2008 Election Firearms Discussion

[suchuwato]

At?

 

At reducing gun crime. It's Illegal to carry anything that looks like a gun in public, as it can be used in crime just as effectively as a real gun.

[Verran]

I agree with most of what you just said Verran.

 

But I take exception to things like the so called "assault weapons ban." As I said earlier, it bans ordinary semi-automatic firearms based solely on appearance. Since the 1994 ban expired many of those firearms have become popular hunting/varmint guns. Because those firearms function in a manner identical to a typical "hunting" rifle, I have to ask, what is the true motivation behind the ban? Because it certainly isn't about the rate of fire capabilities of said firearms. Why has Obama stated that he supports such a ban? The old ban didn't reduce crime, and there was no bloodbath when it expired.

 

I also take exception to the proposed ammo tax (lasted I heard it was a 500% excise). What is the motivation of this tax? As far as I can tell, a tax that high can only be intended to limit access to ammo. What if you had to pay a "speech tax" before you could post a blog? Yes, I know Obama has no published position on this one, but it's one of those things that would be rubber stamped by him IMO.

These are much fairer points. I don't know much about the ammo one, so I don't have much of a response there. The assault weapons ban, though, I just don't see as that big of a deal. You said yourself that there are other weapons that function in an identical manner, so to me this would be a relatively small point to concede, assuming it even comes up.

 

I do understand that it's a ban that doesn't do much good, but I hope you can understand the implications of voting "pro-assualt-weapons". I also see how saying that classifying a weapon by its looks is bad can work, but when I look at that statement more deeply, I don't really see why that's such a bad thing.

 

Exactly Phil. When I see guns being banned because of how they look, I can't help but wonder what the true goal is.

I see this like the Ayers statements in the election. It places some vague doubt about some aspect of the person which then allows you to imply claims that you would never actually voice out loud in hopes that the readers mind will follow the cookie crumbs to your conclusion.

 

I find the term "arms" in the constitution to mean firearms.

 

So in my opinion that would mean that "a nukular weppin" or any type of X class explosive whilst considered a weapon (a word of which the 2nd amendment doesn't even mention) would not fall under the 2nd amendment.

Fair enough. I thought the nuclear weapon thing was an obvious exaggeration to make the point. But do you disagree with stopping felons from owning firearms? I notice you didn't respond to that point.

 

I agree that it is only a restriction but it still revokes my ability to us a weapon I desire.

Since when is it about your "desires"? Maybe that's blunt, but I just don't see how "your desires" add any weight to the point.

 

Do you know what else?

 

Vermont (last time I looked at data) has the 49th lowest crime rate and the 47th lowest murder rate among the 50 states, yet it allows any type of firearm (there are always exceptions) to be within your possession at any moment. (barring of course the previous examples)

To paraphrase Lisa Simpson: How do we know that this rock doesn't keep tigers at bay? You don't see any tigers around, do you?

 

Stating that first piece before the second in the same sentence does not in some way mean that it is the cause of the other. There's a LOT more to that equation.

[iKillSteal]

Why haven't all 610,000 Vermont citizens murdered each other?

 

Why aren't all 9249 square miles of Vermont a wasteland full of murder, rape, and pillage?

 

In essence why isn't Vermont like the wild west?

Because the "Wild West" was colossal and given the resources the country had back in the day, enforcing laws over such a large area was borderline impossible?

 

You're taking your point to an extreme that no longer makes sense(But would make an excellent setting for a Fallout game ). Owning a weapon doesn't mean you're going to kill someone, as you are implying although I assume sarcastically. Plus life in Vermont is, by and large, pretty nice. Average income hovers around 50k a year so it's not like the people are strapped for cash. Plus Vermont is cold. I dunno about you but the last thing that I would think about when it's cold outside is murdering, raping, and pillaging. Oh and Vermont has a lot of craft breweries.

[94Camaro]

Thanks for the split Verran

 

These are much fairer points. I don't know much about the ammo one, so I don't have much of a response there.

Fair enough

The assault weapons ban, though, I just don't see as that big of a deal. You said yourself that there are other weapons that function in an identical manner, so to me this would be a relatively small point to concede, assuming it even comes up.

I don't believe I should concede to the banning of some firearms based on appearance, simply because there are others that function the same. Isn't that kind of like saying, "well we already have enough books of bedtime stories, so it is now illegal to write any more" or "there are other people blogging about that topic, so you'll have to choose something else." Why should I be prevented from having a collapsable stock on my "hunting rifle" just for the sake of pacifying someone else?

 

Plus that starts down the slippery slope of "well this 'assault rifle' and this 'hunting rifle' operate the same, so maybe the 'hunting rifle' should be illegal too."

 

I do understand that it's a ban that doesn't do much good, but I hope you can understand the implications of voting "pro-assualt-weapons". I also see how saying that classifying a weapon by its looks is bad can work, but when I look at that statement more deeply, I don't really see why that's such a bad thing.

Yeah, I do understand the political issues at hand and public perception. That misleading perception was manufactured by the same people who coined the term "assault weapons" in the first place. It's a load of bs. I don't really understand the rest of your statement. Can you rephrase? How classifying a weapon by looks can work for what?

[Andrewr05]

At reducing gun crime. It's Illegal to carry anything that looks like a gun in public, as it can be used in crime just as effectively as a real gun.

Post has been read, comment unavailable...

 

Fair enough. I thought the nuclear weapon thing was an obvious exaggeration to make the point. But do you disagree with stopping felons from owning firearms?

Yes, I forgot about that, there are situations where the use a firearm

is illegal other than the ones I stated.

and I agree with those laws...

 

Since when is it about your "desires"? Maybe that's blunt, but I just don't see how "your desires" add any weight to the point.

That is literally obviously what I wrote (as per your quote) but what I meant was "why should one gun be deemed any more lethal and or any less worthy of owning over any other?"

 

 

Also due to my appalling grammar and spelling it is hard to understand.

I meant:

but it still revokes my ability to use any weapon I desire.

 

Stating that first piece before the second in the same sentence does not in some way mean that it is the cause of the other. There's a LOT more to that equation.

You are correct, it is more of a proof of concept thing.

There are always variables other than the ones stated.

 

 

Because the "Wild West" was colossal and given the resources the country had back in the day, enforcing laws over such a large area was borderline impossible?

How dare you find a flaw in my comparison... :angry2:

 

Owning a weapon doesn't mean you're going to kill someone, as you are implying although I assume sarcastically.

Why would I imply that sarcastically?

 

 

Thanks for the split Verran

likewise

 

 

I don't believe I should concede to the banning of some firearms based on appearance, simply because there are others that function the same.

AGREED

My car looks fast, I'm now paying insurance as if I owned a sports car.

Just as foolish...

 

Plus that starts down the slippery slope of "well this 'assault rifle' and this 'hunting rifle' operate the same, so maybe the 'hunting rifle' should be illegal too."

AGREED

This handgun hold 7 (not including the often overlooked chambered round) bullets so that is fine to own, however THIS handgun holds 9 so this has the potential of killing more people. BAN!

 

 

Whether or not it has a practical use or not I should be able to own a handgun that holds 10, 100 round, or even 1000.

Edited November 13, 2008 by Andrewr05

[jammin]

That is literally obviously what I wrote (as per your quote) but what I meant was "why should one gun be deemed any more lethal and or any less worthy of owning over any other?"

 

Why should on gun be deemed more lethal than any other?

Because it is something that can be (reasonably) reliably measured.

It's pretty obvious that some guns are more lethal than others.. isn't it?

 

As for worthy of owning?

Worth of ownership will depend greatly on one thing.. the potential owner.

So a lot harder to measure. I suppose you could go down the road of trying to establish how useful a certain gun would to a certain person (or to most people in general). That doesn't seem that far fetched does it?

 

 

Also due to my appalling grammar and spelling it is hard to understand.

I meant:

but it still revokes my ability to use any weapon I desire.

 

You are correct, it is more of a proof of concept thing.

There are always variables other than the ones stated.

 

I'm not sure 'proof of concept' is the right phrase to use here?

[Crazy_Nate]

Hopefully whatever happens in the future will decrease the amount of things like this that happen: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27399337/

 

I heard it on the news, and I was shocked that something like this could happen.

 

I have no problems with guns. I did marksmanship all throughout highschool. I have a problem with people that are not safe with ANY weapon (cars included). Personally, I advocate education, over outright bans...

[Andrewr05]

It's pretty obvious that some guns are more lethal than others.. isn't it?

Potentially

However subjecting things into groups based on lethality implicates that its main usage by the owner will be to kill someone.

 

Given the same skill level of a person a .45 has the potential to be more lethal than .22 caliber firearm.

However a person skilled in the usage of firearms could kill more people with a bolt action .22 in the same time the average unskilled person could kill with a .45 machinegun.

 

and if were going to categorize weapons into groups based on lethality why not do the same with people in general or cars for that matter?

 

After all more people DIE from vehicles a year then people are even INJURED by firearms...

 

I can go buy a Bugatti Veyron which is a street legal car capable of EXCESSIVELY exceeding the speed limit.

That car is almost designed to break the law.

 

Would you have that car banned because it can go faster than a Toyota corolla?

I think not, you see in America we are allowed to buy any car we desire despite its POTENTIAL to abuse the speed limit.

 

Saying that I can not own/or use a .50 caliber handgun or machinegun for the reason that it has the POTENTIAL to be more lethal is incorrect in my opinion.

Edited November 14, 2008 by Andrewr05

[Verran]

@Camaro:

I would have to agree with you for the most part on the AWB. It would seem to me that it was manufactured specifically to prey on people who think the worst when they hear the phrase "assault weapons". Clearly, not many level-headed citizens want those sorts of things around... the only problem is that the title is actually very misleading. I see that. So many people are voting against AK47's and bazookas (or whatever), but are actually banning much simpler weapons like certain shotguns. That's pretty lame.

 

Also admit that having a valid replacement is a poor reason to ban something, just like your examples show. I see the losses from a ban like this being minimal in reality, but the implications are bigger, and I see that as a problem even as a non-gun person. If we're banning something it should be with good reason, but a lot of the weapons banned by this don't seem to have any good reasoning behind them.

 

This is one of those situations where you're not really voting on what you'll be getting, you're voting on what the public THINKS they're getting. And in that light, how can democrats really cast a pro-assault weapon vote? It's a no win. (I certainly don't mean to imply that republicans don't find themselves in equally sticky positions on other topics.)

 

@Andrew:

I guess my point to you along that whole exaggerated nuclear line was that if you agree with even just one of the current restrictions placed on the second amendment, then it's really very manipulative to imply that any other is 'unconstitutional'. I feel like the other side loves to whip out the constitution on this stuff and put the democrats on defense against nullifying it, but that's really not what's happening, and everyone knows it. It just starts the who discussion off on the wrong foot.

 

As for your clarification of the 'desire' statement, I guess I'm very confused. How you get from the first statement to the "clarified" statement seems like a very large jump for me, but I'll respond anyways. I don't really see how you could think that certain guns aren't more lethal or less worthy of owning. Again I'll exaggerate for effect (and also show my lack of specific gun knowledge), but I picture one of those bunker-style machine guns that whip off thousands of rounds a minute or whatever. Again, an exaggeration, but the point is that most people would probably draw the line somewhere.

[fire_storm]

But I take exception to things like the so called "assault weapons ban." As I said earlier, it bans ordinary semi-automatic firearms based solely on appearance. Since the 1994 ban expired many of those firearms have become popular hunting/varmint guns. Because those firearms function in a manner identical to a typical "hunting" rifle, I have to ask, what is the true motivation behind the ban? Because it certainly isn't about the rate of fire capabilities of said firearms. Why has Obama stated that he supports such a ban? The old ban didn't reduce crime, and there was no bloodbath when it expired.

 

I have to agree most of whats in that 1994 act doesn't make sense.

 

However I could see the logic behind why they make collapsible stocks illegal. Collapsible stocks makes the gun smaller so there for its much easier to conceal it in a small bag or under a coat which makes it easier for someone to commit a crime or transport the weapon to commit a crime.

[Andrewr05]

I don't really see how you could think that certain guns aren't more lethal or less worthy of owning.

What makes one worthy enough to own a specific weapon?

 

Again I'll exaggerate for effect (and also show my lack of specific gun knowledge), but I picture one of those bunker-style machine guns that whip off thousands of rounds a minute or whatever. Again, an exaggeration, but the point is that most people would probably draw the line somewhere.

Sure there is no practical use for such a thing, no to mention the ammunition probably isn't all that cheap "per-round" but should I not be able to play around on my own property?

I agree as you put it that we should "draw the line somewhere".

 

Anyways we are going around in circles, as of right now owning any such weapon isn't illegal but you have to go though the Federal Government to obtain a permit/license to posses such a weapon.

 

Collapsible stocks makes the gun smaller so there for its much easier to conceal it in a small bag or under a coat which makes it easier for someone to commit a crime or transport the weapon to commit a crime.

They also make it easier for a law abiding gun owner to store his/her weapon in his closet/cabinet and to transport his/her weapon be it in a vehicle or on their person.

[fire_storm]

They also make it easier for a law abiding gun owner to store his/her weapon in his closet/cabinet and to transport his/her weapon be it in a vehicle or on their person.

 

With gun features you can't assume that people are going to use them honestly because if you put to much trust in people sooner or later something really bad is going to happen.

 

You could make the same argument about silencers or large magazines. You could say Silencers make it easyer to hunt because not a lot of noise is made when the gun fires thus making it easier to kill many animals or silencers are good because then you don't have to wear ear plugs when shooting your gun. You could say that having large magazines are good because then a person doesn't have to reload as much thus making their target practice/hunting a more enjoyable experience.