Gun ownership in this day and age

[vz71]

Sorry, my fingers were too fast, and left out the word: “you”. I wanted to write: “And you are against creating one.”

That wasn’t the self reference.
You claimed a database would be built from the gun confiscation.
But then also claim to need the database for the confiscation.

Which is it?

 

[vz71]

I wanted to ask you what would you offer as a solution to prevent / minimize gun violence, but then I remembered that you already stated that it cannot be done.

Actually, I pointed out the error in your logic and prodded you to rethink the problem.
You are not understanding, so I have to bee obvious.
One can only minimize weapons related violence. You can never prevent all of it.

The problem is a question of minimizing it, not 100 percent prevention.

You should define the problem before attempting to resolve it.

 

[njlisa]

I live in the U.S. You may not realize it, but intentional homicides have been declining in the U.S. since the 1970s. Canada has an intentional homicide rate of 1.68 per 100,000. That is very low compared to the U.S. rate of 5.38 per 100,000.

The town I live in has a rate of 0 per 100,000. So it’s all about where you live.

In the U.S., we have the constitutional right to own handguns, rifles, and tactical weapons. I have no moral objection to people buying guns as long as they do so legally, train to use them, and keep them locked up so children can’t reach them.

Buying guns illegally is not acceptable.

I love your Clint Eastwood thumbnail.

 

[anon1212376]

Okay, I’m skipping over 400 comments to chime in

I am that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED guy. If the government owns it, civilians should own it as well.

But what about “weapons of war”? The Second Amendment only applies to muskets.

Wrong. Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016) says: The 2nd Amendment extends, prima facie, “to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,” even those not in existence at the time of the founding.

Civilians, up until the NFA was passed, were allowed to own whatever the military owned. Musket? weapon of war, legal to own.
Black powder revolver? Weapon of war, legal.
Howitzers? Weapon of war.
Bolt-action or lever-action rifle? Weapon of war. Legal. (which, by the way, they now want to ban in Australia).

Nobody wants to take your guns away!

This is a flat-out lie, and the hoplophobes know it. They simply want gun owners to “Compromise”; that is, they chip away gun rights while owners get nothing in return, until there is nothing left to take.

Think of the children! Do you want more school shootings?

Disingenous. People who say this are the same ones perfectly okay with post-birth abortion and one child (or even zero-child) policies. They hate kids. The fact that they introduced Parkland kids proves they are willing to use child soldiers to advance their agenda.

“You can’t resist the government! You’ll get blown up with a drone!”

One: a drone or a tank cannot stand on a street corner. You need boots on the ground for a police state.
Two: the government is not going to risk collateral damage to bystanders and infrastructure for a few yahoos with guns.
Three: how did bombs and tanks work out against militias in Afghanistan, Vietnam, Rhodesia, Northern Ireland, etc.? State armies are designed to take on state armies; they are almost never successful against guerrillas (consider that the British SAS, the gold standard for Special Forces, had a hard time with the IRA).

I have been solidified in my opposition to all gun control because I see that those who advocate for it are utterly obsessed with power.

“Every urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to control it” -H.L. Mencken

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” C.S. Lewis

“Anyone who clings to the historically untrue – and – thoroughly immoral doctrine that violence never solves anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler would referee. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor; and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms.” -Robert Heinlein

 

[GKMotley]

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” C.S. Lewis

GOD IN THE DOCK, Part III, chap. 4, “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment”, p. 291, 1970.

 

[GKMotley]

What’s a military style assault weapon?

 

[vz71]

We can still hope that we are headed toward a civilized society, where conflict resolution does not happen via shooting the other party.

So you really believe, as the above implied, that every argument here had to be resolved with a shooting?

 

[vz71]

What’s a military style assault weapon?

Whatever looks scary.

 

[GKMotley]

My guess, too. Style carries a lot of weight, in some circles, as opposed to function.

Lots of guns look scary to me. Which is why I approach them with care, maturity, responsibility, and respect.

 

[Ender]

What’s a military style assault weapon?

He didn’t challenge the ownership of military style assault weapons, he said: “There can be no rational reason for civilians owning military type weapons.” Just going by what was used in WWII this would include shotguns, revolvers, and bolt action rifles in addition to all the standard semi-automatic weapons commonly available. Not to mention KA-bars and trenching tools.

 

[GKMotley]

And nifty bits of hand-held semi-automatic machinery, likewise. And single shot hand-held pieces of tin.

All scary, in some ways. Even the FP-45 Liberator.

 

[vz71]

You don’t understand. Among civilized people there is no reason to resort to violence.

The context of the statement implies a right to bear arms runs contrary to civilized society.

Please clarify.

 

[GKMotley]

And here’s a new concept of WMD.

And we now proscribe simple revolvers, which are semi automatic.

Pass.

 

[vz71]

In revolvers there is no magazine which can be swapped in a few seconds.

So your definition of semi-automatic requires a magazine?

 

[Ender]

Who talked about WWII?

Sorry, I assumed weapons used in WWII would count as military style weapons. If that’s not what you meant perhaps you should have phrased your comment more thoughtfully.

Of course, you guys are hilarious in your inability to understand my point.

We can only respond to what you say. What you mean may be knowable to you but not to anyone else.

Or maybe you understand, but have some compulsion to purposefully misunderstand it. (I am not going to speculate on that compulsion.) There is no reason to have weapons of mass destruction for civilians. That would include automatic, semi-automatic weapons, bazookas, grenade launchers, too.

No one is really pushing for private ownership of crew served weapons, but when you put semi-automatic weapons in the same category as bazookas it suggests there are some fairly basic distinctions between weapons you are unable or unwilling to make.

 

[GKMotley]

Semi-autos don’t need a magazine, to meet the definition. A semi-auto is one in which a single action produces a a single reaction (shot). The act of firing the next shot requires the chamber to have another round introduced. This is done either by recoil/blowback & spring, in the case of magazine fed weapons, or in a cylinder arrangement, in the common revolver, where the energy necessary to cycle is supplied by the trigger finger. Has nothing to do with reloading speed.

Be more specific in what you are prejudiced against.

 

[GKMotley]

So now a spear is a semi-automatic weapon?

I see your goals, more clearly.

Pass. Though in a pinch, a good hunting slingshot might make the grade as a semi-automatic weapon. In a cartoon strip.

I’ll take a wheel gun. I like its elegant simplicity and it won’t pinch the web between my trigger finger and thumb.

You may have a fist-sized rock.

 

[vz71]

Weapons used by the ancient Roman soldiers could be classified as military style weapons

Then you see the problem with vague definitions used to craft policies.

 

[GKMotley]

Your warning is noted. The condition might be catching at that, but my years of age and experience provides an adequate inoculation.

You may still have a fist sized rock. It will have to be secured in a lock box, if at home, or in a car trunk, if transported.

 

[Ender]

Weapons used by the ancient Roman soldiers could be classified as military style weapons, if you wish to stretch the definition far enough. I assumed basic common sense. Mea culpa, I guess.

The real point of my comment was to show that your comment about “military style” weapons was so vague as to be pretty much meaningless. Given that you categorize semi-automatic weapons in with bazookas, there is no way to tell what you actually mean to include and exclude. So why don’t you be more specific and explain exactly what types of weapons you would prohibit citizens from owning? So far it seems you oppose weapons because of the speed of reload and firing, but since you’ve offered no specifics on exactly what you object to it’s not that useful to speculate.