Inevitable gun control argument thread....

[JollyRoger]

Proof please.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5337246&postcount=134

From the link provided by that poster:

The study, based on telephone interviews conducted between 1991 and 2000

 

[JohnRM]

Now what exactly is the practical use of a fully automatic weapon for the average citizen. Shouldn't a handgun be sufficient protection?

And I quote...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

For the rest of the text of the US Declaration of Independence, please click on the following link.

http://www.usconstitution.net/declar.html


A lot of people argue that a revolution composed of armed citizens of the United States could not mount a successful campaign for the dissolution of a despotic government in the modern world, and nevermind the fact that many soldiers of our professional armed forces would support us. It is nevertheless our right and duty to fight, regardless of our chances of success.

The 2nd Amendment was never about hunters and defending oneself from criminals. That amendment was about protecting the rest of your rights from any tyrannical government that may one day exist.

I have heard quite a few people argue that the 2nd Amendment was specifically stated to cover organized militias. In 1787, that argument may have made more sense, but since then, the Federal Government has usurped that power.

The militia was intended to be organized, of course, but it was not intended to be under the authority of the Federal Government. It was supposed to be an organization of citizen soldiers, not under control of the government, even at the state level, but only in loose association with it. They were often privately funded. The militia existed for the people to defend themselves from foreign powers -- including Washington, D.C. -- asserting their will over the people of the several states.

Today, the militia has been compromised. The Federal Government has taken over control of the militias and the States are no longer voluntary and sovereign partners with the others, in this nation. In many states, laws exist to prohibit the formation of an organized citizen militia that does not exist under the authority of the Federal Government.

The right to bear arms is just as much about protecting ourselves from overbearing government as it is about protecting ourselves from criminals. There are criminals in Congress, as we speak, that every American should fear. That is why many of us feel the need to be armed.

 

[MobBoss]

A rifle is always better at stopping a threat than a handgun.

You have obviously never seen the film 'For a Few Dollars More' with Clint Eastwood.

But in a close in/close quarters confrontation you are incorrect. A handgun generally uses a larger and slower round, specifically designed to put an opponent on the ground, while a rifle round isnt necessarily.

Thus a rifle is always better at a distance and a handgun would be better in close quarters.

I'd wager that semi-automatic is MUCH more effective than full-auto so I personally don't see a need to ban full-auto while semi-auto is perfectly fine.

Depends on the situation.

 

[JohnRM]

You have obviously never seen the film 'For a Few Dollars More' with Clint Eastwood.

But in a close in/close quarters confrontation you are incorrect. A handgun generally uses a larger and slower round, specifically designed to put an opponent on the ground, while a rifle round isnt necessarily.

Thus a rifle is always better at a distance and a handgun would be better in close quarters.



Depends on the situation.

You're both wrong!

The Remington 870 Marine Magnum. When you just absolutely, positively got to kill EVERY mo fo in the room; accept no substitutes.

18" barrell, overall length of 38 1/2", six shot mag. Unless you have one seriously cramped place, this bad boy is KING. Of course, in that event, I recommend my little buddy, the Springfield 1911, as shown below.

 

[Bugfatty300]

You have obviously never seen the film 'For a Few Dollars More' with Clint Eastwood.

No I havn't. I generally do not base my knowledge of firearms and ballistics off of hollywood movies.

But in a close in/close quarters confrontation you are incorrect. A handgun generally uses a larger and slower round, specifically designed to put an opponent on the ground, while a rifle round isnt necessarily.

I believe, at close range a high velocity rifle bullet is just as effective if not more effective.

I prefer a combination of the two. A carbine.

John HSOG. I agree. A shotgun is the best weapon for home defense. Unfortunately the only shotgun I own is nearly as long as I am tall. Its a real beast. Much to big for home defense. I'm hoping to get a Mossberg or an 870.

With a folding stock of course.

 

[Che Guava]

And I quote...



.....

Wow....deja vu

Thanks for the reminder anyhow!

 

[JohnRM]

Wow....deja vu

Thanks for the reminder anyhow!

Um, I quoted the Declaration of Independence, not the US Constitution.

 

[skadistic]

You're both wrong!

The Remington 870 Marine Magnum. When you just absolutely, positively got to kill EVERY mo fo in the room; accept no substitutes.

18" barrell, overall length of 38 1/2", six shot mag. Unless you have one seriously cramped place, this bad boy is KING. Of course, in that event, I recommend my little buddy, the Springfield 1911, as shown below.

I prefer the S&W 1911. Its what I carry every day. Granted its the same gun but the S&W felt "right".

 

[MobBoss]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5337246&postcount=134

From the link provided by that poster:

Thats proof in favor of my arguement...not yours. Nice try however.

 

[Che Guava]

Um, I quoted the Declaration of Independence, not the US Constitution.

...and I need to start reading more closely...!

 

[Atlas14]

And the reason of this danger is that guns are everywhere in your society.

Marijuana is illegal yet is present everywhere in our society...the point is that guns will always be present. Now you can either have criminals unsure of who is armed and who isn't, or you can have a bunch of criminals that will attain guns no matter what that are cocky as **** because they know everyone is unarmed. Take your pick.

 

[MobBoss]

No I havn't. I generally do not base my knowledge of firearms and ballistics off of hollywood movies.

Humor...its a concept.

I believe, at close range a high velocity rifle bullet is just as effective if not more effective.

Nope. Too much velocity will enable the round to pass cleanly through your opponent, letting them react to you. A slower velocity round will impart more of its inertia on your opponent resulting in more 'knockback' force, thus rendering your opponent unable to react after being shot.

John HSOG. I agree. A shotgun is the best weapon for home defense.

I agree as well. Plenty of knock down potential in a shotty.

 

[skadistic]

The best thing about a shotgun is you can if so inclined load it with a less leathal round or two before the slugs. To give the criminal a chance to serve his time in a jail.

 

[Nylan]

The best thing about a shotgun is you can if so inclined load it with a less leathal round or two before the the slugs. To give the criminal a chance to serve his time in a jail.

Nah, you got it backwards.

For a handgun, put hollowpoints in for the first few rounds, THEN the other rounds.

 

[Che Guava]

Marijuana is illegal yet is present everywhere in our society...the point is that guns will always be present. Now you can either have criminals unsure of who is armed and who isn't, or you can have a bunch of criminals that will attain guns no matter what that are cocky as **** because they know everyone is unarmed. Take your pick.

I wish they would apply the same reasoning to pot...sigh....

 

[Perfection]

I believe, at close range a high velocity rifle bullet is just as effective if not more effective.

[baseless speculation]I dunno, I think they are designed to dissipate some energy in the atmophere. A bullet with to much energy will just punch though the target and not impart as much energy[/baseless speculation]

Edit: Or what mobby said...

 

[JollyRoger]

Thats proof in favor of my arguement...not yours. Nice try however.

My argument that you asked for proof of was whether the survey considered dead victims of assault. Since your link shows the methodology of telephone surveys and I assume you agree that dead people are beyond the reach of the survey, I would think your link supports the thrust of my post for which you asked proof.

Plus, you didn't even have a argument to my post for the link to favor. You just had a post saying "proof please" without addressing my point on the surveys' limitations. Just because you had an unrelated point somewhere in this thread that your link supports does not prohibit it from also supporting my post.

Nice try however.

 

[MobBoss]

My argument that you asked for proof of was whether the survey considered dead victims of assault.

Nope. Thats not what I asked for proof of at all. Apparently you have misunderstood me once again.

 

[IglooDame]

Nope. Too much velocity will enable the round to pass cleanly through your opponent, letting them react to you. A slower velocity round will impart more of its inertia on your opponent resulting in more 'knockback' force, thus rendering your opponent unable to react after being shot.

I'd respectfully disagree. My understanding is that the amount of force imparted to the target by the bullet is not all that much of a factor compared to the general violence done to nerves (ideally), arteries (hopefully), and vital organs. You don't want overpenetration (the round exiting out the other side) partly due to potential no-shoot targets downrange, and partly due to it being a waste of energy. Expanding bullets expand to make bigger holes (increasing the chances of nerve/cardiac system hits), and to bleed off a little of that energy. Delivering a little thump to your target just doesn't seem to be part of the equation.

 

[Che Guava]

I might have to side with MobBoss on this one: a fast travelling bullet with high penetration is likely to sail right though someone and disperse its kintic energy in a wall, where a slower moving one would disperse all of its kintic enery into the target since it has stopped competely.

Something like comparing throwing a razon and a blunt object of similar weight at a melon: the razor is likely to just sail right through (if you're thrwoing it well and fast enough) whereas a blunt object is likely o create more damage because it lands right in the middle

but mine is just but idle speculation