I don't see anything in the second amendment that addresses technological advances or hunting. It doesn't say ...except for cannons and gunships, both of which were devastating in the 1800's. Actually, it addresses the right of the people to bear arms and form a militia. To me, this means that the people should have the same access to weaponry that is congruent with the weaponry of the time. In this sense, we're already limited because we're not allowed to own tanks, and grenades, and bazookas, and machine guns. The hunting argument doesn't really apply, because that isn't the nature of the amendment and frankly, never was. If you look at the other amendments, though, the second can play a pretty big role in protecting those as well. To me, the second amendment is the watchdog over the others. D26- Please, please learn at least a little bit about guns. If you have questions, I will be happy to answer them. I think it's very important that you at least try to educate yourself, for practically any rifle round and most shotgun rounds will puncture a car door.
katokoch, is it your assertion that prior to about 1900 or so, people did not get "quick clean kills" on larger game such as deer, and as such, modern guns of the sort currently being discussed are necessary for this? Because that seems clearly false, albeit from someone who has himself never shot a deer cleanly or otherwise. Obviously no one would deny that such things are easier with these sorts of guns. But are you of the opinion they are necessary? In what sort of situation would one NEED a semi-automatic weapon? And the sort of guns you suggest are illegal for hunting: would you thus support them being illegal generally speaking? This argument occurred to me, but I realized it was not the point he was making. he is pointing out that we tolerate tens of thousands of DUI deaths merely because we enjoy being hammered. Yes. That was the point. That this makes it, in the modern era, a poorly constructed law. Technically it does not say this either. Or your cannons and gunships part. In fact, I would assume that a good militia in the modern day and age would likely make good use of machine guns.
Obviously you haven't been prairie dog hunting with Brock Lesnar: But seriously. I think it might be hard for non hunters to grasp the use hunters put semi automatic rifles like the AR15 to. It is a platform that is adaptable to pert near any hunting situation and is the reason why it is one of the top civilian bought guns. If it were legal to hunt with rifle rounds in my state (for deer), I'd sure as shit use a AR15 to hunt white tail.
That may be true, and I actually have sympathy for the desire to use it, but it doesn't really answer my question as phrased. These guns do make hunting easier, I'd imagine. It also makes killing many people very quickly easier, in places like both Sandy Hook and Chicago. Earlier I said that downgrading the weaponry would at best lead to lower death totals, not eradicate shootings. But why that in and of itself not a worthwhile goal, with value exceeding the utility to what are essentially, given the developments of modern society, hobbyists? I don't mean the term as one of derision. We all have hobbies that we are fond of. But Xboxs do not, by and large, kill people.
If you are talking hunting, depends on the game and the successive kills you are trying to obtain. For self defense? I mean you could not see a possible need for it? I could also use the same alcohol argument as before, we need is there for 190 proof ever clear? Actually that's a bad example as the only need for the Clear is the freshman year lesson never to drink it again. I know I'll come off as callous but being murdered by an assault weapon, in general not even a random spree killing like Sandy Hook, is beyond exceedingly rare at best. I do not see the prohibition of purchasing, eventually owning them if they don't allow transfers in any new AWB legislation, as the value exceeding the utility when millions upon millions of people use them legally. Again why punish the whole when other ideas might focus on the few that create these atrocities and help prevent them? Im sorry I just grew up with a different view on the function and "intended use" of firearms. We weren't a sports family, on Sundays we were either dirtbiking or shooting. While my friends' dads played catch, taught them the ins and outs of swinging a bat or throwing a ball. My dad taught me the ins and outs of reloading, finding the best powder charge with the best bullet, to achieve the most accurate shot out of any given gun you were using. I hold it as dear to me as, and as innocent, as people do baseball. You want to talk about how to keep maniacs from getting guns thats fine, there are ways to discuss it. Creating legislation that treats everyone as a potential maniac, I don't think, the right way to go about it.
I apologize in advance for the multi-posting. In response, I would suggest that if you need a semi-automatic rifle to shoot X or to shoot Y animals in a row, maybe you should just write off this goal. Perhaps you should just let that bison go about its business. As for self-defense? Honestly, no, I can't. I cannot imagine a plausible self-defense scenario were a pistol is not sufficient, and my semi-automatic weapon is going to make the difference. You and I both live in the United States of America, where we are rarely attacked by wild mountain lions or packs of 10 rogues at once.
When gun control people use the bolded phrase, what exactly do they mean? Unless its a bolt action rifle, pump shot gun or revolver, its pretty much a semi-automatic weapon. "semi-automatic weapon" and "assault rifle" are not interchangeable.
I'm a hunter. I hunt deer and ducks with a pump action shotgun that was manufactured in the early 80s. It can hold four rounds, plus one in the chamber. It's about as basic as it gets. With practice, I've been able to shoot, cycle the action, and shoot again just a shade slower than a semi-automatic shotgun can and still hit my target--or targets, as is often the case with ducks. With extra shells in my pocket, I can reload the gun to full capacity in less than 10 seconds. Realistically, I could probably shoot the gun empty, reload it, and shoot it empty again in under 25 seconds, shooting with decent accuracy. That's ten shots in under half a minute, all of which (when using slugs) would probably go completely through a car. If this kid had been using my gun, 15 minutes would've been plenty of time for him to do exactly what he did on Friday. The medical examiner who was interviewed on Sunday said that the 7 bodies he looked over had no fewer than three gunshot wounds, some as many as 11. So while more rounds were fired, it probably wouldn't have made any difference past one or two. Would we be having the same conversation if he used a pump action shotgun?
That is a fair point. What meaningful distinction would you, as someone who presumably knows more than I do, draw between a standard pistol and weapons such as the AR-15 pictured above? Or can none be draw? I'm going to suggest that, had he killed 26 people with a shotgun, yes, we would still be discussing gun control, and the merits of what guns we plausibly can and cannot justify limiting. Perhaps the word "shotgun" would appear more in the discussion, but the underlying idea would not change.
Edit- I don't see any pictures. Thought you meant the definition difference of a pistol vs an AR In my part of the country (CA) they both hold 10 rounds max and both fire rounds as fast as you can pull the trigger. IMO, people are all up in arms over the AR-15 because it "looks" big & bad. I have a 30.06 that is much more powerful than most (all?) AR's on the market but it has a wood stock and a leather, old school strap on it so look "less dangerous" to the uniformed.
Cosmetics. Really, that's it. The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was based purely on parts that make a semi-automatic rifle look like a big scary "assault rifle." Exactly that!
You make a very good point that I'm sure will be used to ban high capacity magazines. I'm quite certain in the next few months we will see a law passed that restricts new magazines to 10 rounds again. Does that really have an effect though? The monster (I refuse to use his name) on Friday could have used 100-round magazines but instead used multiple 30-round magazines. If those are now limited to 10 rounds, does it make any difference except to mean he has to carry a few more magazines and change more often? I'll relate my own personal experience. In 1995 my wife bought me a Glock for Father's Day. The magazine restrictions passed in 1994 were already in effect, so instead of the previous 15-round magazine, it was supplied with two 10-round magazines. I wanted to get a 15-round magazine before they became unavailable, so I bought a used one for an inflated price. I would have been happy with one 15-round, but now I have a total of 35 rounds available to me. On top of that, the 10-round magazines are drop-free, meaning they fall out on their own when the release is pressed, making them faster to switch out. The 15-round is not. It has to be pulled out while pressing the release. What did the magazine restrictions accomplish except make some extra money for the guy who already owned the bigger one and give me more available rounds? If we restrict magazine capacity, does the next guy turn to something else to make his mark? Recall that the two worst attacks in the U.S. (9/11 and Oklahoma City) didn't involve firearms. My point is not that we shouldn't do anything about firearms, but that without addressing the underlying issues that cause people to commit these crimes, we're probably wasting our time and resources. Thank you for your level-headed discussion of this issue. I know it's very emotional for many of us, for many reasons.
I've seen several "ugh, not the cars comparison again" posts, but I haven't seen a clear argument as to why it's not valid. I may have missed it, so apologies if that's the case. I don't actually know exactly where I stand on this issue, I'm just trying to understand this aspect of the pro gun control position. So, once and for all... If guns should be illegal because they're ultimately unnecessary and are the cause of a lot of deaths: -Why isn't alcohol illegal? (Or everything except, say, light beer, this scenario's equivalent of small caliber handguns.) -Why don't all vehicles have restrictor plates limiting them to a max speed of 75 mph? (Or whatever the highest speed limits are down there.)
"Semi-automatic" means one pull of the trigger fires one bullet, a new bullet is cycled into the chamber each pull of the trigger until the supple is exhausted. There are semi auto pistols and semi auto rifles. As far as a difference there, the only difference might be the caliber used. "Assault Weapon" is a very poorly defined term. The two major things the last ban defined as "assault weapon" were rifles that could accept magazines over 10 rounds and were semiautomatic (I only list these two as I see them as the two most important). They also had a list of other scary no-nos that could help a gun equal "assault weapon." Pistol grip stocks, barrel shrouds, bayonet lugs. Some very ridiculous stuff that was passed with more emotion than practicality. It's the reason us gun nuts get so psycho about people who know next to nothing about guns arguing for new laws. As for using, what I am guessing you mean assault rifle, for self defense is that it really is up to the situation you are living in. An inner city person would best be served with a pistol or shotgun. Someone who has the threat of say mountain lions or bears could use them. I also don't see the fact that not many people need to worry about that as a reason to let no one have them....
Assault Weapon is a media buzzword used to scare people. Here's a little of potential "assault weapons": -*All* guns -Home made explosives -Baseball bats -Tasers -Knives -Golf clubs -A Bow and arrow -Metal chain -Brass knuckles Are you trying to hurt or assault someone? Congratulations, you have an assault weapon.
Maybe, maybe not. But it wouldn't hurt. I haven't seen much evidence that the killer himself was very familiar with guns. His mom, yes, but not him. To the unpracticed, changed magazines rapidly probably isn't the simplest thing in the world. I certainly don't really know how to, action movies aside. So it's possible that this could delay a killer. And if you think not of Sandy Hook but of the 500 murders this year in Chicago, most among the young, poor, and living in gang neighborhoods, then I imagine it would make a difference. Imagine a drive by shooting. Isn't the result going to look pretty dramatically different with 100 bullets versus 10? I try to maintain a level headed argument, but I actually think it's useful to have these discussions at times like these, when we're emotional. Part of the reason that we rarely end up with substantial gun control is that gun violence victims are few while gun owners are many, and for those who are passionate about firearms, this issue is always near the forefront of their mind. The NRA doesn't take days off. But to the average citizen? We become angry, we mourn, and then we move on to next week's topic. And while we're mad, we have the prevailing opinion that "now is not the time." By the time it's "the time," this will be largely forgotten by those outside of a small circle in Connecticut.
I wonder how many people own the stuff they are asking to be banned? If the government banned all semi-autos, would they institute a 100 Billion dollar buy back program?
Ill try and put it in prospective, rifles, which include assault rifles (as they are just rifles with scawee features) kill about 300-400 people annually in the US. Personal weapons, defined as hands and feet by the FBI, are used to kill twice as many. Blunt objects are used about 1.5x more than rifles. Yes, semiautomatic rifles and large capacity clips are very effective killing tools for outlier maniacs. The fact is is that an over all ban, like zzr said, isn't focusing our resources in the right places. I think and have been repeating that it unduly burdens law abiding citizens. The vast majority of all gun homicides are done with easily concealable handguns, yet no one seems to notice? It's all emotion "we have to ban these scary and useless killing machines!" FBI statistics on the subject No, they'd grandfather it in so people wouldn't have to turn them in outright (thus putting the burden on the government to compensate them). But they could ban the transfer and the purchasing of new ones. If you weren't allowed to pass it on to your children it'd take a few generations before they were basically non existent. It's basically what they did with NFA and automatic weapons made after the late 80's.
I tend to err on the side of more gun control but honestly I know very little about guns. After reading posts from the more educated members, I definitely can see why the type of gun control legislation that will probably be introduced won't actually do much good. Are there specific measures that would work that the "pro-gun" people could suggest? You guys have actually gone through the system of obtaining a gun so you likely know better than most of what type of loopholes exist. For me, the uneducated person who wants something to be done but has no idea exactly what that is, I'm mainly concerned about the mentally ill and type of people likely to commit such acts and how are we preventing them from getting guns/ getting actual help with their illness. For example, I know the mentally ill are barred from getting gun licenses. If someone with a documented mental illness tries to buy a gun and is denied based on that fact, is that information passed along to any law enforcement? I imagine HIPAA laws might prevent that but certainly that law could be amended. I looked at some stats (http://www.jrsa.org/events/conference/presentations-10/Ronald_Frandsen.pdf) and roughly 140,000 applications are denied a year. I wonder if an applicant who is denied is investigated any further for red flags. I'm just throwing stuff out there. Like everyone else, I want something to be done, but it seems that every idea has too many holes, but the other option of doing nothing is just as unappealing.
Because I honestly can't tell: are you suggesting the answer is "none" or "many"? Because if none, isn't the reasoning obvious? I do not own a gun primarily because I consider them irresponsible for even most law-abiding citizens to own, given the possibility of them being involved in an accident, suicide, and/or crime. Even though I consider myself responsible and law-abiding, I know the same is true of most people who end up shooting someone, and that I'm therefore likely to be better off without. Well yes. Because the "personal weapon" ownership rate is pretty high. I don't think many people miss this fact. It's just that handguns are also the easiest to justify. In most self-defense scenarios, a handgun is going to be your weapon of choice. People imagine some little old grandma fending off a thug who is after her purse. For political reasons, people go after low hanging fruit. Personally, the buyback question is the strongest argument to me. The fact is the guns are out there already, in unimaginably high quantity. It would be phenomenally difficult and/or costly to round them up. Not entirely unprecedented, but very hard. And if you can't round them up, how many shootings is it likely to stop? Coke's illegal, but I bet I can go buy some right now. As I suggest above, this is true. But illegality would make them more difficult to obtain for said gang member. How difficult would depend on (1) how rapidly such existing held illegally would end up in the hands of authorities, and (2) how many would bleed from "responsible" owners to potential shooters. I don't have a ton of confidence about either claim, but such a ban certainly wouldn't make inner city and suburban murders any easier.