you release the trigger). Don’t worry, you’re not the only one that makes that mistake. The MSM loves to use the terms interchangeably (and incorrectly) which only serves to keep the uneducated in fear.
You also make the assumption that only single barrel/single shot (or double barrel/single shot per barrel) are legal as opposed to semi-auto. Both (single load and semi-auto) are legal. And, yes indeed, semi-auto shotguns are used for hunting – most often in regards to (you guessed it) ducks and other waterfowl.
Now, just to throw a monkey wrench into the mix: All of the states that have allowed concealed weapons carry have shown a corresponding drop in crime! Fact is that Switzerland (where guns are mandated in many, many houses) has had the lowest crime rate in the world.
Switzerland also has mandatory military service (which is something I’ve always thought should be a policy here in the US). The lower crime rate may not necessarily be caused by the higher gun per capita ratio, but rather the greater discipline and social cohesiveness resulting from military service. I do think that restricting gun ownership is merely treating the symptoms of the underlying problem which causes murder: our society’s attitude toward violence. It may be easier to restrict guns rather than change our society, but a change is better in the long run.
The 2nd amendment was written to ensure a BALANCE OF POWER. The framers did not want our goverment to have more fire power than the people, what they thought was necessary to keep the government in line.
Kinda gotta sgree with them.
Hey 666, yes I know the difference between an auto and semi auto weapon. Doesn’t diminish the problem of being able to fire the gun a lot before having to reload.
Using semi-autos for duck hunting is a cop out, I used to use an old side by side shottie and got just as many ducks as someone using a semi auto 5 shot.
What do you know about guns that makes your bullshit any different to mine?
I didn’t make an assumption that semi auto guns are illegal I said that they should be illegal same as they are in Australia.
Show me the numbers on the concealed weapons just cause you say so doesn’t make it so.
And finally, Why do you feel the need to own a gun that’s function is to obviously kill multiple people and goes way beyond what is necessary for personal protection.
Show me some numbers on successful use of a firearm for personal protection, I’ll bet it doesn’t occur very often.
cry4turtles,
How the hell are the people meant to match the firepower of the US Military? The second amendment is well beyond even being possible the way you interpret it. It is nonsensical and as much a fairytale as belief in Santa.
anadrol;
Computer’s timing out. That’s a start. Plenty more if you even bother to do some homework on your own.
anadrol;
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
666,
First off, that page doesn’t address the issue of concealed carry laws, so it doesn’t support your claim.
But I’ll help you out. In 1998, there was a study claiming the same thing you are claiming by a guy named John Lott. It was a pretty well respected study (from what the Internet tells me), but there have been at least a few claims that it suffers from flaws.
There’s a pretty good review of Lott’s findings here, but it’s a long paper. If you just want the conclusion skip to page 21:
http://tinyurl.com/yrtr8j
The conclusion of that paper is that Lott failed to take into account the crack epidemic of the 1980’s and that a number of the more recent observations have drawn the opposite conclusion such as the lack of an increase in crimes committed against younger people who are allow to carry vs. older folk who are. If Lott’s conclusion was correct, then we would expect to see more crimes against those who obviously cannot carry (since the possibility that someone is carrying is supposed to be a deterrent).
Nobody has proven that concealed carry laws have lowered crime (unless there’s another study that I’m not aware of). Furthermore, the only data we have so far is in states that are more rural, so we can’t draw any conclusions about urban areas. The jury is still out on this one.
Sorry, let me clarify the bit about the crack epidemic.
The crack epidemic hit only urban areas and caused a noticeable increase in the number of homicides. The concealed carry laws occurred only in heavily republican states.
If you look at the data, the country’s average homicides rises during the crack epidemic. At the same time, the republican states enacted concealed carry laws and over the first few years the homicide rate in concealed carry states stayed relatively constant. But because the national average was rising, it appeared that the concealed carry laws were protecting those states that enacted them. But it seems more likely that they simply didn’t have to deal with the crack epidemic.
This serves only to point out the problem studying things like this. There are so many factors involved that it becomes very difficult to objectively study.
Maybe not, but sure did make me less of a victim (against a stalker). I wouldn’t trade my handgun for a million $ (well maybe for a cool mil., but then I’d buy a new one!)
cry4turtles
Me too, but that horse is out of the barn now. The military has massively more firepower than even the best-possible local militia could ever have. Having a gun, or even a bunch of guns, in the house isn’t going to protect you from the government anymore.
alatham;
The site I provided was in reference to
which I thought that I had made clear by highlighting the statement.
Your response
is a different issue. It was referring to how often firearms were successfully used for personal protection. Try to keep up.
I have this strange feeling you might also argue that the following site is biased.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=83
However the studies they show have been accepted (even by the naysayers).
http://www.nraila.org/media/misc/fables.html
I would urge you to read the whole following article (I know it’s long, but it addresses a number of concerns).
http://www.nraila.org/media/misc/falsepromise.htm
Since this topic seems to have nothing to do with atheism per se, I’m wondering why it keeps cropping up on this site.
If you (or others) want to keep harping on the subject, at least do some more research.
I have limited time (and access to the ‘net). bye for now
The guns aren’t there to protect the people from the government. The guns are there to keep the government afraid of the people.
Guerrilla warfare.
666,
My mistake about the link, but Anadrol did ask you specifically about concealed carry shortly before then. I think you can understand my confusion.
I also was not trying to say you’re wrong. I’m undecided about gun control, I live in Chicago where gun control laws are pretty stringent. Gun crime is definitely a problem here, but the laws have been on the books for so long that it’s impossible to say if they actually work. Until our gang problem is reduced, I’d bet the laws don’t make much difference.
Also, I would indeed say that the NRA is biased, but I’m not averse to reading their thoughts. I don’t have time to get to that article now, but I’ll read through it later if I remember.
AOL,
Well, the guberment may be afraid of the societal problems that might occur as a result of wide spread civil disobedience but, surely the guberment of the United States is well aware that it is only a question of how much force is appropriate to squash whatever civilian problems might arise.
Theoretically, the citizens could potentially surprise the guberment with a well planned and sudden surprise attack. If the initial attack didn’t work the citizens would have no hope using legal weapons.
Isn’t the whole idea behind democracy that the populace ultimately controls the government?
I realize that’s a bit idealistic, but at the very least we do have the first amendment right to petition the government. Surely that’s more effective than enacting the second coming of David Koresh?
I’m sure I’m not the only one who interprets it that way. I would’ve had refrences years ago, but I’m not a member of that organization anymore (NRA). They got way too right-wing for me.
Anyway, how do YOU (anadrol) interpret the 2nd amendment? Do you think the framers were specifically concerned about bunny-hunting? Competitive target practice? Or perhaps they witnessed enough tyranny to know that unarmed citizens are sittin’ ducks?
And yes, I am aware that the gov’t has enough fire power to disintegrate my neighborhood, and that my pee-shooter would barely be a pimple on their asses. But don’t write off community militias. If necessary, I’m sure they could be a formidable force. But not if we’re disarmed. At the very least, we would die fighting. It’s better than total submission into who knows what?
“Give me freedom, or give me death!”
Or perhaps some out there think that our gov’t would never do such a thing (tyranny). It’s 2008, it just couldn’t happen here, now. For that idea, I will refer you to a quote from Korn’s “Evolution”:
“Take a look around. Nothing much has changed.”
cry4turtles,
I would say that the framers of the second amendment had no idea of the power of the weapons that would be developed. Back then a well organized militia could very well take on the government and probably win since the technological weapons gap between militia and government would have been small.
Back then the amendment was relevant but now it makes no sense at all, a relic of a bygone era really.
So to answer your question, yes I agree the popular interpretation but given the times it makes no sense anymore.
666, at the moment I don’t have time to look at your info but thanks for the site. I will get round to it, as living in Australia most of my life under strict gun laws and then moving here is an interesting paradigm shift for me.
But if you take the emotional aspect of gun control/ownership out of the equation can you honesty say that owning hand guns or assault weapons or any cache of weapons
that goes beyond mere self defense is useful given the current strength of the US Military.
Common now don’t be so dramatic, If anything were to occur I would be moving to another country pretty quick. As your well aware you only get one shot at life so I find it hard to imagine you would throw it away so haphazardly.
It’s a good thing veterans (both historical and contemporary) don’t feel that way.
Of all the things people die for, freedom is the most deserving.
Would you say that about the war today? Do you really think they are fighting for our freedom?? When someone comes and invades the country I live in I’ll be the first to help out in the war effort. Taking the fight into another country on bad intel is another matter entirely.
Why are you even mentioning Iraq?
Is it this?
Or this?
Hmn?