Burglars Downstairs, Where Is My Gun?

[Hoopla Phil]

"In light of the double murder in a prominent California city where two 16-year-old thugs with baseball bat and knife bludgeoned an elderly couple to death after first robbing them in the hopes of acquiring more money for their frequent marijuana habits, I wonder if this tragedy may have been avoided had the victims used a gun to protect themselves. Many crime victims are also victims to our society's undying trust that if we are law-abiding others around us will be also, and those who are not will be dealt with swiftly by law enforcement. Such is naive, impossible, and a great American myth."

http://www.taftindependent.com/News/ViewArticle/2242

Why do so many people trust their lives to someone intend on criminal activity?

[shadowrider]

1. Sure, give them what they want, they won't hurt you n/t

[pnwmom]

2. Or they could have a 911 alarm AND a dog or two to slow the thugs down.

Many elderly people wouldn't be comfortable handling a gun.

[TreasonousBastard]

3. My mother has trouble holding a coffee cup, and these guys want to give her a gun.

[Hoopla Phil]

4. No they don't. Who said that?

This is about denying someone that can and wants to have a firearm for self defense. Would you deny that person that tool?

[pnwmom]

15. Who's denying it to anyone? The Second Amendment is still in force.

[cleanhippie]

71. Seriously? It is very difficult, if not impossible, in some places to legally obtain

a firearm, especially a sidearm. California is one of them.

[PavePusher]

5. Nobody wants to force anything on anyone...

unless you have evidence to the contrary?

What we want is freedom of choice. To be able to freely choose to own or not own weapons. Nothing more.

But nice try at the accusations...

[pnwmom]

16. You already have the right to own a gun.

Assuming you're not a drug addict or a felon. So what's the problem?

[cleanhippie]

72. See post #71

You could not be more wrong.

[nosmokes]

7. No, no, no. Guns solve all problems. All of 'em.

Why if you carry a loaded gun you don't have a damn thing to worry about. Wo/Men will love you, children will idolize you, grandmas will want their little ones to grow up to be just like you, dogs will follow you, cats won't,and your automobile will be perpetually clean and waxed, and you'll never bounce a check again.

[Hoopla Phil]

9. Hyperbole much?

Of course, in the example of the article can you deny the usefulness of a firearm?

[spin]

48. Where do you learn this stuff?

From TV or movies?

[Katya Mullethov]

68. You gotta admit

They do work really well for baked on lasagna .

[PavePusher]

75. Blasts it right off... n/t

[SteveM]

111. Bar-ROOM! went the elephant in the barroom. Smoking? Yes? nt

[SteveM]

110. Who are "these guys?" Any cites? Links? Or more makies? nt

[rrneck]

26. If you can't handle a gun you can' handle a dog. nt

[pnwmom]

40. Not true. Blind people handle dogs every day. n/t

[rrneck]

49. Good point.

But given the logistics surrounding dog ownership and those surrounding the ownership of a firearm, the gun is generally a better solution.

[krispos42]

56. And states issue concealed-carry permits to blind people.

I used to have a South Dakota CCW permit. At no point in the application process was I asked if I could see.

A blind man was given one in Minnesota. The police tried to pull it; the guy sued, and the judge said it was legit.

[Callisto32]

62. They can handle guns as well.

I don't know if I would trust them shooting much of anything, but a competent blind person is more than qualified to handle a firearm. How do I know this? There are a lot of sighted people who can go through the manual of arms and disassembly/reassembly of a firearm blindfolded/with eyes closed/et cetera. In fact, this might even be easier for a blind person give the generally more developed sense of touch many blind people have. A blind person is more than qualified to ask if anyone is in the room, and based on the response determine a safe direction (hell, up or down will usually suffice), orient themselves to the weapon by touch, operate whatever device takes it out of battery and do a tactile check to see if there is any ammunition.

[SteveM]

112. Vision impaired are allowed to hunt in Texas.

[proteus_lives]

30. Dead people and dead dog.

"Many elderly people wouldn't be comfortable handling a gun."

Clashes with my experience. The best shooters I know are older folk.

[GreenStormCloud]

109. My wife and I are both senior citizens.

We both have Concealed Handgun Licenses and are quite comfortable with guns.

911 brings the cops there after the crime is over. Cops gather evidence of crimes that have already happened.

Dogs are expensive.

[orwell]

6. Obviously...

...marijuana is the root of all evil...

[Hoopla Phil]

10. Ban it. Oh wait, that works about as well as. . . banning firearms.

Only the lawful comply.

[pnwmom]

17. And what city or state bans guns in a home?

None. This is a non-issue.

[Hoopla Phil]

18. I guess you have not looked at California's laws on banned firearms have you.

Get back to me when you do.

Also, Chicago, NYC, and DC have banned guns. DC and Chicago lost in court and then put into place a series of unsurmountable hurdles to comply with the law and have firearms at home - they are going back to court.

[pnwmom]

19. Show me the laws, then I'll reconsider. I'm not going to troll through

the laws of 50 states and thousands of cities looking for restrictions that might bother you.

[Hoopla Phil]

21. I only have to show you one. Here is your quote:

And what city or state bans guns in a home?

None. This is a non-issue.

Here is a list of banned guns in California:
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/infobuls/kaslist.pdf

Chicago's new gun law is detailed here:
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/07/chicagos-new-gun-law-goes-into-effect-today.html
Key provisions of the ordinance include:

* Firearm sales will be banned in the city.
* Gun training totaling four hours in a classroom and an hour on a firing range will be required before getting a permit. But firing ranges are banned, so training must be completed outside Chicago.
* To transport a gun, it will have to be "broken down," not immediately accessible, unloaded, and in a firearm case.
* Firearms may be possessed only inside the dwelling. It will be illegal to have a gun in the garage, on porches or in the yard. Guns also will not be allowed in hotels, dorms and group-living facilities.


This is a major issue. People DO want to ban guns, have done so, and plan to do more. Are you familiar with "Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on CBS "60 Minutes": "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them -- Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in -- I would have done it."'
http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-03-07/opinion/17419420_1_gun-ban-assault-weapons-clinton-gun

[pnwmom]

24. Sorry, but I am FOR restricting the sale and ownership of assault weapons.

And I don't need anyone to put one into the hands of my elderly mother. California's restrictions sound reasonable to me.

I don't have a problem with Chicago requiring gun training or not allowing guns in hotels and dorms. With the amount of drinking that goes on in dorms, I think they should be banned on all campuses.

[Hoopla Phil]

28. You are talking about a class of firearm that is used in the least amount of crime.

More people are killed each year by stomping with shoes than with so called assault weapons. It is completely unreasonable to focus on something that is so rarely used in mischief - and is constitutionally protected to boot.

Based on your previous answer it does not surprise me that you like Chicago's ridiculous gun laws. They require range training to own a gun yet prohibit gun ranges. Yeah, that's a good way to respect a constitutional ruling. I wonder how it would have flown if similar laws were put into place after Roe v Wade. Sure you can have an abortion - but first you have to apply for this license to receive the abortion - oh, and you have to leave the city to attend a class to get that license.

Yeah, I once heard someone say that hotels should be able to require you attend their church services too. After all, it IS their property you are on. Yep, that banning of guns on campuses has worked sooo well hasn't it. Well, if by "well" you mean by providing a "free fire zone" for someone intent on committing as much murder as possible. Yep - success.


I notice how you no longer mention anything about banning guns.

[pnwmom]

41. "I notice how you no longer mention anything about banning guns."

When did I?

The reason I mentioned assault weapons is because they were the type California was restricting.

[Hoopla Phil]

44. Um, try post 17 and 19. Then in 24 you start talking about "restricting"

I posted what guns were BANNED in California and you changed to "restricting". Now I'm going to up it a little bit. California has ordered a statewide confiscation of registered firearms that were banned.
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/calockyer.html

[pnwmom]

52. I was responding to YOUR post. You were the one who talked

about locales that ban guns.

Your post implied that some locales ban all guns. I'm pointing out that they regulate and/or restrict gun ownership, but they don't ban all guns, as you implied.

[oneshooter]

33. What is a "assault weapon" to you?

Can you describe one? Have you ever seen one? Do you know how they work?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[pnwmom]

42. I was referring to the list of guns someone previously cited

as being regulated in California.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/infobuls/kaslist.pdf

[Hoopla Phil]

45. Um, those are not "restricted" they are banned.

[Callisto32]

63. So an assault weapon is whatevertheheck the state decides it is?

That is a slippery slope, man.

[shadowrider]

58. No one will forcibly put an "assault weapon" into your elderly mothers' hands

Show me one post, just one, and you can go back years if you like, where someone said they'd force everyone to own/have one.

I'll wait.

[Pavulon]

81. Do you mean machine guns or scary looking guns stupid people pick and put on a list?

Machine guns (like the M4 I was issued) can be purchased legally. And I am sure for enough money in a brief case to a lawyer I could get a carry permit in any city. It just happens to be free here.

I mean its like making up assault motorcycles. You cant have a suziki but you can own a honda, because stupid people say so? These are technical things.

Define training? Should I be able to show competence?, Should I be an A class ipsc shooter? Should I have military training, does that training only count if I was an operator? What is I have all those does that qualify and why?

See when dumbshits get to make the rules they always wreck this type of stuff up.

[SteveM]

114. Some misconceptions, here...

"Assault weapons" is a term of art applied to semi-automatic carbines of moderate power; they LOOK LIKE true Assault Rifles (the recognized term for FULL-AUTO carbines), but are using the same one-trigger-pull-at-a-time technology which has been around since the end of the 1800s. The "confusion" between semi-auto rifles and FULL-AUTO rifles has been intentional, abetted by gun-control advocates and MSM; the latter CONTINUES to confuse the terms.

"I don't need anyone to put one in the hands of my elderly mother." Who is doing this? Do you have a source or link? NO ONE is putting anything into your elderly mother's hands; she alone can do that.

California's restrictions on the most popular center-fire rifle in the nation (anything other than a .22 or .17 cal.) are not reasonable, and will be challenged. (Note: probably 17,000,000 people now own semi-automatic carbines, more by several million than who hunt in this country.

Chicago's "gun training" is nothing more than a re-hash of the voter literacy tests used to deny blacks the right to vote in the South, until the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Many colleges have enacted "bans" on guns on campus, but that doesn't seem to have worked well. BTW, Virginia Tech had no such ban until just before Cho's rampage; no one ever accused Cho of being illiterate.

[spin]

22. Chicago's overturned handgun ban. Even you should know something about it ...

as it is a recent very important and controversial ruling by the Supreme Court.

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. ___ (2010), was a landmark<1> decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the issue of gun rights. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit's decision in McDonald v. Chicago and remanded it back to Seventh Circuit to resolve conflicts between certain Chicago gun restrictions and the Second Amendment. The Court of Appeals had upheld a Chicago ordinance banning the possession of handguns as well as other gun regulations affecting rifles and shotguns, citing United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, and Miller v. Texas.<2> The petition for certiorari was filed by Alan Gura, the attorney who had successfully argued Heller, and Chicago-area attorney David G. Sigale.<3> The Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association sponsored the litigation on behalf of several Chicago residents, including retiree Otis McDonald.<4>

***snip***

Regulations challenged

The NRA case is focused on the fact that Chicago's gun registration laws do not allow the registration of handguns. It should be noted that in the District of Columbia v. Heller, "The Court also recognized a distinction between weapons "in common use at the time" and weapons that were considered dangerous and unusual..."<14>

McDonald challenges four broad aspects of Chicago's gun registration law, which, according to the plaintiffs:<15>

* Prohibit the registration of handguns, thus effecting a broad handgun ban
* Require that guns be registered prior to their acquisition by Chicago residents, which is not always feasible
* Mandate that guns be re-registered annually, with another payment of the fee
* Render any gun permanently non-registrable if its registration lapses emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

Handguns are considered by many to be the best choice of a firearm for self defense. Rifles are often too powerful for use in an urban neighborhood because their rounds can easily penetrate walls and endanger neighbors. Shotguns are very effective, but their length often inhibits handling in a cramped environment such as a home. A handgun in the hands of an experienced shooter can be the best compromise.

[pnwmom]

25. The ban was overturned. There IS no such ban in effect.

And since the SCOTUS overturned Chicago's law, other municipalities have already been put on notice that they can't make such laws.

On the other hand, Chicago did not prohibit the ownership of all guns kept inside the home. They did put restrictions on them which the SCOTUS said went too far.

[X_Digger]

27. So if only _some_ religions are banned, it's okay? Some books? n/t

[pnwmom]

37. I don't think those are appropriate analogies.

I think the question is where to draw the line between between various type of guns and other explosive devices. Pistols used for defense, rifles used for defense and hunting, fine. But I don't think everyone should have access to assault weapons or other explosive devises used offensively.

[X_Digger]

50. Maybe I misunderstood your argument..

"On the other hand, Chicago did not prohibit the ownership of all guns kept inside the home."

I still think my analogy holds, because the core argument you seem to be making is that since the right isn't completely infringed, it's okay.

If the government said you could only send one letter to your congressperson per month, that wouldn't be total infringement. If they said you could only attend two church services a month, that wouldn't be total infringement.

That's not how infringements to fundamental rights are judged (see 'strict scrutiny' and 'judicial review').

But I don't think everyone should have access to assault weapons or other explosive devises used offensively.

I can't tell if you don't know the ratio of various types of guns used in crime, or you're fudging.

A majority of guns used in crimes are handguns, mainly because they're concealable. They're also the gun most often used in home- defense, mainly because they can be used in the confines of one's home easier than a long gun. They're also most often used in self-defense outside the home, due to concealability.

All rifles, including 'assault weapons', are used infrequently in crime, and represent less than 3% of the guns used in homicides.

'Assault weapons' are also typically less powerful than the hunting weapons you seem okay with. With proper ammunition, they make a great home defense gun (less likely to go through multiple walls than a hunting rifle). They're typically shorter and lighter than your average hunting rifle, which makes them easier to use in a hallway of a confined space where you might find yourself in a home invasion.

[pnwmom]

53. Part of the reason assault weapons are involved in fewer homicides

is that they are more strictly regulated. For example, federal laws prevent them from being sold to or owned by substance abusers.

Maybe the "fair" solution is to regulate all guns in the same way as assault weapons.

[pipoman]

61. There is no federal distinction between

"assault weapons" and any other long gun. There are some states which make distinction between cosmetic appearances..CA being one of them. The point being made is that an AR15 which by anyone who believes there is a definition of "assault weapon", would fall into the "assault weapon"definition, and my 3rd generation 1945 Remington deer rifle function almost identically. The difference being that the deer rifle is much more powerful, the rate of fire is the same. Federal laws prohibit purchase of ALL firearms by substance abusers.

So in short, ALL guns are regulated in the same way (federally) as "assault weapons".

[pnwmom]

83. You're right. There was such a distinction, until the ban on assault weapons

expired. I didn't realize that had happened. Too bad.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/msassaultweapons

POSITION: The Brady Campaign supports banning military-style semi-automatic assault weapons along with high-capacity ammunition magazines. These dangerous weapons have no sporting or civilian use. Their combat features are appropriate to military, not civilian, contexts.

PROBLEM: The federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in the fall of 2004.

THE THREAT: Allowing easy access to highly lethal, military-style weapons by dangerous people, like terrorists and felons, threatens the safety of our police officers, families and communities.

URGENCY: Since the ban expired, police chiefs across the country report increases in assault weapons used in crime and used against them.

SOLUTION: Congress must pass strong, effective legislation to ban all military-style semi-automatic assault weapons along with high capacity ammunition magazines. In the short-term, more states must pass their own laws to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

[X_Digger]

85. Quoting Brady is like quoting the bible in a scientific discussion.

The FBI's Uniform Crime Report doesn't show a change in the percentages.

I'll trust the FBI over some Brady press report quoting unnamed 'police chiefs'.

[Pavulon]

86. Using them for a source is like using stormfront for information on Jewish Faith

you may get a bit of bias. Just a hint..

Expired: Worthless. Political Capital expended

Result: Newt gained control of the house. Source: Bill Clinton (called it a huge error)

Problem: NONE. It was an "answer" without a real problem. Hoisted by the ignorant fooling the uninformed.

The Threat: Allowing access to semi automatic rifles based on 100 year old technology.

The LIE: Because "they" want you to think Felons can legally buy rifles (they cant), these are military weapons (they arent), and they have some magical powers (they dont)

There is a DECLINE in overall crime and use of rifles (even scary ones) in crime.

SOLUTION: Two supreme court cases cast these people in the same light as those who picket womens clinics. The law of the land is clear. Dont like it change it.

COMING SOON: National Concealed Carry rules. If I qualify here, I qualify in Chicago, NYC, or Baltimore (without having to pay a bribe).

[pipoman]

89. This actually worked back in the late 1980's and 1990's

These dangerous weapons have no sporting or civilian use.

This is so completely erroneous it really is laughable. These guns labeled by the Bradys as "assault weapons" are, in fact, called "sporting rifles" because more people shoot them competitively every single weekend year round than any other style of rifle on the market bar none...we are talking in the millions of people shoot these guns competitively. They are low to medium powered rifles. The Bradys have made people who believe their silliness look foolish.

[X_Digger]

65. You are mistaken.

"Assault weapons" are as "regulated" as any other firearm except in a few states like CA. Every time you purchase a gun (any gun) from a federally licensed dealer, an instant background check is performed*.





*In some states having a concealed carry permit is considered an alternative to the NICS check.

[PavePusher]

78. Ummm, except that they weren't commonly used before the "bans" or "restrictions" either.

So that is not a really supportive argument.

[Pavulon]

80. No its because they cant be concealed. More people are knifed to death than ak'ed

to death. You cant conceal an ak variant in your pocket..

[krispos42]

99. Well, some states create a catagory of "assault weapon" and then regulate them...

...but on a federal level there is no difference between a single-shot .22 rimfire and a magazine-fed semi-automatic rifle of military appearance.


The reason that "assault weapons" are involved in few homicides is that they were never that involved homicides to begin with. Oh, sure, there were a few high-profile incidents. And of course, their portrayals in movies and such, where all the bad guys seem to have armor-piercing bullets oozing out of their pores and full-auto AK-47s in every pocket in their jeans.

But something on the order of 85% of people murdered with a gun were killed with a handgun, about 11% with a shotgun, and the balance with rifles (of which an "assault weapon" like a AK-47 or AR-15 lookalike is a subset).


Semi-automatic rifles are difficult to conceal and can't readily be cut down to fit. You can hacksaw the barrel of a shotgun so it's only 8", but you can't do that with an AR or AK and still have a semi-automatic gun.


Besides, the number we want to change is "annual homicide", not "annual homicide via semiautomatic rifles of military appearance".

[oneshooter]

101. You are right on the shotty,

but if you "hacksaw the barrel of a shotgun so it's only 8", but you can't do that with an AR or AK and still have a semi-automatic gun." You do not have a semi-automatic rifle. A barrel that short will have no gas system left to operate the bolt. All you will have is a manually operated rifle with no front sight and a hell of a muzzle flash!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[backwoodsbob]

118. that's a lie

Show me the law that says assault weapons and ONLY assault weapons cannot be owned by substance abusers

[PavePusher]

77. Your so-called "assault weapons" are uniquely suitable as defensive weapons.

I'd be happy to explain the technical reasons why, if you are interested.

[SteveM]

115. You are playing dodge ball with "assault weapons...."

Again: So-called "assault weapons" are semi-automatic look-a-likes of true FULL-AUTO "assault rifles" (the actual term recognized by firearms experts and armorers).

I have a Winchester "ought-three" semi-automatic carbine in .22 WAR caliber. It was made in 1905. Do you want to ban this rifle as well?

I am curious: how do you determine when a device is "used offensively" as opposed to other uses? Who would determine this?

[oneshooter]

116. What does this mean?

"But I don't think everyone should have access to assault weapons or other explosive devises used offensively."

Explosive Devices?
Those are another item entirely!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Hoopla Phil]

29. How would you feel a similar "reasonable" procedure were put into place to get an abortion?

Think that would pass a constitutional muster?

[pnwmom]

38. There's already a line drawn. Abortions may be restricted

after the fetus is viable.

[Hoopla Phil]

43. You didn't answer the question. How would you feel

if similar "reasonable" procedures were put into place to get an abortion as are in place in Chicago to get a gun? That would include getting a license that requires training. But, that training is barred from being taught inside the city - you have to go elsewhere to get it.

[pnwmom]

55. The situations aren't comparable. One if the case of a woman

having a procedure done to her OWN body.

The other involves people buying guns that too often are used to shoot into other people's bodies.

[spin]

32. But instead of a ban, Chicago has sought to create regulations ...

that imposed hurdles so tall that the average citizen will find them insurmountable. So we still have a de facto ban of handguns in Chicago.

Also among the banned handguns in California are several that I can legally own in Florida.

For example the Taurus Judge:

A Special Note on the Taurus Judge

Taurus, USA sells a revolver called the Judge.

The Penal Code at 12020 says

(c) (1) As used in this section, a "short-barreled shotgun"
means any of the following:
(A) A firearm which is designed or redesigned to fire a fixed
shotgun shell and having a barrel or barrels of less than 18
inches in length.

This definition applies to the Judge, with its three inch barrel.

12020. (a) Any person in this state who does any of the
following is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not
exceeding one year or in the state prison:
(1) Manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into
the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or
who gives,lends, or possesses ... any short-barreled shotgun,
...

This is not an issue with the Roster. Until Penal Code 12020 is amended, the Taurus Judge is illegal in California.
http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/index.php/The_Safe_Handgun_List

MODEL 4510 .45/.410 (3" CHAMBER) MATTE STAINLESS REVOLVER

[pnwmom]

39. If you're primarily interested in defending yourself,

you don't need to own every type of weapon in existence. All that proverbial burglar needs to see is the one in your hand -- he's probably already out the door.

Municipalities and states have always had variations in their laws. That's nothing new.

[spin]

47. The Taurus Judge is what many consider a very good self defense weapon ...

Taurus Judge perfect for self-defense

The Taurus Judge is well-named. It will shoot a variety of .45 Colt and .410 shotgun rounds, including small shot, buckshot and slugs.

***snip***

Finally, there may be an answer to the perfect house gun.

Taurus Firearms has designed it in the form of their “Judge.” Never was a gun more aptly named.

Chambered for .45 Colt (formerly known as .45 Long Colt, the old Colt Peacemaker round) and .410 shotshells, this astounding piece of equipment can send five shots of .45 Colt, No. 4 or 6 shot, slugs or my personal preference, 000 buckshot, whistling down range in less than two seconds.

http://www.northcarolinasportsman.com/details.php?id=577

[X_Digger]

51. And who's the Secretary of Need?

Are you volunteering for the position as the head of the Department of Need, determining which civil rights can be justified by which citizens? :)

[pnwmom]

54. People in California are free to contact their representatives

with their concerns. If the banned weapons are no more in need of regulation than any other firearms, then they can provide evidence of that to the State. In the meantime, there are plenty of other firearms that have not been banned. Almost anyone who wants an arsenal can still have one.

[Callisto32]

64. So why worry about banning specific firearms?

Especially since many bans specifically exempt and specifically allow weapons that are functional equivalents.

Take ye olde federal AWB

BANNED!:

NOT BANNED:

Both of these rifles are .223 Remington/5.56x45 (not sure if the mini 14 is 5.56, but the difference between the cartridges is internal pressure, a .223 will chamber a 5.56x45, but pressures may be dangerously high for the length of a the throat of a .223 chamber) gas-operated semi-automatic firearms. Both have similarly sized magazines, and fire one shot with each pull of the trigger.

Why ban one, and not the other?

[spin]

79. It's obvious. One rifle is bad. One is good ...

The "good" rifle has a wood stock and looks pretty. The bad rifle has, God forbid, a pistol grip. It also looks like those evil weapons the military uses.

To people who have no knowledge of firearms the ban seems reasonable.

[pnwmom]

84. From the Brady Campaign:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/msassaultweapons

POSITION: The Brady Campaign supports banning military-style semi-automatic assault weapons along with high-capacity ammunition magazines. These dangerous weapons have no sporting or civilian use. Their combat features are appropriate to military, not civilian, contexts.

PROBLEM: The federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in the fall of 2004.

THE THREAT: Allowing easy access to highly lethal, military-style weapons by dangerous people, like terrorists and felons, threatens the safety of our police officers, families and communities.

URGENCY: Since the ban expired, police chiefs across the country report increases in assault weapons used in crime and used against them.

SOLUTION: Congress must pass strong, effective legislation to ban all military-style semi-automatic assault weapons along with high capacity ammunition magazines. In the short-term, more states must pass their own laws to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

[Pavulon]

87. Dont copy and paste.. Its not nice..

you should actually analyze and defend what you are writing..

[pnwmom]

90. Are you the etiquette police? n/t

[Pavulon]

94. No but I back up what I post. Anything short is weak...(nt)

[X_Digger]

88. Yet you didn't address the question.

What makes the top rifle 'ebil' and the bottom one A-OK?

If you don't know the difference, and can't be bothered to learn them, why should anyone listen to you (or the Brady bunch) on this issue?

[pnwmom]

91. On this issue, I trust the Brady Campaign more than I trust some random

guy on DU.

[X_Digger]

92. Do your own research, PLEASE!

Don't trust me? Have at it. I can point you to some books detailing the characteristics of both.

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-AR-15-M16-Sourcebook-Shooter/dp/0873646878

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Mini-14

If you're going on blind faith, however, say so- I'd rather deal with an ignorant (lacking knowledge) person than one who refuses to educate themselves.

[friendly_iconoclast]

97. WHAT!?!?. Do research instead of trusting an authority figure?

That's just great----Next you'll be telling us is that sometimes 'authorities' fudge the truth to push their own agendas....

[X_Digger]

100. One step at a time, grasshoppa..

I once had an English comp / debate teacher who had the annoying habit of always asking, "why?" or "who says?". She was an aging hippie who instilled a distrust of authority in a lot of her students. I should say, rather, that she ripped away a blind trust for authority. If nothing else, she taught me to peel back the first few layers of assumptions, to see if they look credible.

Brady's assumptions are tissue paper thin and easily destroyed.

These dangerous weapons have no sporting or civilian use. Their combat features are appropriate to military, not civilian, contexts.

Breaking that down..

These dangerous weapons..

All weapons are dangerous. They'd be poor weapons if they weren't. However, it's Brady's assertion that they are more dangerous than non-"assault weapon" firearms.

Let's examine that. What are the characteristics that make one firearm more dangerous than another? Let's compare to the Mini that Brady has no problem with, per se:

*caliber

The AR-15 uses the same caliber as the Mini. Draw.

*rate of fire

Both rifles are semi-automatic, which means they fire as fast as one can pull the trigger. Draw.

Both accept detachable magazines of similar sizes, and changing magazines on both require about the same amount of time. Draw.

So, first assertion / assumption knocked down. We could call the rest of it crap and be done, but for the heck of it, let's keep going..

...have no sporting or civilian use.

What are 'sporting or civilian uses'? Hunting? Target shooting? Competitions? Home defense? Pest control (on a ranch / farm, most commonly.)

Both rifles are well suited to hunting small game. The AR-15 can accept a variety of optics, making it more versatile for hunters who may hunt in diverse areas. There are a ton of accessories that fit rails. On the Mini, you have to have one already fitted with rails, or purchase different furniture and put the action into it. Many (most?) AR-15's now come with a railed forend. Advantage AR-15.

For target shooting, pest control, and competitions, the AR-15 is a more accurate gun by design. In order to achieve anything approaching that accuracy in a Mini, you have to throw wads and wads of cash at it. Advantage AR-15.

Home defense with appropriate ammo is almost even, with a slight edge to the AR-15 because of the likely addition of rails, decreased weight, and the possibility of a collapsible stock. Again, rails allow the addition of things like lights and optics suited for close range work. A collapsible stock allows more movement in a closed environment. Lighter weight allows quicker movement, and faster target acquisition.

The reality is, there are many 'sporting or civilian uses' for an AR-15. Assertion destroyed.

...Their combat features are appropriate to military, not civilian, contexts.

What 'combat features' does the Brady bunch mean? Collapsible stocks? Lighter weight? Modern materials and finishes? Or are they talking about a bayonet mount, barrel shroud, and muzzle brake?

* Collapsible stocks make the same gun more efficient for a larger number of persons, with varying arm length, or layers of clothing. A gun better fitted to the shooter will be more accurate. That is an advantage appropriate to civilian contexts.

* A lighter weight gun is good for any context. Whether you're lugging it up a mountain, or carrying it to the range, there is no 'military only context' to a lighter weight weapon.

* Modern materials and finishes provide a more reliable gun, less prone to wear and tear. Nothing particularly 'military context' about that.

* How about a bayonet mount? Pretty useless with a bayonet for civilian contexts, but for those AR-15s without rails, a bayonet mount makes the perfect place to mount a light or laser sighting device.

* Barrel shrouds are a safety feature, regardless of context. They keep a potentially hot barrel from touching clothing that could melt, flesh that could burn, or dry brush that might smolder.

* Muzzle brakes can serve a variety of functions. By redirecting expanding combustion gases, they can 'compensate' for recoil, reduce the 'flash' of a shot, and keep surrounding dust and grit from forming a cloud in front of the firearm. In hunting, this leads to quicker follow-up shots, which means fewer wounded animals getting away to suffer and possibly die elsewhere. In home-defense, reducing the seen flash can avoid temporary blindness in a house at night.

That was only a light fisking of the 'POSITION' portion of Brady's statement quoted above. Given the ease with which anyone with a modicum of firearm knowledge could do that, you have to.. wait for it.. question the agenda of the Brady bunch in making such statements. :)

[PavePusher]

93. Can you link to any hard evidence....

that supports the Brady website?

Something with numbers, statistics, research and actual data?


And you still haven't addressed the question presented to you...

[Pavulon]

95. Jim Jones bags one more..

refusal to think independently is the downfall of independent thought.

[friendly_iconoclast]

98. Sadly, even factual information isn't enough sometimes:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/


....Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It’s this: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger.

This bodes ill for a democracy, because most voters — the people making decisions about how the country runs — aren’t blank slates. They already have beliefs, and a set of facts lodged in their minds. The problem is that sometimes the things they think they know are objectively, provably false. And in the presence of the correct information, such people react very, very differently than the merely uninformed. Instead of changing their minds to reflect the correct information, they can entrench themselves even deeper.

“The general idea is that it’s absolutely threatening to admit you’re wrong,” says political scientist Brendan Nyhan, the lead researcher on the Michigan study. The phenomenon — known as “backfire” — is “a natural defense mechanism to avoid that cognitive dissonance.”....

[oneshooter]

96. Why? n/t

[Callisto32]

103. Well, Ta-fuckin'-da.

AR:
http://www.bushmaster.com/anatomy_bushmaster.asp

Mini (this animation is for an m1 Garand but they are very similar):
http://www.garandflash.com/feeding.html





Maybe you can at least be bothered to click the links and see how they work....or is that too much work?

P.S. How about some random guy on DU that has forgotten more about firearms engineering, function, and manufacture that the Brady Group has collectively ever known?

[SteveM]

117. Brady Campaign: GOP-founded, GOP-led.

[Callisto32]

102. Uhhhh.

That wasn't an answer, like, at all.

Why, I ask, bother with a ban that specifically (BY NAME) exempts one weapon, and bans another when they are functionally identical. I could put a Mini-14 into a scary stock.

[Glassunion]

104. "Why ban one, and not the other?" ooh... ooh... *raises hand* Mr. Callisto, I know, I know...

It has that shrowdee thingee, And that deadly gripee thingee, and it's black...

[Callisto32]

106. Yet again...

a simple, sarcastic post manages to convey more reality than the entirety of the Brady Bunch's gibbering.

[gravity556]

105. Actually,

The pictured AR is AWB compliant. No flash hider (looks to be a pinned compensator), which, by the way, is not "designed to make the shooter harder to see" but rather designed so as not to blind the shooter in low light. Trust me-shooting an AR at night still produces a pretty respectable muzzle flash. It's also lacking a collapsable stock, which was purportedly banned to keep people from stuffing a 28 inch rifle down their pants, but in reality just meant that it was a bitch for short people and women to adjust the rifle to be more comfortable for them. And there's also no evil bayonette lug. Because pre 94, the propensity for gang members to drive up and bayonette innocent people was absolutely widespread and apalling.

There's an 870 on my wife's side of the bed (marine magnum, with light-very important to see a threat), and an AR on my side of the bed. Why, you ask? Because here in the Phoenix area, home invasions have become frighteningly common. And while the majority of it is coyotes torturing and killing each other over who's gonna get paid for this load of illegals, my confidence that they will always kick in the "right" door is pretty low. Though it may only take the police a few minutes to come and save my bacon, I'd much rather not spend that 10 or 15 minutes being bound, gagged and beaten by a human smuggler who couldn't figure out mapquest. And don't laugh, because even the police hit the wrong house, and they're "trained professionals".

Now if you want to talk about "high powered rifles" (term always cracks me up-show me a "low powered rifle"), then it's hunting rifles you want to talk about. While the media likes to play up the "armor piercing" bit, the truth is, pretty much any rifle will penetrate a cop's vest. Even the puny .17 HMR (that's a bullet the same diameter as the BB gun you may have had as a kid) will punch right through. That's why body armor is referred to as "bullet resistant". A vest and plate carrier with plates is another story-they're used in combat zones and by swat teams, but in general, by the definition of the Brady Bunch, your great-grandfather's .30-30 is a high powered, armor piercing sniper rifle.

They also love to wail and gnash their teeth about evil .50 cal rifles capable of bringing down satellites from low earth orbit. Here's the deal-a .50 BMG rifle, on the cheap end, is a bit under 2 grand. The Barrett M107 runs closer to 10. That's right, the rifle favored by jackasses in video games, the dreaded (and purportedly easily acquired and favored by gangs) costs nearly the same as a car. And that's before you put a scope on it-figure another 3 grand for glass that can take that kind of violent recoil. Speaking of recoil, it's not all that bad-bit like shooting a 12 gauge slug. While the recoil isn't bad, the muzzle blast is tremendous. As in knocking stuff off of tables next to you at the range, tremendous. There are some risks for the shooter as well-including detached retinas. Shooting a .50 gives me a runny nose. And figure 3 bucks a round or so for ammunition.

[Callisto32]

107. While the specific rifle may be compliant, my point was that they banned one rifle with certain...

features, but specifically exempted a functional equivalent.

I just got sick of searching through pictures of AR-15's

[Callisto32]

108. Also.

Pretty sure that's a Phantom flash hider, and that gun was probably built after the AWB expired.

[X_Digger]

66. If it were rational, there would be no 'ban'.

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/research/aw_final2004.pdf

^ A report on the 'effectiveness' of the 'assault weapons ban'- (hint, it didn't really do anything.)


http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_11.html

Twice as many people were killed with fists and feet as were killed with all rifles.

[shadowrider]

67. Ban fists and feet n/t

[proteus_lives]

70. Go to Britain.

They're on their way to that level of silliness.

[backwoodsbob]

119. if you're primarily interested in free speech...

you don't NEED to argue freedom of speech.You just need to know we won't ban ALL free speech and all will be well.

[shadowrider]

59. I have a Judge as my home defense weapon. n/t

[spin]

74. I've considered buying one ...

The first one I ever seen was owned by a doctor and used as a defense gun in his car.

He said that if he was ever the victim of a car jacking, he could use the 410 shotshells to stop the attacker without having to worry about where the rounds went if he missed.

[PavePusher]

76. The de jure ban was overturned.

The de facto ban is still very much in effect.

As I'm sure you very well know.

Here's a thing about healthy, honest debate: Being disingenuous, or outright playing the fool, does not bolster your credibility. Quite the contrary, actually.

[SteveM]

113. Just Google up Heller and McDonald decisions. A simple start. nt

[TheWraith]

57. What city or state bans guns in the home?

Chicago. Washington DC. New York City. Los Angeles. Just off the top of my head. Two of those were taken to court where they spent millions of their taxpayers' dollars trying to defend their right to make sure no one was allowed to keep a functional gun in their home.

[iamjoy]

8. Because I'm Better Than They Are

I don't want a gun. Yes, it occurs to me that some one could break into my house and harm me. But if some one did invade my home, I would hesitate. I would wonder if they just wanted my stuff or wanted to hurt me. And even if they hadn't originally intended to hurt me, they would take advantage of my hesitation and defend themselves - using my own weapon (and compassion) against me.

You see, to me, nothing I have is worth dying for or killing for.

I recognize the risk in this, that there are people out there who would kill for stuff. I'm not one of them.

Of course, I have considered a less lethal weapon such as pepper spray or taser. The former aim for the face, the latter - the gonads. :evilgrin:

[Hoopla Phil]

11. You are welcome to your views and beliefs. But would you foist those upon

someone else? It is a matter of choice to me. I do not insist that you be armed, why would someone insist that I, a lawful person, be unarmed?

[iamjoy]

13. No, It's Tough Though

I really don't like guns. I think they are more likely to be used to harm an innocent than in self defense. Or they are used to solve a problem that could be solved in other (less harmful ways).

Don't assume every one wants a gun and would know how to handle it. Don't assume if everyone did have a gun it would solve all our crime problems. Many gun advocates look at mass shootings and seem to think that if one of the victims had a gun, it could have been prevented. That's nonsense. We had a shooting on an army base and I would presume there are a lot of armed folks there.

I also think the Second Amendment has horrible grammar, which makes it ambiguous.

But when it comes to a question about freedom and rights, I think it is better to err on the side of allowing greater liberty. Sometimes that's going to make our society less secure. Of course, I'm not just talking about guns here.

[Hoopla Phil]

14. You have some misplaced assumption.

"I think they are more likely to be used to harm an innocent than in self defense."
The facts and statistics do not bear out what you "think". See Gary Klecks book on the subject - it is thoroughly peer reviewed.

"Don't assume every one wants a gun and would know how to handle it."
I do not. I just do not want people that don't want guns to try and keep me from having them.

"Don't assume if everyone did have a gun it would solve all our crime problems."
Again, I do not. But you would be very surprised at the facts on how many lives are saved through the proper use of firearms. Again, check out Kleck's book.

"Many gun advocates look at mass shootings and seem to think that if one of the victims had a gun, it could have been prevented. That's nonsense."
Your supposition is nonsense. There is a separate thread in the gun forum on just this subject. Please look at this with an open mind because a number of mass shootings have been stopped by citizens with guns.

"We had a shooting on an army base and I would presume there are a lot of armed folks there. "
Again, you presume wrong. Only the MP's on military bases can legally have firearms on their person. No CHL is allowed, even for those licensed to do so. This incident is only another example of how "Gun Free Zones" are nothing but "Free Fire Zones" for the criminals looking for easy victims.

"I also think the Second Amendment has horrible grammar, which makes it ambiguous."
This is an issue that has been hashed out many time to near infinity. The 2A is properly worded in the vernacular of the time. If you are unclear of it's meaning look at the Federalist Papers. Heller is also a good source with it's notations on the issue.

"But when it comes to a question about freedom and rights, I think it is better to err on the side of allowing greater liberty."
I agree completely. SCOTUS often rules in favor of liberty - even to the endangerment of society as a whole. I also am not talking about guns. Can you imagine how much safer, and how many more "criminal" we would have in jail if not for "Miranda" or the "exclusionary rule"?

[cleanhippie]

73. "I think they are more likely to be used to harm an innocent than in self defense"

If it can be shown to you, with hard data and evidence, that what you "think" (I think they are more likely to be used to harm an innocent than in self defense) is totally wrong, will that change your mind?

The point is, that you and many others "think" they know something (like your statement "I think they are more likely to be used to harm an innocent than in self defense") when in fact, they are totally wrong.

Read through the threads here in the gungeon and you will see links to the FBI, the DOJ, and other sources where hard data and evidence of how guns are used. Then, using that hard data and evidence, you can make an informed opinion on this subject.

[shadowrider]

12. Trying to aim for the 'nads on a moving target would be near impossible n/t

[Glassunion]

34. It is completly impossible with me...

Very small nads. That's why I own guns and drive a BMW. Couldn't hit my nads if I was standing still and you were a foot away.

Did I just say all that out loud?

[shadowrider]

60. -- snort --

[spin]

23. So your life is not worth anything?

Some home invaders murder people for shear kicks and grins.

Personally if you don't like firearms, that's fine with me. Pepper spray can be effective but in an enclosed environment like a home, it may incapacitate both you and the intruder. A taser may be a good choice and a quick check shows they are legal to own in the U.S. They are not cheap.

Chances are that you will never need any of these deterrents, especially if you burglar proof your home.

[iamjoy]

35. Of Course It Is

You miss the point, I have no way of knowing if that person in my house just wants my stuff or to hurt me. That uncertainty will lead me to hesitate. If I knew for sure they meant to hurt me, I could kill in self defense. But I don't think I could know for sure until it was too late.

[oneshooter]

36. Then you must, for your own safety, assume that he/she intends to harm you. n/t

[spin]

46. Your answer is confusing ...

Before you buy a gun for self defense, you need to ask yourself, "Can I use this weapon to injure or perhaps kill a person in order to stop a serious attack with the object of seriously hurting me or killing me?"

You have to be able to answer "Yes", without pause.

However, you do admit that you could kill in self defense if you knew for sure that the person meant to hurt you. If you find someone in your house while you are home, you can make a logical conclusion with a very high level of probability that the individual is dangerous.

Of course, if you encounter someone in your house you are under no obligation to shoot them. Perhaps they will turn and run out of your house because they noticed you were armed. That frequently happens. Perhaps they will just decide to follow your orders and you can hold them until the police arrive.

But if they do attack you and you shoot them, that doesn't mean instant death. Much depends on the weapon you are using. A twelve gauge shotgun loaded with 00 buck is a very lethal combination and a solid hit will probably kill your attacker. A handgun is much more dependent on shot placement and caliber and may only wound an attacker. It is possible that you could shoot your target several times and he could still continue his attack. Of course, the object is to STOP the attack, not kill the attacker.

Perhaps the best choice for most people is to have an adequate alarm system in their house to detect an intruder, a cell phone to contact the police from their bedroom and a reinforced solid core door with a good lock on the bedroom. If an intruder breaks into their home, the people can wait in their bedroom behind their bed perhaps with a 12 gauge shotgun pointed at the door. if the intruder tries to enter the room they can let him know the room is occupied and the police are on their way. If he continues to break down the door and makes entry to the bedroom, it's very obvious that he intends to harm the people inside. There is still time to make sure that the intruder isn't a family member or drunken neighbor before shooting.

But you can go with the odds and avoid owning a firearm. That is and should be your choice. I see nothing wrong with such a decision. Pro-RKBA posters often get accused of wanting everybody to own a firearm. That is totally false.

[proteus_lives]

31. "You see, to me, nothing I have is worth dying for or killing for."

What about your family?

[Pavulon]

82. My assumption is if they are still there after the 2 dogs and alarm system

they are not there to steal or for a spot of tea.

You could do what I did when I caught a guy climbing in my apartment window 15 years ago. dog was barking (old bastard is still alive) and this guy is climbing in. Put a light in his face (2 am ish) and had a gun on him and mumbled "what the hell are you doing". He climbed right back out. Called the police and they said they would take a report. They showed up at 9.30 in the morning..

I did not shoot him although I could have legally, but I retained the choice and control. Even being fresh out of boot I had zero motivation to toe up and fight some guy climbing in the window my dumbass room mate left unlocked.

[Skip Intro]

20. It's pretty simple - don't break into my house, don't get shot.

Nothing wrong with guns for self-defense. I can't believe I still don't have one. Hope to remedy that problem before the year is out.

[Katya Mullethov]

69. Mashed up their skulls like pinatas on the odd chance a prize would fall out

I wonder if , I wonder if , and always wandering in the wrong direction This would not have happened at all if a different set of serial recidivists had shot them some weeks past .

I wonder if it would have happened at all if this pair of gibbering gibbons were stll in their gibbets from their last wild weekend as I would be willing to wager these aren't their first hanging offenses . These are hanging offenses , an irrevocable "opt-out" The kind of actions that signify to the rest of humanity you willingness to no longer exist among them .

Fortunately for them (juvies) and those that feed on them, their rap sheets , names and escapades are all top secret stuff . AFter all , Ward , theyre just children . I find it most telling and utterly fascinating that to some the important thing to draw from something like this is what important public policy changes are needed , or what restrictions can or cannot be lifted in regards to the victims . What do we do about the victims . Should they be able to do this , what if they had done that ? Totally ignoring the fact that these wastes of skin are the sole reason for the party ,and the prime movers of a machine the likes of which we may never get stopped . They didnt graduate from unscrewing the tops on the salt shakers just the week before and it's no big risk to venture they have should have been cooling their heels long ago .