Just the presence of millions of firearms in the hands of Americans prevents any potential dictator from taking power in this country.
Challenge Accepted. We need common sense and compromise on gun violence.
- Thread starter TimB
- Start Date
Just the presence of millions of firearms in the hands of Americans prevents any potential dictator from taking power in this country.
I seriously tried my hardest not to post in this thread, but couldn't resist.
I haven't read through every page of this thread, but this age-old debate once again boils down to misunderstanding and presumptions based on "everybody knows" instead of actual evidence - once you look at real facts, statistics, and actual details of recent media-hyped events, you find that none of these presumptions are true - and are in-fact giving the anti-gunner (or pro gun-controller in this case) a skewed understanding of what needs to be done to stop crime or deaths of human beings in general.
Also, what is the intent of these "common sense gun laws"? Is it to stop/prevent school shootings? Mass shootings? Deaths by murder with a gun? Deaths (including accidental and negligence) by guns? Deaths overall (including intentional-crimes and negligence)?
What The OP first posted will do the least amount of good to all of the above - so why are so many people proposing these laws? It's not facts or logic, and it's not "common sense"... It's mis-information and emotional reaction.
I'll break this down by section:
First off, you're not stating facts - you're assuming things and those that I've underlined are flat-out false. UBC will not work without Mandatory Registration (that fact came from the Justice Department from both this and Clinton's administration).
http://www.reddit.com/r/progun/comments/18l9j1/leaked_justice_department_memo_acknowledges_that/
"The gunshow loophole" was dis-proven by Senator Cruz (guns sold at gunshows account for only 1.9% of guns found at the scenes of crimes - and more than half of those were sold via NICS/4473).
http://heelsandhandguns.com/2013/01/senator-ted-cruz-perfect-presentation/
Keep in mind that once again, you're trying to pass a law to prevent someone who is already looking to break an existing law (criminal) from committing another crime after doing so.
If you want to prevent guns from getting into the hands of future criminals, then good luck - it is impossible to tell the future without violating the rights of law-abiding citizens - think about the NDAA and what it's done to our rights. How did that start? With the best of intentions, but mis-information and presumptions.
How are multiple threats different than multiple victims in a mass shooting? You've just given every argument against what you're claiming - if higher cap mags won't make you safer, then how are they more dangerous in the hands of a mass-shooter? Mass shootings are extremely rare - but more importantly, they're not "on the rise" or "more common" and their frequency has little to do with the advent of high-capacity magazines:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...cs-are-mass-shootings-really-on-the-rise.html
http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/24/making-sense-of-mass-shooting-statistics
Violent crime and shootings are actually going down (there's an actual obvious logical conclusion to draw here - links in the description to the FBI's crime database):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0
As to the low-capacity magazine doing anything to prevent this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjnsBH9jGxc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeQiVBvy0m0
The Nuke/Fighter-Jet/Tank argument is completely illogical and is just an attempt at a Strawman argument (and even despite that, there are private citizens who own real fighter jets and machine guns) and is quite frankly, silly.
There are several bills being proposed this time around and all are quite different from the 94 AWB (which facts/statistics as well as Janet Reno's justice department will tell you were completely ineffective: http://washingtonexaminer.com/sen.-...sault-weapons-ban-was-useless/article/2520058 ), but the Feinstein bill doesn't allow for transfer of previously owned "Assault weapons", so there will be no "Pre-ban" this time around.
Also, what is an assault weapon?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C-CLsMRcA0
Have you read the bill and actually looked at what makes up a "Military-style assault weapon"? If looks and aesthetics (not function) are what make up assault weapons, then why describe them with the function of "assault"? Why are we banning these guns if they aren't used in the majority of crimes? Because those who are passing laws misunderstand these guns and/or how they are used (both legally and illegally). Basically, if you only know about gun-crime from action movies (and not actual crime statistics or knowledge), then you can easily be fooled into believing in your cause to rid the world of these "killing machines" despite the fact that as killers, guns aren't even that effective when you throw in non-murder stats like negligence (cars are much better killers of human beings).
Guns labeled as "assault weapons" in the 1994 assault weapon ban are used less in crime than blunt-objects to murder people - so again, common sense when based on misinformation is the opposite of common sense - it's ignorance. There are more real assault rifles in Mexico as a result of the Fast and Furious campaign than "assault weapons" as owned by Americans - the myth that any Mexican drug lord wants to use American-Citizen owned semi-automatic guns when fighting against the military or enemies with fully automatic guns is absurd.
Tyranny is not just government. If you're being attacked by a criminal, that criminal is committing an act of tyranny. Also, as impossible as it would be to fend off a real Tyrannical government with semi-auto rifles... is that so much harder to believe than fending off British soldiers with only muskets and inferior numbers?
I'm pleading with you to take your own advice here - not with emotions and mis-information, but with facts and logic.
I haven't read through every page of this thread, but this age-old debate once again boils down to misunderstanding and presumptions based on "everybody knows" instead of actual evidence - once you look at real facts, statistics, and actual details of recent media-hyped events, you find that none of these presumptions are true - and are in-fact giving the anti-gunner (or pro gun-controller in this case) a skewed understanding of what needs to be done to stop crime or deaths of human beings in general.
Also, what is the intent of these "common sense gun laws"? Is it to stop/prevent school shootings? Mass shootings? Deaths by murder with a gun? Deaths (including accidental and negligence) by guns? Deaths overall (including intentional-crimes and negligence)?
What The OP first posted will do the least amount of good to all of the above - so why are so many people proposing these laws? It's not facts or logic, and it's not "common sense"... It's mis-information and emotional reaction.
I'll break this down by section:
First off, you're not stating facts - you're assuming things and those that I've underlined are flat-out false. UBC will not work without Mandatory Registration (that fact came from the Justice Department from both this and Clinton's administration).
http://www.reddit.com/r/progun/comments/18l9j1/leaked_justice_department_memo_acknowledges_that/
"The gunshow loophole" was dis-proven by Senator Cruz (guns sold at gunshows account for only 1.9% of guns found at the scenes of crimes - and more than half of those were sold via NICS/4473).
http://heelsandhandguns.com/2013/01/senator-ted-cruz-perfect-presentation/
Keep in mind that once again, you're trying to pass a law to prevent someone who is already looking to break an existing law (criminal) from committing another crime after doing so.
If you want to prevent guns from getting into the hands of future criminals, then good luck - it is impossible to tell the future without violating the rights of law-abiding citizens - think about the NDAA and what it's done to our rights. How did that start? With the best of intentions, but mis-information and presumptions.
How are multiple threats different than multiple victims in a mass shooting? You've just given every argument against what you're claiming - if higher cap mags won't make you safer, then how are they more dangerous in the hands of a mass-shooter? Mass shootings are extremely rare - but more importantly, they're not "on the rise" or "more common" and their frequency has little to do with the advent of high-capacity magazines:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...cs-are-mass-shootings-really-on-the-rise.html
http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/24/making-sense-of-mass-shooting-statistics
Violent crime and shootings are actually going down (there's an actual obvious logical conclusion to draw here - links in the description to the FBI's crime database):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0
As to the low-capacity magazine doing anything to prevent this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjnsBH9jGxc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeQiVBvy0m0
The Nuke/Fighter-Jet/Tank argument is completely illogical and is just an attempt at a Strawman argument (and even despite that, there are private citizens who own real fighter jets and machine guns) and is quite frankly, silly.
There are several bills being proposed this time around and all are quite different from the 94 AWB (which facts/statistics as well as Janet Reno's justice department will tell you were completely ineffective: http://washingtonexaminer.com/sen.-...sault-weapons-ban-was-useless/article/2520058 ), but the Feinstein bill doesn't allow for transfer of previously owned "Assault weapons", so there will be no "Pre-ban" this time around.
Also, what is an assault weapon?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C-CLsMRcA0
Have you read the bill and actually looked at what makes up a "Military-style assault weapon"? If looks and aesthetics (not function) are what make up assault weapons, then why describe them with the function of "assault"? Why are we banning these guns if they aren't used in the majority of crimes? Because those who are passing laws misunderstand these guns and/or how they are used (both legally and illegally). Basically, if you only know about gun-crime from action movies (and not actual crime statistics or knowledge), then you can easily be fooled into believing in your cause to rid the world of these "killing machines" despite the fact that as killers, guns aren't even that effective when you throw in non-murder stats like negligence (cars are much better killers of human beings).
Guns labeled as "assault weapons" in the 1994 assault weapon ban are used less in crime than blunt-objects to murder people - so again, common sense when based on misinformation is the opposite of common sense - it's ignorance. There are more real assault rifles in Mexico as a result of the Fast and Furious campaign than "assault weapons" as owned by Americans - the myth that any Mexican drug lord wants to use American-Citizen owned semi-automatic guns when fighting against the military or enemies with fully automatic guns is absurd.
Tyranny is not just government. If you're being attacked by a criminal, that criminal is committing an act of tyranny. Also, as impossible as it would be to fend off a real Tyrannical government with semi-auto rifles... is that so much harder to believe than fending off British soldiers with only muskets and inferior numbers?
I'm pleading with you to take your own advice here - not with emotions and mis-information, but with facts and logic.
Last edited:
Yes...Yes it was. Too bad that it was in all likelihood wasted on a troll.
I'm not so sure. I've had quite a few conversations with folks on the line of being anti-gun lately and this line of thought isn't that uncommon. It's based on false-information, but I still get how they got riled up to get to that point.
Here's an example:
This presents a series of logical fallacies - do you think that gun-owners will kill people simply because they own a "more deadly" gun? You realize that the numbers completely disprove this right?
Also, there's: "more guns equal more crime (and more machine guns must increase that exponentially)". Bloomberg has said this many times, but when you look at actual facts... you find that the opposite is true.
What happens in areas where more guns exist than others? Lower crime, that's what. When the subject of urban vs rural areas comes up - remember when DC had an all-time record murder rate (with laws preventing gun-ownership by virtually everyone)? Then DC vs. Heller allowed citizens to own guns... gun crime went down, not up (despite the nay-sayers predictions).
How many citizen-owned machine guns have ever been used in crimes? Even back in the days of prohibition and Al Capone where folks were supposedly shooting tommy-guns off from model-Ts everywhere they went? The truth will actually surprise most anti-gunners.
It's the same reason people fear "switchblade" and "butterfly" knives because they're only weapons designed to harm others (despite the fact that most experts in knife-combat will tell you that a fixed-blade knife is the most effective knife to deploy and use in combat).
Fact trumps fiction every time when emotions and unnecessary-urgency are pushed aside and good decisions that benefit mankind are truly the desired outcome.
Oh, and so everyone knows it's still me posting.
Poop.
Poop.
You seem to be confusing me shooting his gun with purchasing his gun. You are quite mistaken about the "felony". UBCs are about PURCHASING a firearm, not shooting someone else's gun WITH their permission and under their supervision. Comparisions to Lanza fall flat as he clearly didn't have permission to shoot his mothers guns.
Yes. Because criminals always buy their guns at the store. They would never steal, buy black market, or shoot their mom in the face, before a killing spree. Yes. I think we just need more laws for these people.
Similar threads
