Question about guns

[Leoreth]

Its not your fault.

Losing your credibility in 3, 2, 1 ...

The gun grabbers [...]

 

[Grisu]

Its not your fault. The gun grabbers gave it that name (Assault Weapons) in order to confuse the public into thinking exactly that; That the weapons covered in the legislation were military-grade firearms and accessories. The reality is that none of what the legislation covered can be considered military grade, anymore. Those weapons are no more military grade than muskets or swords are.

Now you're really confusing me...If I read your other post correctly, you're in favour of banning fully automatic weapons. But you're not in favour of banning Assault Rifles? That's rather confusing as IMHO assault rifles are a subset of fully automatic rifles.

 

[Quackers]

I stopped reading the OP at the silly point at which it was assumed that the only possible policy settings are carte blanche free-for-all firearm ownership and an absolute prohibition on personal firearm ownership.

Discussing anything inbetween is boring though

 

[BvBPL]

1. What is your personal view on what guns should or should not be allowed? (I get this is problably nuanced based on location, NYC isn't the same as Texas.)

In general, fully automatic weapons should be banned. Semi-automatic weapons should have limited clip sizes (and by limited I mean "no giant clips" rather than being absolutely limited). Heavy regulation, and possible out right bans, of personal ownership of handguns would be permissible on a local jurisdiction level.

2. Do you feel that your stance is currently constitutional, or do you disagree with what the constitution currently says?

"Currently Constitutional?" Are you suggesting that the Constitution is open to contemporary interpretation?

That aside, my stance is Constitutional. The Second Amendment dictates that the right to bear arms is intended as a means to maintain a militia. In case the cause for a militia ever arises within the Union, semi-automatic weapons can be reconfigured to support fully automatic firing and be equipped with extended clip; as no such need exists at this time or for the foreseeable future it reasonable to limit automatic weapons and clip sizes for the time being.

The handgun bit is a little more dicey, however we need to recognize that handguns are the guns most frequently used to harm others domestically by a long margin. The State (either the Union, individual states, and even local government) has a duty to protect its subjects under Article One, Section Eight. Indeed, the primary duty of any state in any local globally has long been presumed to be the protection of its subjects. As handguns represents a clear threat to the safety of those living the United States, or localities therein, any individual right to possess a handgun runs up against that primary duty of government. When such a conflict exists, we must necessarily subordinate the right to own a handgun to the duty of the government to protect the people living under it.

3. How do you justify gun control with things like "Innocent until proven guilty" and the general right to self-defense?

I don't see a conflict or a need to justify my views against the presumption of innocence. I don't even know why you would think that would need to be justified. I am curious to read the other posts in this thread to determine what you mean by that.

Edit: After reading the thread, I didn't see any real discussion on your part of how gun control touches upon the presumption of innocence.

I don't see my views as being in conflict with a right to self-defense. My idea permits the private ownership of any number of firearms that could be used to defend oneself.

If you don't believe on enforcing personal morality on others, how does disarming civilians fit with "Live and let live" principles?

A ban on the sale of fully automatic weapons and, in some localities, handguns does not disarm anyone. Plenty of other firearm options exist. My proposal simply limns what firearms can be owned by private individuals. Such limits already exist; one cannot purchase privately a working atom bomb or 16in gun from a battleship. I am simply refining what guns would and would not be allowed while still permitting plenty of other options.

Alcohol can sometimes cause societal harm yet (most of) you don't want to ban it?

Alcohol isn't intended to harm anyone. Enjoyed in moderation, it is a worthwhile asset to our society. The firearms I would heavily moderate, listed above in response to your point one, are manufactured with the intent to cause serious harm or death to a person. Even a trap shooting gun can cause serious harm, even if trap shooting itself is a worthwhile pastime.

Gun violence is NOT the problem. If the same number of people, that were killed with firearms, were killed with butter knives, would it be any less of a problem?

Actually, gun violence, as opposed to the threat of butter knife violence, IS the problem, or at least part of it. Studies have shown that violent acts in areas with high percentages of gun ownership are noticeably more lethal than violent acts in areas with low percentages of gun ownership. The presence of guns doesn't necessarily deter or encourage violence or crime, but what it does make violence and crime noticeably more lethal. Consequently it stands to reason that if all the guns in the US were replaced overnight with butter knives we'd probably have the same rate of violent acts tomorrow as we did today, but those acts would likely result in far fewer catastrophic injuries.

 

[JohnRM]

This would seem to be missing the fairly obvious point that butter knives in fact aren't killing the same number of people.

That's irrelevant. The point is that guns don't cause violence, which is what is being argued by some. People cause violence. If you restrict guns and do nothing to curb violent behavior, then violence will still be prevalent. If you're not going to address violence in our culture, then I have no intention of surrendering my right to own firearms, which is all that protects me from it.

 

[BvBPL]

If you restrict guns and do nothing to curb violent behavior, then violence will still be prevalent.

Prevalent, but noticeably less lethal. That would serve the public good.

 

[JohnRM]

Prevalent, but noticeably less lethal. That would serve the public good.

I would disgree. The ends do not justify the means.

 

[JohnRM]

Now you're really confusing me...If I read your other post correctly, you're in favour of banning fully automatic weapons. But you're not in favour of banning Assault Rifles? That's rather confusing as IMHO assault rifles are a subset of fully automatic rifles.

They aren't assault weapons the way you're thinking of them.

 

[Camikaze]

That's irrelevant. The point is that guns don't cause violence, which is what is being argued by some. People cause violence. If you restrict guns and do nothing to curb violent behavior, then violence will still be prevalent. If you're not going to address violence in our culture, then I have no intention of surrendering my right to own firearms, which is all that protects me from it.

Why don't you defend yourself with a butter knife?

 

[Flying Mathias]

I don't feel like getting into specifics, so my vague ideas:

-Allowed to own any gun and ammunition of your choice at home.
-May take shotguns, rifles and handguns to hunt
-In public places, you may only carry a unloaded handgun, and one magazine.

 

[Crezth]

My vague ideas:

-Mandatory to carry AK-47 in public (would prevent shootings)
-Must be loaded with exploding rounds
-Grenade launchers optional but subsidized

 

[BvBPL]

I would disgree. The ends do not justify the means.

You are putting words in my mouth. I'm not making any argument about means or ends or such. A reduction in hospitalizations resulting from making violent acts less harmful clearly serves the public good per se.

My vague ideas:

-Mandatory to carry AK-47 in public (would prevent shootings)
-Must be loaded with exploding rounds
-Grenade launchers optional but subsidized

 

[GenMarshall]

Is this thread about the question of legalization of bearing arms or is this thread for questions about a particular firearm?

(This is a serious post before I ask about a particular firearm, like "what is the key differences between a Browning High-Power and a M1911?")

 

[Farm Boy]

Now you're really confusing me...If I read your other post correctly, you're in favour of banning fully automatic weapons. But you're not in favour of banning Assault Rifles? That's rather confusing as IMHO assault rifles are a subset of fully automatic rifles.

The confusion, and it is confusing, lies is what gets defined as an assault weapon. Legislation varies by locality. I've seen assault weapon bans that cover all handguns. I've seen Revolutionary War black powder weapons be classified as assault weapons(for a short period of time) since they were military grade(at some point!) and could have a bayonet attached to them.

 

[ELITEOFWARMAN8]

You know, I have to wonder about your worldview in that assault rifles are needed for self-defence.


And I wager that you think criminals think about their crimes in a logical, rational manner. And possibly that the average person can deliver a pinpoint-accurate double-tap to any assailant within 10m even with other people in the way. Or even better, shoot their weapons out of their hands.

If I am going to shoot someone, I will not be aiming for their hands. I will to shoot to kill or I just don't shoot. What if the bullet goes though his hand which it most likely will and go though my wall, into my neighbor's wall and kills her? Then what? Sorry, I prefer the head or the chest with my shotgun.


I also don't see why people should have assault rifles, no one ever gave me a good solid reason why people need them.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

I was hoping some of you hunters could explain the appeal. I just don't understand why you would want to kill an animal that is neither vermin nor dinner (I understand these two cases).

When I was younger I went kangaroo shooting on a mates farm (they are a real pest for farmers). Whilst out we shot a wood duck. When we told our mate's Dad, he made us go back to the lake, retrieve the duck and cook it for dinner. He explained they weren't a pest so he could only assume we killed it as we fancied duck for dinner. I learnt my lesson.

 

[Flying Pig]

All of the people I know who shoot game share that view; you kill it, you eat it.

My vague ideas:

-Mandatory to carry AK-47 in public (would prevent shootings)
-Must be loaded with exploding rounds
-Grenade launchers optional but subsidized

This would be not too far removed from the observation that the best way to make people drive safely would be to attach a large metal spike right where the horn button is on their cars?

 

[Crezth]

This would be not too far removed from the observation that the best way to make people drive safely would be to attach a large metal spike right where the horn button is on their cars?

Guns make people safe. Remember that guns don't kill people, people kill people. You might as well ensure everyone has maximum firepower to compensate.

 

[BvBPL]

I was hoping some of you hunters could explain the appeal. I just don't understand why you would want to kill an animal that is neither vermin nor dinner (I understand these two cases).

Sport.

 

[Farm Boy]

When I was younger I went kangaroo shooting on a mates farm (they are a real pest for farmers). Whilst out we shot a wood duck. When we told our mate's Dad, he made us go back to the lake, retrieve the duck and cook it for dinner. He explained they weren't a pest so he could only assume we killed it as we fancied duck for dinner. I learnt my lesson.

Good man.

Sport.

I suppose the hunt itself may make for good sport, but killing without purpose is gross and nasty and really - the actual act of killing is not particularly fun(exceptions to every rule I suppose).