Thread: Gun Control Debate

There's been a lot of talk going on since the recent school shooting about gun control. And apparently our politicians now want to take aggressive measures to control who has access to what. (As if they didn't already want such control before the event took place.)

On one side, we have the gun control advocates who see every bullet in existence as a potentially dead child, and thus every bullet kept out of the hands of any private party in existence is a victory. Every bullet smaller the legal limit is on magazine capacities is a victory for the children, etc etc.

And then the other side is generally the second amendment side. Our founding fathers wanted us to have weapons. And that's it.

And in response to that, we're seeing a lot of talk about the second amendment being outdated. A bit shocking, but it shouldn't be unexpected, given how little our culture generally knows about the founding of this country. (I don't claim to be an expert either.)

So I have what I think is the proper response to that kind of talk. I've posted it in a couple of other places, and I'll post it here too. It's controversial, but logical. But I titled this thread "Gun Control Debate" because I'm sure everyone's gonna have their own two cents to throw in as well. :P Here's my post. Happy reading, and happy thinking.

---

The original intention of the Founding Fathers was for the citizens to be a threat to the government. To keep the government honest should our politicians decide they want to be our tyrants. Did they only have muskets at the time? Yes. But the government also only had muskets at the time as well.

As our government has gotten more and more dangerous weaponry for our army, they’ve been putting laws in place to make we the people less and less of a threat to them. I think that’s a problem. Already we see people arguing that our 2nd amendment rights are useless because the army has so much more powerful weaponry than the people.

Not saying that the people should have access to nukes, missiles, and jet planes. But we need to be allowed to be dangerous enough to the government that they’ll think twice before rounding us up and imprisoning us arbitrarily. We should be allowed to own high capacity magazines. We should be allowed to own armor piercing ammo. Heck, we should even be allowed to own tank-piercing weapons. Like, I don’t know. An elephant gun with depleted uranium armor piercing incendiary rounds if that’s even possible.

The fight to secure our freedoms is two-fold. One, against the government itself as our politicians strive for more control over our lives. And two, against our own culture. Every time an isolated criminal shoots up a school or a mall, the emotionalists start telling us to think of the children and exploiting the situation to take away more of our liberties.

And before anyone says this, I can concede to the idea of background checks. Someone who has proven they are a threat to others can reasonably be denied the right to own a weapon. But innocent people should not be barred in any way from owning a weapon, nor should innocent people be blocked from owning the more dangerous weapons just because these emotionalists are afraid of weapons in and of themselves. That includes features of military weapons (which is mostly just the weapon looking scarier), high capacity magazines, armor piercing ammo, etc.

A bullet is a bullet. It’ll kill a child regardless of whether or not it is armor piercing. A gun will kill a child regardless of whether it has a flash suppressor, or a comfy grip, or whether there’s more bullets in the magazine. And it doesn’t matter how hard you ban all these things, criminals can get their hands on them. By eliminating gun free zones and eliminating arbitrary bans on features and ammo capacities, you aren’t giving criminals anything they can’t already have. You’re just leveling the playing field. And more: You level the playing field between the people and the government a bit.

Our founding fathers wanted us to have weapons. And that's it.

That's it?

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Sounds like they were wanting a bit more than a wild west, guns blazing, free-for-all. They wanted a "well-regulated" militia.

Originally Posted by Amaroq

You level the playing field between the people and the government a bit.

If that is the case, then you had best attempt to arm yourself with bombs and nuclear weapons.

Because if you think owning semi-automatic weapons and armour piercing bullets is going to even out the playing field between the people and the Government, then you are sadly mistaken. And a bunch of people running around with big guns up the waazoo does not a "well regulated militia" make.

The fight to secure our freedoms is two-fold. One, against the government itself as our politicians strive for more control over our lives. And two, against our own culture. Every time an isolated criminal shoots up a school or a mall, the emotionalists start telling us to think of the children and exploiting the situation to take away more of our liberties.

Do you think the shooting of Giffords is acceptable then? If Lougher believed that she was infringing on his liberties and the liberties of other Americans living in Colorado, would his shooting her have been justified, in your opinion? Should he have even been charged over her attempted murder?

After all, you are saying that people should own guns to protect themselves from an ever encroaching Government, then it stands to reason that any individual citizen who feels their rights are being eroded by the Government should be perfectly correct and justified to take pot shots at their local politicians or the President, wouldn't they?

Because if you think owning semi-automatic weapons and armour piercing bullets is going to even out the playing field between the people and the Government, then you are sadly mistaken. And a bunch of people running around with big guns up the waazoo does not a "well regulated militia" make.

It's been a continuous debate whether that is the role of the National guard. A better argument though is probably the ability to organize into an armed, and eventually an Army--as we did during the American Revolution, and has been the history of successful insurgencies up to modern times. And given modern arms, even most typical hunting rifles are nearly as capable and often better than US army infantry weapons, with the populations support, they represent a very credible deterrent.


Like all our Constitutional rights they are absolute but not unlimited because they are continuously balanced against other rights--almost all the big Constitutional decisions involve figuring out where to draw that line between rights in conflict.

Originally Posted by adelady

Our founding fathers wanted us to have weapons. And that's it.

That's it?

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Sounds like they were wanting a bit more than a wild west, guns blazing, free-for-all. They wanted a "well-regulated" militia.

The people are the militia, the US government is not the militia. One cannot form or arm a militia without the people and their arms, and the people have the right to bears arms. The Supreme Court has already ruled that the people have the right to bear arms.

LocGov - Second Amendment
"In the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons."

The founding father's were pretty clear and addiment that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was one of the most important right of a free people. They even warned that only the foulest of people and tyrants would attempt to or take them away from a free people.

The OP is correct in that statement. The founding father's wanted Americans to bear and carry arms. That is it. Now, if people wish to change the law and remove guns from a free people, they can do so by changing the constitution and then taking up arms against their brothers, sisters and children to remove their guns.

They even warned that only the foulest of people and tyrants would attempt to or take them away from a free people.

So you think that Australians and Brits and New Zealanders are not free people?

(I might add at this point that Australians at least - I can't speak for others - think Americans constantly reminding themselves and the rest of the world that they're committed to "freedom" comes strangely from the mouths of people who have identity numbers, Social Security, allocated from birth. We would never countenance such a thing. The whole idea would be government intrusion into our private affairs - we always insist that any system of allocating numbers for tax or benefits or the like cannot be used for identification purposes.)

Originally Posted by adelady

They even warned that only the foulest of people and tyrants would attempt to or take them away from a free people.

So you think that Australians and Brits and New Zealanders are not free people?

(I might add at this point that Australians at least - I can't speak for others - think Americans constantly reminding themselves and the rest of the world that they're committed to "freedom" comes strangely from the mouths of people who have identity numbers, Social Security, allocated from birth. We would never countenance such a thing. The whole idea would be government intrusion into our private affairs - we always insist that any system of allocating numbers for tax or benefits or the like cannot be used for identification purposes.)

I hate to say it and it is sad but they are not free people, and as liberty stands now, their nations will fail and fall well before the United States will IMO.

For the remainder of your nation, your people will never be able to protect themselves or defend their liberty. It is great that the UK and Australia still has the fire and fight of freedom in them but, you guys are now toothless, and even incapable of defending your lives and liberties from common criminals.... Let alone during the aftermath of disasters (even as small as katrina), from perhaps the consequences from global changes or from government tyranny when they decide to step on more of your rights and freedoms after certain situations (opportunity for them) occur.

Can drought hit your country in a very bad way?
Can extremely bad economic times hit?
What can the government do in response and under the pretense of security and/or safety?
How bad can it get or could it get, not just in your life time but, over many generations?

I think disarming your law biding citizens was the first nail in your countries coffin and now the rest of the nails will be pounded in.

Australians and New Zealander's have suffered their share of natural disaster's and at no time did people feel the need to arm themselves. Quite the contrary. Having survived a natural disaster in Australia, the last thing that crossed our minds was guns or weapons.

Perhaps others just aren't as afraid that their Government is out to get them?

Limiting the types of weapons which citizens could buy wouldn't be taking away any of their rights to own guns because nowhere does it state what types of guns should be allowed for each citizen to own. So if the government wants to stop the sale of assult riffles only, citizens still can buy other types of high powered rifles than can do about the same thing so they are not being prevented from owning guns.

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Limiting the types of weapons which citizens could buy wouldn't be taking away any of their rights to own guns because nowhere does it state what types of guns should be allowed for each citizen to own. So if the government wants to stop the sale of assult riffles only, citizens still can buy other types of high powered rifles than can do about the same thing so they are not being prevented from owning guns.

The Court has also ruled/stated that popular and/or common class of arms owned by the people for the lawful purpose of defense are covered by the second amendment. You cannot ban an entire class of popular weapons and there is not a more popular rifle used by the american people for defense than the civilian semi-auto ar15 rifle, nor is there another class of rifles that are more popular for defense.

To ban classes of weapons they have to be dangerous AND unusual. Fully-automatic rifles, rocket launchers, land minds, grenades, etc., are all dangerous and unusual for the american people to use for defense so they can be prohibited. The civilian semi-auto ar15 rifle, the civilian semi-auto ak47, etc, are extremely popular and common for defense in the US.

There is no way around this for anti-gun/protection folks. Their desired changes/bans/prohibitions are unconstitutional, they are illegal.

You cannot ban an entire class of popular weapons

Popular, by whom? I do not know one hunter that uses an assult rifle to hunt with, perhaps you do.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

There is no way around this for anti-gun/protection folks. Their desired changes/bans/prohibitions are unconstitutional, they are illegal.

Well, they could change the constitution. Then it would be legal.

And I hope you would defend any amended constitution as strongly as you defend your current one. Otherwise, logically, you should reject all amendments.

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

You cannot ban an entire class of popular weapons

Popular, by whom? I do not know one hunter that uses an assult rifle to hunt with, perhaps you do.

There are actually a lot of people who hunt with semi-auto ar15 civilian rifles. Regardless though, it does not matter what someone hunts with. Concerning what we are discussing it is irrelevant, meaningless, rabbits and deer are not armed criminals and thugs. Some rifles are used for defense and protection, and there is not a better no more common/popular/favored class of civilian rifles for that job than a semi-auto ar15 variant, semi-auto ak47, etc..

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by gonzales56

There is no way around this for anti-gun/protection folks. Their desired changes/bans/prohibitions are unconstitutional, they are illegal.

Well, they could change the constitution. Then it would be legal.

And I hope you would defend any amended constitution as strongly as you defend your current one. Otherwise, logically, you should reject all amendments.

They could change the constitution, and if it is changed according to the constitution, I will support those changes.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Concerning what we are discussing it is irrelevant, meaningless, rabbits and deer are not armed criminals and thugs. Some rifles are used for defense and protection, and there is not a better no more common/popular/favored class of civilian rifles for that job than a semi-auto ar15 variant, semi-auto ak47, etc..

Do you have any data on how often such weapons (or any weapons, for that matter) are used by US citizens for defending themselves against armed criminals, thugs and the government? (Compared to recreational uses)

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Concerning what we are discussing it is irrelevant, meaningless, rabbits and deer are not armed criminals and thugs. Some rifles are used for defense and protection, and there is not a better no more common/popular/favored class of civilian rifles for that job than a semi-auto ar15 variant, semi-auto ak47, etc..

Do you have any data on how often such weapons (or any weapons, for that matter) are used by US citizens for defending themselves against armed criminals, thugs and the government? (Compared to recreational uses)

I believe a guy named Dr. Kleck (or something like that) did a study and concluded that 2 million or so times a year Americans use guns to defend/protect themselves. I know a 15 year old kid down the road in Tomball TX used an ar15 to protect himself and his 12 year old sister not to long ago from 2 thugs trying to break into their home. He shot one of them.

I would think that civilian semi-auto ar15 rifles are fired far more in a recreational or practice/training capacity by their owners than defensively. I also think that applies to all weapons, not just guns.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

You cannot ban an entire class of popular weapons

Popular, by whom? I do not know one hunter that uses an assult rifle to hunt with, perhaps you do.

There are actually a lot of people who hunt with semi-auto ar15 civilian rifles. Regardless though, it does not matter what someone hunts with. Concerning what we are discussing it is irrelevant, meaningless, rabbits and deer are not armed criminals and thugs. Some rifles are used for defense and protection, and there is not a better no more common/popular/favored class of civilian rifles for that job than a semi-auto ar15 variant, semi-auto ak47, etc..

Hunting deer with an AR15 is illegal in most states--the 0.223 doesn't have enough mass. It's not really all that great for home defense as well because it's a high velocity high penetration round which means going through multiple walls. It's good for what it was designed for, hunting humans at a couple hundred yards.

If the real debate is about the ability for ordinary citizens to defend themselves against criminals then surely the government could change the law to ensure that people are only allowed to use non-lethal weapons to defend themselves. This would create a huge demand and thus incentive for companies to design and sell effective non lethal weapons. Everyone would then have the protection but without the potential threat that someone goes nuts and starts a killing spree.

But perhaps the debate is not just about defending yourself from criminals, perhaps the op is onto something with whole idea of being able to defend your freedoms and protect yourself from the government, but if this is the case I really can't see how having semi-automatic weapons is going to stop tanks, helicopters, planes, drones and missiles. So again the case for these types of guns falls apart. But even if this doesn't really pacify the die hard gun owners, then perhaps at least the idea of having guns only at a gun club or a proffesional shooting range from which they cannot remove the guns might be an answer. With an option that if there ever was an emergency when such weapons were required to defend civilians that a local committee could jointly agree to their removal from the gun club. This would mean that no individual could get hold of semi-automatic weapon by themselves if they have gone nuts.

Finally how about a more draconian option, a simple blanket ban on any civilian usage of a firearm capable of killing, meaning every gun being replaced by a 'safe' version, forcing all weapons manufactures to produce only non lethal firearms. All the gun owners would still be able to have and own weapons, just not weapons capable of killing people.

you guys are now toothless, and even incapable of defending your lives and liberties from common criminals....

But I think you'll find that Australians are in much less danger from "common criminals" than Americans are. Our rates of murder and other violent crime are just not in the same league as the USA. Our numbers are not as good as those of Japan, but they're tons better than the US numbers.

Originally Posted by Ascended

If the real debate is about the ability for ordinary citizens to defend themselves against criminals

Apparently it is their gubmint which is the biggest threat. So much for the world's greatest democracy.

This "call to arms" is being made to a fever pitch by the WEAPONS DEALERS mainly and the MEDIA. They are the only ones crying about this subject while their bottom lines keep getting larger due to the increase parinoia that the MEDIA creates to instigate such bantering. As I said and someone else proved, hunters do not need this assult weapon to hunt with and anyone can still buy a handgun or shotgun to protect themselves with.

So much talk about something only one kind of person wants to keep this type of weapon available, the WEAPONS DEALERS!!

Originally Posted by Tranquille

Originally Posted by Amaroq

You level the playing field between the people and the government a bit.

If that is the case, then you had best attempt to arm yourself with bombs and nuclear weapons.

Because if you think owning semi-automatic weapons and armour piercing bullets is going to even out the playing field between the people and the Government, then you are sadly mistaken. And a bunch of people running around with big guns up the waazoo does not a "well regulated militia" make.

It would be pretty hard to draw a clear line and say "Any gun more powerful than this is not well regulated militia."

By that reasoning, the militia ceased to be well regulated the moment they equipped themselves with muskets, since muskets are crazy powerful compared to bows. However, as I understand it, private ownership of weapons even up to a cannon was not so uncommon at the time the amendment was drafted.

The fight to secure our freedoms is two-fold. One, against the government itself as our politicians strive for more control over our lives. And two, against our own culture. Every time an isolated criminal shoots up a school or a mall, the emotionalists start telling us to think of the children and exploiting the situation to take away more of our liberties.

Do you think the shooting of Giffords is acceptable then? If Lougher believed that she was infringing on his liberties and the liberties of other Americans living in Colorado, would his shooting her have been justified, in your opinion? Should he have even been charged over her attempted murder?

After all, you are saying that people should own guns to protect themselves from an ever encroaching Government, then it stands to reason that any individual citizen who feels their rights are being eroded by the Government should be perfectly correct and justified to take pot shots at their local politicians or the President, wouldn't they?

Yeah. Fear of assassination is a great deterrent against tyranny. Naturally we fear the nut job who will assassinate a very popular leader in defiance of the whole public, just because in their minds the whole public has offended them by electing that person.

There's also John Hinckley's attempt to shoot Ronald Reagan, or Lee Harvey Oswald's successful attempt to kill JFK.

But you know? Why remain current? Let's go back even farther. President William McKinley died at the hands of an assassin armed with an Iver Johnson revolver in 1901. We should have outlawed handguns back then!!!! I mean, c'mon. Would the people of 1901 want to live in a world where gun toting lunatics can kill public figures?

John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln with a derringer, single shot revolver. So what shall we outlaw to prevent that from happening? The ownership of any metal cylinder capable of being sealed on one end? The ownership of small quantities of gunpowder? Maybe the ownership of lead?

I'm just curious where the paranoia ends.

Originally Posted by Ascended

If the real debate is about the ability for ordinary citizens to defend themselves against criminals then surely the government could change the law to ensure that people are only allowed to use non-lethal weapons to defend themselves. This would create a huge demand and thus incentive for companies to design and sell effective non lethal weapons. Everyone would then have the protection but without the potential threat that someone goes nuts and starts a killing spree.

But perhaps the debate is not just about defending yourself from criminals, perhaps the op is onto something with whole idea of being able to defend your freedoms and protect yourself from the government, but if this is the case I really can't see how having semi-automatic weapons is going to stop tanks, helicopters, planes, drones and missiles..

Because, by no fault of your own, you haven't thought though how you'd fight against a force that's far superior, or studied the many successful insurgencies of populations doing exactly what you suggest. Advanced weapons require enormous logistic support and that early on would become the focus of how to keep them from even entering the battle. And given the huge number of Vets with deep connections to active duty regular services, guardsmen and reservist if the cause was just, the insurgency would have quite a few advanced weapons of its own and an easier time getting them supplied with fuel, ammunition and replacement parts from a cooperative population. The deterrence from a modern armed population is no less viable than it was during the American revolution when a combination of volunteers, militia, and people simple looking for work, was able to defeat a force with far better training, logistical support, artillery, and ships.

"Non lethal firearms." A sort of oxymoron.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Concerning what we are discussing it is irrelevant, meaningless, rabbits and deer are not armed criminals and thugs. Some rifles are used for defense and protection, and there is not a better no more common/popular/favored class of civilian rifles for that job than a semi-auto ar15 variant, semi-auto ak47, etc..

Do you have any data on how often such weapons (or any weapons, for that matter) are used by US citizens for defending themselves against armed criminals, thugs and the government? (Compared to recreational uses)

When an American household owns a gun, that gun is more likely to kill a family member or a friend, rather than a criminal.

The health risk of having a gun in the home | MinnPost
Guns at home more likely to be used stupidly than in self-defense | Ars Technica
http://www.childrensdefense.org/chil...-guns-2012.pdf
The National Memo » The Person You’re Most Likely To Kill With Your Gun Is You

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

You cannot ban an entire class of popular weapons

Popular, by whom? I do not know one hunter that uses an assult rifle to hunt with, perhaps you do.

There are actually a lot of people who hunt with semi-auto ar15 civilian rifles. Regardless though, it does not matter what someone hunts with. Concerning what we are discussing it is irrelevant, meaningless, rabbits and deer are not armed criminals and thugs. Some rifles are used for defense and protection, and there is not a better no more common/popular/favored class of civilian rifles for that job than a semi-auto ar15 variant, semi-auto ak47, etc..

Hunting deer with an AR15 is illegal in most states--the 0.223 doesn't have enough mass. It's not really all that great for home defense as well because it's a high velocity high penetration round which means going through multiple walls. It's good for what it was designed for, hunting humans at a couple hundred yards.

I would have assumed that guns like an AR15, were designed to hunt humans, at both close and far ranges.

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

This "call to arms" is being made to a fever pitch by the WEAPONS DEALERS mainly and the MEDIA. They are the only ones crying about this subject while their bottom lines keep getting larger due to the increase parinoia that the MEDIA creates to instigate such bantering. As I said and someone else proved, hunters do not need this assult weapon to hunt with and anyone can still buy a handgun or shotgun to protect themselves with.

So much talk about something only one kind of person wants to keep this type of weapon available, the WEAPONS DEALERS!!

Its also corporate propaganda, that is put out by Americas political right.

14 Propaganda Techniques Fox 'News' Uses to Brainwash Americans | Alternet


Republican news groups make their listeners fear, that democrats want to take away (all) Americans guns.

[QUOTE=chad;385622]

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Concerning what we are discussing it is irrelevant, meaningless, rabbits and deer are not armed criminals and thugs. Some rifles are used for defense and protection, and there is not a better no more common/popular/favored class of civilian rifles for that job than a semi-auto ar15 variant, semi-auto ak47, etc..

Do you have any data on how often such weapons (or any weapons, for that matter) are used by US citizens for defending themselves against armed criminals, thugs and the government? (Compared to recreational uses)

Your response is partial. While I completely agree that guns, particularly handguns, are far more likely to kill their owner or the owner's family than an assailant, "defense" also includes deterrence. Outside of the military, I've never fired at a person, yet have used my weapons twice to chase someone off by simply showing that I was armed. I was also fired at once while crossing someone's land to go fishing...I'm pretty sure that too was just a form of deterrence because he missed--such displays are part of defense but seldom reported because the situation is already handled without need to involve the police.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

"defense" also includes deterrence

Good point. And I assume that deterrent effect could apply to the government as well. (Apart from the fact, as someone noted, they have bigger guns.)

Originally Posted by chad

Its also corporate propaganda, that is put out by Americas political right.

14 Propaganda Techniques Fox 'News' Uses to Brainwash Americans | Alternet


Republican news groups make their listeners fear, that democrats want to take away (all) Americans guns.

We had a pretty narrowly focussed thread about gun control (almost wrote fun control..hehe), so please keep your broad brush generalizations out of this. The Gun control controversy is a heck of a lot older than Fox News at least 200 years older.

Originally Posted by chad

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

You cannot ban an entire class of popular weapons

Popular, by whom? I do not know one hunter that uses an assult rifle to hunt with, perhaps you do.

There are actually a lot of people who hunt with semi-auto ar15 civilian rifles. Regardless though, it does not matter what someone hunts with. Concerning what we are discussing it is irrelevant, meaningless, rabbits and deer are not armed criminals and thugs. Some rifles are used for defense and protection, and there is not a better no more common/popular/favored class of civilian rifles for that job than a semi-auto ar15 variant, semi-auto ak47, etc..

Hunting deer with an AR15 is illegal in most states--the 0.223 doesn't have enough mass. It's not really all that great for home defense as well because it's a high velocity high penetration round which means going through multiple walls. It's good for what it was designed for, hunting humans at a couple hundred yards.

I would have assumed that guns like an AR15, were designed to hunt humans, at both close and far ranges.

The AR15 is a multipurpose platform. It comes in just about every chamber one could imagine, including 22lr, .223, 5.56, 300, 308, 410 gauge, 12 gauge, etc..

On top of this, each individual caliber size has multiple different bullets for multiple different purposes ... For instance, the .223 alone comes in countless different sizes and shapes that have many different functions. For home defense, all caliber sizes, including the .223 and 5.56, have bullets that will shred/shatter after entering flesh (such as the m193). These rounds are extremely good for home protection and provide very little penetration due to the fact that they hit something and then begin to shatter into many, many pieces. If someone only had 1 round to choose for defense, millions would use the .223 and 5.56 for defense because it is highly effective and it comes in so many variants that it is a highly diverse round. The 5.56 is also what the US military and Nato uses, and Russia uses an even smaller caliber, the 5.45.

I know of no state that bans the use of an ar15 for hunting, and if they do then they are stupid. What some of them have done is ban the .223 caliber and 5.56 for medium and large game because unlike huge full rifle rounds, they do not often go in an out cleanly, and an instant kill shot miss with a .223 caliber round will cause massive damage, and thus unneeded suffering, to large game animals. Remember, the 5.56 m193 round was called the inhumane bullet by the Vietnamese because if it was not an instant kill shot or a kill shot, the damage was so great that the extent of the damage, pain and suffering was far worse than anything else they faced from all other rifles. The m193 is a highly effect close and medium range defensive round (to say the least).

All rifles, regardless of their platform, come in models that will fire many different calibers for many different purposes, and in each caliber, the ammo in that size will be diverse and will serve many different purposes/functions.

The vast majority of AR15 are 0.223, there have been a small number of variants (loosely called AR15 Varients, in other calibers offered by not sold in any great number.

The bushmaster used in the latest slaughter was one of the typical 0.223. The minimum size for deer hunting in most states is .243...that's also the minimum size considered ethical to hunt deer by the vast majority of hunters, most of which use larger caliber rounds which pack at least 100 grain bullets such as the 30-06. The 0.243 is often considered a women's gun (prejudice I know). It's also interesting that the Sandy hook shooter decided to leave formerly military rifles at home, such as a fine hunting rifle and common WWI military rifle, the M1917 Ensfield which fires 30-06, but only has a 6 round magazine ..not bloody enough I guess.

Emotionalists? They have a name??? Awesome! If only we did away with them emotionalists. And what's worse than an emotionalist? A logicalist. At least the mentalist can be entertaining.

I could do without guns.

I'm pretty sure people would learn to make explosives if needed. And someone would have weapons somewhere.

Besides, a knife can take care of most problems, if the goal is simply to kill people. An armed militia surely isn't going to fight the U.S. military head on. The best way to fight is to feed off of the opponent. Start with the knives, get some rifles, rockets, tanks, etc. etc.

Authoritarian governments don't last any longer than democratic ones do. If you ask me, I'd say the second amendment is just to make people feel special.

Why wouldn't home monitoring work better than armed citizens? That way even if people aren't in their nomes they are protected from being robbed. At least if anyone would enter the home they would be deterred from doing so knowing they are being seen on a TV camera, alarms going off or other such devises that keep intruders away. Why is it that only a assult rifle is going to protect someone in a house for those living in a house cannot carry it around with them everywhere they go and intruders can enter at anytime.

A handgun would, to me, seem much more conducive to carry around inside your house for you can easily put on a holster or shoulder support for the handgun while the rifle would be sitting somewhere that you'd have to get to.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

The vast majority of AR15 are 0.223, there have been a small number of variants (loosely called AR15 Varients, in other calibers offered by not sold in any great number.

What are you talking about? The .308 ar15 is very popular, the .22 caliber M&P 15 and Colt ar15 are everywhere. The .300 AR15 is also popular. The 12 gauge ar15 is popular... etc...

Smith & Wesson, Colt, DPMS, Bushmaster, etc, all make ar15s and ar15 uppers in multiple chambers and they are all very popular. What also makes multiple barrels/chambers popular with the AR15 platform is that is takes just a couple seconds to change out the chambers in the AR15 variants. One AR15 rifle can be a .223 and 10 seconds later it can be a .300.

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Why wouldn't home monitoring work better than armed citizens? That way even if people aren't in their nomes they are protected from being robbed. At least if anyone would enter the home they would be deterred from doing so knowing they are being seen on a TV camera, alarms going off or other such devises that keep intruders away. Why is it that only a assult rifle is going to protect someone in a house for those living in a house cannot carry it around with them everywhere they go and intruders can enter at anytime.

A handgun would, to me, seem much more conducive to carry around inside your house for you can easily put on a holster or shoulder support for the handgun while the rifle would be sitting somewhere that you'd have to get to.

I have no problem with handguns, most people don't but, there is just no replacing a rifle for protection/defense. Handguns are good back-up weapons to a rifle (if your rifle ever goes down for whatever reason or you cant get to it) but, if you are going to bet your life on one or the other, IMO a rifle is the better bet.

The harsh reality concerning cameras, phones and alarms to call/contact police, etc., is that the police will not show up in time most of the time. The protection of your family and yourself is your responsibility, it is not the responsibility of the police. Police tend to investigate, not prevent. It is your responsibility to prevent.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Ascended

If the real debate is about the ability for ordinary citizens to defend themselves against criminals then surely the government could change the law to ensure that people are only allowed to use non-lethal weapons to defend themselves. This would create a huge demand and thus incentive for companies to design and sell effective non lethal weapons. Everyone would then have the protection but without the potential threat that someone goes nuts and starts a killing spree.

But perhaps the debate is not just about defending yourself from criminals, perhaps the op is onto something with whole idea of being able to defend your freedoms and protect yourself from the government, but if this is the case I really can't see how having semi-automatic weapons is going to stop tanks, helicopters, planes, drones and missiles..

Because, by no fault of your own, you haven't thought though how you'd fight against a force that's far superior, or studied the many successful insurgencies of populations doing exactly what you suggest. Advanced weapons require enormous logistic support and that early on would become the focus of how to keep them from even entering the battle. And given the huge number of Vets with deep connections to active duty regular services, guardsmen and reservist if the cause was just, the insurgency would have quite a few advanced weapons of its own and an easier time getting them supplied with fuel, ammunition and replacement parts from a cooperative population. The deterrence from a modern armed population is no less viable than it was during the American revolution when a combination of volunteers, militia, and people simple looking for work, was able to defeat a force with far better training, logistical support, artillery, and ships.

"Non lethal firearms." A sort of oxymoron.

Militias and state militias will have no problem getting the arms they need to fight. They will not be stuck with just semi-auto rifles. States today already have fully-automatic weapons, planes, helicopters, bombs, etc.

I know Texas is putting forth legislation, in response to Obama/Biden/Feinstein/etc., that would make it illegal for any federal entity to come into Texas and try to remove assault weapons and magazines from any and all Texans. It would also allow Texas police, forces and agents to arrest federal police, forces and agents for doing so or attempting to do so.

Do people really think everyone and every state will get in line behind Obama and Feinstein concerning their attacks against the second amendment? What makes people think that states will give up their right to regulate and arm their own militias and the rights of their people to bear arms? What makes people think that they will just give those rights up to Obama and Feinstein?

Couldn't the government just make everyone that wants to or owns a gun require a new type of licence that they could then make so hard to obtain that people have to give their guns or make so expensive that no could afford the new licences, then force the Texans themselves to enforce the new legislation rather than sending in federal police to disarm people?

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

"Non lethal firearms." A sort of oxymoron.

"Non lethal firearms" it may sound a bit hinky, but I don't think these we really need to kill people anymore, incapacitate someone long enough to be subdued is enough to serve most purposes surely, I want to see criminals go to jail and enermy troops taken prisoner, no need for people to die, so no need for weapons that kill them, but that might just be my liberal attitudes coming out here.

Originally Posted by gonzalas56

I know Texas is putting forth legislation, in response to Obama/Biden/Feinstein/etc., that would make it illegal for any federal entity to come into Texas and try to remove assault weapons and magazines from any and all Texans. It would also allow Texas police, forces and agents to arrest federal police, forces and agents for doing so or attempting to do so.

Despite what I've said about ability of militia to form a viable deterrent, that Texas talk is mostly hot-air and doesn't help the debate. It's a debtor state who'd National guard is, like most State guards, more than 90% federally funded.

What are you talking about? The .308 ar15 is very popular, the .22 caliber M&P 15 and Colt ar15 are everywhere. The .300 AR15 is also popular. The 12 gauge ar15 is popular... etc...

Very popular? Hardly. You see a .22 or 0.308 as ranges occasionally, usually because 22 are dirt cheap and military surplus 0.308 often on deep discount. (I've never seen anyone hunt with any sort of AR15, though it could be used to shoot coyotes with). Most times it's like this, a recent article about a gun dealers that have trouble keeping 0.223 assault weapons or ammo on the shelf:
Assault weapons sales soaring in North Carolina, nation
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...ecd_story.html

"Non lethal firearms" it may sound a bit hinky, but I don't think these we really need to kill people anymore, incapacitate someone long enough to be subdued is enough to serve most purposes surely, I want to see criminals go to jail and enermy troops taken prisoner, no need for people to die, so no need for weapons that kill them, but that might just be my liberal attitudes coming out here.

Honestly if someone's threatening my life, their life is forfeit. Period.
--
I'm rather disappointing the NRA has chosen to look like the crazies. Most of their own membership supports background checks for example, yet they are ignoring them.
http://thinkprogress.org/election/20...nse/?mobile=nc
They could be leading the discussion to develop reasonable federal gun policy.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

I have no problem with handguns, most people don't but, there is just no replacing a rifle for protection/defense. Handguns are good back-up weapons to a rifle (if your rifle ever goes down for whatever reason or you cant get to it) but, if you are going to bet your life on one or the other, IMO a rifle is the better bet.

The harsh reality concerning cameras, phones and alarms to call/contact police, etc., is that the police will not show up in time most of the time. The protection of your family and yourself is your responsibility, it is not the responsibility of the police. Police tend to investigate, not prevent. It is your responsibility to prevent.

Wait what?

Do you live in Mexico's drug cartel regions or something? A war zone perhaps?

Because if you feel that you need to use an assault rifle (automatic or semi-automatic) to protect your family from apparently roaming band of criminals in your area, perhaps it is time to re-evaluate your living arrangements and move to somewhere where you do not need an assault rifle to keep the swarming hordes of criminals off your lawn.

Gozales does have a point here though. The times I used a gun to deter crimes, I was living at least 15-20 minutes, from a response. Tens of millions of Americans live more than ten minutes from any sort of police help--some sort of firearm is quite appropriate.

You could always sit on your front porch with it on your lap while deliverance plays quietly in the background. [Yes, I went there! I feel somewhat ashamed of myself, but also amused.]

But in all seriousness, wouldn't a handgun be more appropriate? Or are you facing the type of crimewave that would require an assault rifle? Because if you are, then moving may possibly be a safer option.

Originally Posted by Tranquille

You could always sit on your front porch with it on your lap while deliverance plays quietly in the background. [Yes, I went there! I feel somewhat ashamed of myself, but also amused.]

But in all seriousness, wouldn't a handgun be more appropriate? Or are you facing the type of crimewave that would require an assault rifle? Because if you are, then moving may possibly be a safer option.

Don't you think there's a middle ground, between touching your com badge and instantly having a swat team of space marines materialize around your home to eject the intruders, and two bubbas wanting to rape you at gun point to the accompaniment from fiddle playing musical savant?

I'm not a fan of handguns, they kill too many family members, often too small to play a deterrent role, and woefully inaccurate even in expert hands during actual shoot outs.

Originally Posted by Ascended

Couldn't the government just make everyone that wants to or owns a gun require a new type of licence that they could then make so hard to obtain that people have to give their guns or make so expensive that no could afford the new licences, then force the Texans themselves to enforce the new legislation rather than sending in federal police to disarm people?

No they could not. The federal government, nor states, have the authority to over burden or hamper the right of the people to lawfully own and use arms.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Gozales does have a point here though. The times I used a gun to deter crimes, I was living at least 15-20 minutes, from a response. Tens of millions of Americans live more than ten minutes from any sort of police help--some sort of firearm is quite appropriate.

What is appropriate though is not up to Obama, not up the the federal government, not up to states, it is up to what is popular and common with American gun owners.

Originally Posted by Tranquille

Originally Posted by gonzales56

I have no problem with handguns, most people don't but, there is just no replacing a rifle for protection/defense. Handguns are good back-up weapons to a rifle (if your rifle ever goes down for whatever reason or you cant get to it) but, if you are going to bet your life on one or the other, IMO a rifle is the better bet.

The harsh reality concerning cameras, phones and alarms to call/contact police, etc., is that the police will not show up in time most of the time. The protection of your family and yourself is your responsibility, it is not the responsibility of the police. Police tend to investigate, not prevent. It is your responsibility to prevent.

Wait what?

Do you live in Mexico's drug cartel regions or something? A war zone perhaps?

Because if you feel that you need to use an assault rifle (automatic or semi-automatic) to protect your family from apparently roaming band of criminals in your area, perhaps it is time to re-evaluate your living arrangements and move to somewhere where you do not need an assault rifle to keep the swarming hordes of criminals off your lawn.

Like it or not, a semi-auto rifle is far more capable and effective than a handgun for protection/defense. It does not matter where you live, it does not matter whom one might have to protect and defend themselves against, it does not matter if they will ever use it to defend/protect themselves or not (hopefully not), a rifle will better serve as a protection/defense weapon than a handgun will.

Not only that, a semi auto rifle is diverse. It can be and is used for multiple lawful purposes. It is a great all around weapon and tool to have... Especially an ar15, it is the swiss army knife of guns.

Fox, all of them, regardless of caliber, are out of stock and the global manufacturers of them cannot keep up with demand. Even the ak47's are gone.

If you can find some available by dealers/stores, in any caliber, please post it.

[QUOTE=Lynx_Fox;385800]

Originally Posted by Tranquille

You could always sit on your front porch with it on your lap while deliverance plays quietly in the background. [Yes, I went there! I feel somewhat ashamed of myself, but also amused.]But in all seriousness, wouldn't a handgun be more appropriate? Or are you facing the type of crimewave that would require an assault rifle? Because if you are, then moving may possibly be a safer option.

I can see why you prefer rifles if you live in the countryside. At range, a handgun vs a rifle might as well be knife vs. A rifle.If you live in a cit you'd be more worried about close quarters combat. Some guy breaking into your home. A handgun is easier to hide where the thief is unlikely to find it or keep in a safe. It's also simply easier to use in a small room or hallway.....etc

[QUOTE=kojax;385843]

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Tranquille

You could always sit on your front porch with it on your lap while deliverance plays quietly in the background. [Yes, I went there! I feel somewhat ashamed of myself, but also amused.]But in all seriousness, wouldn't a handgun be more appropriate? Or are you facing the type of crimewave that would require an assault rifle? Because if you are, then moving may possibly be a safer option.

I can see why you prefer rifles if you live in the countryside. At range, a handgun vs a rifle might as well be knife vs. A rifle.If you live in a cit you'd be more worried about close quarters combat. Some guy breaking into your home. A handgun is easier to hide where the thief is unlikely to find it or keep in a safe. It's also simply easier to use in a small room or hallway.....etc

Actually rifles move through rooms and hallways very well (how big and long do you think a 16" barrel is?), and from a shooting stand point, a handgun in the shooting position and a ar15 (16") in the shooting position reach out about the same distance.

The advantage of a rifle is that the rounds often have far more energy/stopping power, they are often easier to acquire targets much faster as well as re-targeting faster between shots. They can also be mounted with multiple tactical pieces of equipment. This is why military's go into homes with rifles in hand and not a bunch of pistols in hand. It is also why swat teams tend to favor rifles and shotguns as well.

Regardless though, if it is a handgun, a shotgun or a rifle you or I think is more effective, or anyone else for that matter, people in the millions choose all three for defense/protection and that is all that matters. You can argue until you are blue in the face that rifles are horrible weapons in rooms and halls (all though you all turn right around and claim how deadly and devastating they are in rooms and halls) but, as long as millions of people disagree with you and use them for lawful purposes, they cannot be banned unless you change the constitution.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Originally Posted by Ascended

Couldn't the government just make everyone that wants to or owns a gun require a new type of licence that they could then make so hard to obtain that people have to give their guns or make so expensive that no could afford the new licences, then force the Texans themselves to enforce the new legislation rather than sending in federal police to disarm people?

No they could not. The federal government, nor states, have the authority to over burden or hamper the right of the people to lawfully own and use arms.

Could they not then just put a $1,000 tax per bullet on the ammunition, that doesn't stop people having arms but it might stops some of the nut jobs from being able to afford to go on killing sprees.

Originally Posted by Ascended

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Originally Posted by Ascended

Couldn't the government just make everyone that wants to or owns a gun require a new type of licence that they could then make so hard to obtain that people have to give their guns or make so expensive that no could afford the new licences, then force the Texans themselves to enforce the new legislation rather than sending in federal police to disarm people?

No they could not. The federal government, nor states, have the authority to over burden or hamper the right of the people to lawfully own and use arms.

Could they not then just put a $1,000 tax per bullet on the ammunition, that doesn't stop people having arms but it might stops some of the nut jobs from being able to afford to go on killing sprees.

I highly doubt it. Interferes and stops the use of guns for millions, mainly the poor.

In regards to the OP.

If there is ever a need for an uprising do you really think you wouldn't be able to get your hands on the superior firepower that would be preferable in a civil war? I wouldn't think the Syrian Rebels are fighting a battle with .22s. The fact is we live in a global society, and sympathizers are a dime a dozen - as long as you have the coin to back you up. You wouldn't be using your AR-15 so long as to not see it be replaced by the AK-47, or the M16. In my opinon gun control doesn't harm the ability for the citizen to revolt, you probably wouldn't even use the guns you're allowed in the first place.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Don't you think there's a middle ground, between touching your com badge and instantly having a swat team of space marines materialize around your home to eject the intruders, and two bubbas wanting to rape you at gun point to the accompaniment from fiddle playing musical savant?

I'm not a fan of handguns, they kill too many family members, often too small to play a deterrent role, and woefully inaccurate even in expert hands during actual shoot outs.

Of course there is a middle ground.

However that middle ground becomes swamped at the mere mention of forms of control and who can and should be able to access such weapons, simply because of the panic that ensues. I believe it was you, who pointed out earlier that most NRA members would prefer background checks and psychiatric tests on people who wish to purchase such weapons? And yet, the NRA leadership has reacted with utter panic and thus, led a moral panic amongst gun owners that "they" [they being the State] are coming for your guns.

I have never understood this pathological need to own firearms. I do not share that particular view. However others across the Pacific feel that they do need to own them because of the fear that they may need to revolt against the Government or to defend them from criminals. I would say it is a cultural difference. But I also see a lot of fear and 'what if's'.. You live in a country that has elections every few years and you are able to change your Government at each election. This whole debate about protecting one's self against a tyrannical Government just seems to be a 'I have to be prepared because I don't like who others voted in', to me.

Unfortunately, what dictates this debate is the fringe, like the NRA leadership and the other side who are convincing the believer's that the end is near and the other extreme who are carrying on as if all gun owners are going to become murderers.

And when any form of discussion about guns will have one camp saying that the other is trying to infringe on their Constitutional rights and the other camp saying that all gun owners are dangerous, then a middle ground will be virtually impossible to find.

A middle ground in this instance is fairly simple. Ensure that no firearm, primarily semi-automatic and upwards, can be sold without a police background check and a psychological test. And also regulate and audit gun owners to make sure those weapons are safely locked away to prevent accidental deaths and giving access to anyone else who is not licensed to use them. In short, you should not be legally allowed to drive across State lines and go to a gun show and purchase a weapon that can kill dozens with a quick spray without some form of background check or psychological test. I do not personally think that should be legal. And yet, that is how many can and do acquire their weapons in some parts of the US and it is legal. But you will never have a middle ground so long as both camps refer to the extreme and use extreme language.

Looking at Lanza, as a prime example. A friend of mine who is in the air-force in the US commented to me that her guns were legally acquired and her son had broken the law in taking those weapons. My response to that was how could she have legally been allowed to purchase that many when she was running around talking about how she was preparing for the end of the world and was stockpiling weapons and food and water, and had taken to teaching her mentally ill son how to use those weapons. He could not respond to that. Because in a sane world, she should not have been allowed to purchase those weapons. Unfortunately and tragically, this is not a sane world.

That is my opinion, anyway.

Originally Posted by Tranquille

However that middle ground becomes swamped at the mere mention of forms of control and who can and should be able to access such weapons, simply because of the panic that ensues. I believe it was you, who pointed out earlier that most NRA members would prefer background checks and psychiatric tests on people who wish to purchase such weapons? And yet, the NRA leadership has reacted with utter panic and thus, led a moral panic amongst gun owners that "they" [they being the State] are coming for your guns.

Yes the NRA is unreasonably polarizing this issue even against the intent of their membership...though I'm sure there's still strong incentive to keep the hysteria going from gun manufacturers as gun shops can't even keep up with their assault weapons sales right now. No I don't want psychiatric test for prospective gun owners...Hell no. What I do want is a check to see if someone's been determined by a judge to need treatment to reduce a propensity for violence or if they have a violent past criminal record.

In other words, people are considered innocent, responsible and yes sane until they give cause through the legal system to think otherwise.

I have never understood this pathological need to own firearms.

Ever live in the country a half hour from the earliest possible help from anyone else other than perhaps a neighbor? Been poor enough that shooting a deer helped make ends meet? (I have)
And more on point, ever taken a look at history, where governments, particularly democracies turn bad and need to be overthrown? Examples aren't hard to find--in fact democracies by the numbers are rather inherently inefficient and unstable.

That is my opinion, anyway.

I sincerely enjoy reading it though---I hoped your Deliverance quip was in jest. I'm glad I was right :-)

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Yes the NRA is unreasonably polarizing this issue even against the intent of their membership...though I'm sure there's still strong incentive to keep the hysteria going from gun manufacturers as gun shops can't even keep up with their assault weapons sales right now. No I don't want psychiatric test for prospective gun owners...Hell no. What I do want is a check to see if someone's been determined by a judge to need treatment to reduce a propensity for violence or if they have a violent past criminal record.

I agree with you. And I should have been clearer. I meant a test that was more in line with a background check to make sure they were never deemed legally insane and were violent or had that propensity for violence as a result of their mental illness.

Either way, something does need to be done. It is now just a matter of cutting out the fluff and the noise to find that solution.

In other words, people are considered innocent, responsible and yes sane until they give cause through the legal system to think otherwise.

And I think once someone shows that they may not be "all there" mentally and they react in a violent manner and they legally own firearms, then those weapons should be confiscated. I guess for me personally, I cannot understand how Lanza's mother was legally allowed to amass such an arsenal of weapons and everyone knew she was a survivalist and thought the world was about to end and everyone knew she had taught her known mentally ill son to shoot and use those weapons, and no one batted an eyelid. And maybe it is reactionary on my part.

Ever live in the country a half hour from the earliest possible help from anyone else other than perhaps a neighbor? Been poor enough that shooting a deer helped make ends meet? (I have)

Yes I have to both and no I have never felt the need to own a gun to protect myself. My father owned hunting rifles and even when we lived far away and we were that poor, he never took it out except to hunt so that we could actually eat meat (rabbit and venison). To this day, I see people ooing and aaing over venison and I still cannot eat it. I still cannot eat game meats after growing up eating just that as a child. We have had people try to break into our house and he (my father) went for a bit piece of 2x4 instead of his gun. Again, I guess it is a cultural thing. To him, the gun was not to protect us, but to feed us. And that was how I was brought up. He no longer owns any firearms now and is a firm believer in strict gun control. But Australia is not like America where there is that cultural connection to firearms.

And more on point, ever taken a look at history, where governments, particularly democracies turn bad and need to be overthrown? Examples aren't hard to find--in fact democracies by the numbers are rather inherently inefficient and unstable.

Of course I have.

Do you think the weapons you are legally allowed to own at present would be enough to take down a Government? If there was ever such a need, other countries would intervene and arm the opposition if need be, as history has taught us time and time again.

I asked a question earlier about the right to arms and tyranical Government and no one answered it. You live in a country where several of your Presidents have been assassinated or shot at, as have many of your local representatives. If the person who shoots them states that they felt their rights were being infringed by those members of Government or the President, and as a result, they felt they were within their Constitutional right to defend themselves against such tyranny, should they even be charged? Or is the defense against tyranny only acceptable on a grand scale? The reason I ask is that the defense against tyranny is often a reason cited to own firearms. And yet, those individuals who use this as a reason baulk when politicians are assassinated by individuals who may personally feel that their rights were being infringed upon by those members of Government. So I find that argument to be a slippery slope.

I sincerely enjoy reading it though---I hoped your Deliverance quip was in jest. I'm glad I was right :-)

Of course it was.

My ex husband's cousin is married to someone who is the deliverance type (the man even has a rocking chair on his front porch). And his (ex-husband's) aunt had set her mobile phone to play the deliverance tune each time her son in law rang from the US.

[QUOTE=gonzales56;385863]

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Tranquille

You could always sit on your front porch with it on your lap while deliverance plays quietly in the background. [Yes, I went there! I feel somewhat ashamed of myself, but also amused.]But in all seriousness, wouldn't a handgun be more appropriate? Or are you facing the type of crimewave that would require an assault rifle? Because if you are, then moving may possibly be a safer option.

I can see why you prefer rifles if you live in the countryside. At range, a handgun vs a rifle might as well be knife vs. A rifle.If you live in a cit you'd be more worried about close quarters combat. Some guy breaking into your home. A handgun is easier to hide where the thief is unlikely to find it or keep in a safe. It's also simply easier to use in a small room or hallway.....etc

Actually rifles move through rooms and hallways very well (how big and long do you think a 16" barrel is?), and from a shooting stand point, a handgun in the shooting position and a ar15 (16") in the shooting position reach out about the same distance.

The advantage of a rifle is that the rounds often have far more energy/stopping power, they are often easier to acquire targets much faster as well as re-targeting faster between shots. They can also be mounted with multiple tactical pieces of equipment. This is why military's go into homes with rifles in hand and not a bunch of pistols in hand. It is also why swat teams tend to favor rifles and shotguns as well.

Regardless though, if it is a handgun, a shotgun or a rifle you or I think is more effective, or anyone else for that matter, people in the millions choose all three for defense/protection and that is all that matters. You can argue until you are blue in the face that rifles are horrible weapons in rooms and halls (all though you all turn right around and claim how deadly and devastating they are in rooms and halls) but, as long as millions of people disagree with you and use them for lawful purposes, they cannot be banned unless you change the constitution.

I don't disapprove of rifles. I just think both weapons have their different purposes. The main advantage of a hand gun is you can hide it. Criminals have to wager the person they accost on the street will be unarmed without knowing.

I like concealable weapons because my style of confrontation is to bite before I bark, not warn people so they can prepare. I like to let people think I'm defenseless because I'm curious what they'll do. Once I know more about their personality, I know how I'd feel about hurting them.

If I sympathize with their intentions, I would probably go out of my way to avoid any kind of violent interaction, maybe even give them my wallet (like if I can see that they're simply acting out of desperation and I feel bad for them). In that case I'd rather they never know I was armed. If I don't sympathize..... well then maybe I might want to kill them just because I don't like them. Again, I'd rather they don't know what I'm about to do until it's too late to stop me.

And yes: I am saying there are some people I would kill in cold blood, given half a chance.

Originally Posted by Ascended

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Originally Posted by Ascended

Couldn't the government just make everyone that wants to or owns a gun require a new type of licence that they could then make so hard to obtain that people have to give their guns or make so expensive that no could afford the new licences, then force the Texans themselves to enforce the new legislation rather than sending in federal police to disarm people?

No they could not. The federal government, nor states, have the authority to over burden or hamper the right of the people to lawfully own and use arms.

Could they not then just put a $1,000 tax per bullet on the ammunition, that doesn't stop people having arms but it might stops some of the nut jobs from being able to afford to go on killing sprees.

How would people go target shooting? Would the tax be waived for bullets sold and used at gun ranges?

A gun is not nearly as useful for home defense if you don't know how to shoot accurately.

Do you think the weapons you are legally allowed to own at present would be enough to take down a Government?

Most definitely with the population's support. Out numbered a hundred to one, unable to move a single truck without someone taking shots at them the modern military would grind to a stop in very short order and where they did apply modern technology they're be so much bloodshed any semblance of support inside the military as well as the rest of the population would dissolve into nothing. Civil wars are as much about the population's support as about the amount and technological level of the weaponry.

The only people in this thread, who have the right, wisdom, or credentials, to own a military grade gun like an AK47, are active and retired military soldiers and police officers. The rest of us should only have access to pistols, rifles, and shotguns. (Life is not a realistic war video game.)

I grew up in New Orleans, around many outdoor sportsmen, and I have a lifetime of experience, with and around firearms. When I was a young child, I started off with bb guns. With time I moved up to pellet guns, and then to 410 shotguns, then 22 rifles, and then finally 12 gauge shotguns. I learned many (highly) important lessons along the way. Perhaps the first lesson I learned, was when my back porch window was broken, soon after my brother and I unwrapped our first bb gun at Christmas.

I also learned other lessons, like how it feels to kill your first animal with a gun.
I learned that you can (not) shoot rifles, near other people and homes, because the rifle bullet travels very far.
ex.ex.ex.

We all act as if a gun is something, we should all be able to pickup at Walmart, like a loaf of bread.

Huge numbers of young children, and other Americans are (accidently) killed each year by guns. I believe the main cause of this, is allowing Americans to buy guns without proper training. I believe if our American culture of legal guns is to always survive, we should require people to receive gun training, before they are able to purchase a gun. This training would also allow the gun trainers, to observe the people applying for gun ownership, perhaps they would notice a few people, that should not have guns.

You must undergo training and take tests, to be able to drive a car.
But why is there no such training, required to be able to own a gun?


Americans should also realize, that the strongest part of Americas pro-gun lobby, are outdoors men/women who use these weapons to hunt animals. The majority of this group of American hunters, has had wisdom and knowledge of firearms passed on to them, by their families, and other hunters around them.

But it seems many Americans, who have never even owned a pellet gun, feel the need to be able to own a AK47.


A military grade weapon like the AK47, is specifically designed to kill large numbers of human beings. But perhaps more importantly, it appears these military grade firearms, are being used by a high percentage of Americas mass murderers. Guns like the AK47 have a psychological meaning too. These guns bring forth images of a bloodbath, were large numbers of people get killed. These guns bring up mental images, just like the mass murderers who use these guns create.

Was the intention of Americas gun laws to give the right, to gun down huge numbers of innocent Americans?

I believe that (only) active and retired, police officers and military soldiers , should have the right to own these military grade weapons.
Their jobs caused them to use these weapons. And they are the only ones, who can think of these weapons, with truth, honor, sanity, and without being a lunatic.


And how is the right to own shotguns, scoped rifles, and high clip capacity semi-auto pistols not enough?
What situation would require a regular American to own a gun like a AK47?

And for any actual civilian need, I can think of 2 common rifles, that would be (much) better weapons, than a gun like a AK47.


Someone mentioned the right to own these weapons, in order to defend ourselves, against the US government and US military.

But if Americans have the right, to protect themselves from the US government, we should also have the right to own weapons, that will take down military helicopters and airplanes.
If our government (truly) wanted us to have the right, to protect ourselves from a bad US government, then we would also have the right, to own surface to air missiles.
But do we have the right to own surface to air missiles?

Guns like the AK47 are designed to kill large numbers of human beings.
And these are the same guns, being used by many of Americas mass murderers.

As far as I am concerned, only active and retired US military and police, should have the right to own these weapons.
And its not just these guns designed purpose, it's the bloodbath images and meanings, that they hold in our minds.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Why wouldn't home monitoring work better than armed citizens? That way even if people aren't in their nomes they are protected from being robbed. At least if anyone would enter the home they would be deterred from doing so knowing they are being seen on a TV camera, alarms going off or other such devises that keep intruders away. Why is it that only a assult rifle is going to protect someone in a house for those living in a house cannot carry it around with them everywhere they go and intruders can enter at anytime.

A handgun would, to me, seem much more conducive to carry around inside your house for you can easily put on a holster or shoulder support for the handgun while the rifle would be sitting somewhere that you'd have to get to.

I have no problem with handguns, most people don't but, there is just no replacing a rifle for protection/defense. Handguns are good back-up weapons to a rifle (if your rifle ever goes down for whatever reason or you cant get to it) but, if you are going to bet your life on one or the other, IMO a rifle is the better bet.

The harsh reality concerning cameras, phones and alarms to call/contact police, etc., is that the police will not show up in time most of the time. The protection of your family and yourself is your responsibility, it is not the responsibility of the police. Police tend to investigate, not prevent. It is your responsibility to prevent.

Most of the time people who are robbed are not at home. So having a monitoring system would be better all the way around. At least the police are being called if you are being monitored but if not it is you against the bad guys trying to rob you. Most robbers do not want confrontation and won't enter a home that they know has someone living in it.

People could just live in such a way that they have nothing worth stealing, and nothing to lose.

It could do many people good to be robbed. And, the thief finding himself in such a position in life may not have much choice in the matter. (Do I shoot the manager of the city power supply for feeding my hard drive with dirty power leading to its inevitable failure? Why not? It seems all my important data has been stolen!!)

"But let me not be too proud of my safety. Even a Thief in a jail cell is safe from another thief." ~Kahlil Gibran

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Why wouldn't home monitoring work better than armed citizens? That way even if people aren't in their nomes they are protected from being robbed. At least if anyone would enter the home they would be deterred from doing so knowing they are being seen on a TV camera, alarms going off or other such devises that keep intruders away. Why is it that only a assult rifle is going to protect someone in a house for those living in a house cannot carry it around with them everywhere they go and intruders can enter at anytime.

A handgun would, to me, seem much more conducive to carry around inside your house for you can easily put on a holster or shoulder support for the handgun while the rifle would be sitting somewhere that you'd have to get to.

I have no problem with handguns, most people don't but, there is just no replacing a rifle for protection/defense. Handguns are good back-up weapons to a rifle (if your rifle ever goes down for whatever reason or you cant get to it) but, if you are going to bet your life on one or the other, IMO a rifle is the better bet.

The harsh reality concerning cameras, phones and alarms to call/contact police, etc., is that the police will not show up in time most of the time. The protection of your family and yourself is your responsibility, it is not the responsibility of the police. Police tend to investigate, not prevent. It is your responsibility to prevent.

Most of the time people who are robbed are not at home. So having a monitoring system would be better all the way around. At least the police are being called if you are being monitored but if not it is you against the bad guys trying to rob you. Most robbers do not want confrontation and won't enter a home that they know has someone living in it.

You still run into the problem of response times. Some criminals will rob local convenience stores before committing a bigger crime, just to see how long the police response takes. That way they can determine the time frame for the larger crime, to be in and out and gone before the police have arrived.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

People could just live in such a way that they have nothing worth stealing, and nothing to lose.

What should a beautiful woman do? Not all criminals are after your wallet.

Should she deliberately scar her face? Gain weight? (Gaining weight is actually quite a common outcome among rape victims.)

That's a different kind of criminal. There's lots of things a woman can do, but those women are probably less targeted (in other words, someone is still getting rapped). Shit happens... Should the woman shoot the criminal?

(keep in mind, I'm not saying right or wrong here... I have to qualify every statement on this forum or someone might think I'm an immoral serial killer child beating rapist and try to argue with me on moral grounds)

-edit-
Are overweight women and women with scared faces less likely to be rapped???

We haven't even touched on psychological crimes caused by those with mental illness. Should I shoot my friend with BPD because he might scar me for life, psychologically?

For all those people thinking about the risks of widespread gun ownership - and wildly varied state laws - here's a link to some details of serious incidents with guns in the US during the last 6 weeks or so. Happy Gun Appreciation Day! – Greg Laden's Blog

Off topic diversion.

There's lots of things a woman can do

The numbers tell us otherwise. 1 in 6 women has been raped (the numbers are higher in some groups like armed forces and college students). 1 in 20 men has committed rape (though they admit that only when the questions they're asked don't include the R word). Basically, every woman who goes to work, ventures out for sport or socialising, or stays at home, is simply playing the odds that this time it won't be her that gets assaulted.

Originally Posted by adelady

For all those people thinking about the risks of widespread gun ownership - and wildly varied state laws - here's a link to some details of serious incidents with guns in the US during the last 6 weeks or so. Happy Gun Appreciation Day! – Greg Laden's Blog

Criminal acts have nothing to do directly with the right to lawfully own and use firearms. The "risk" of crime comes from the actions of criminals and those who violate the law, and it is already illegal for crimes to be committed, so be it with guns, knifes, bats, ones bare hands, etc., and there is no risk of crime or crimes being committed by law biding citizens or those who do not and will not violate the law, regardless of how many guns they have or own.

Law biding citizens have the right to lawfully own and use firearms. Regardless of what criminals do with guns, you will not be able to take them away from law biding citizens in the US without changing the constitution.

In the mean time, good luck to anyone and everyone who wishes to try and tell the court that attempting to prevent future crimes by unknown criminals is reason enough to reduce, limit and/or abolish the rights, freedoms and liberties of law biding american people.

My opinion it's a right step, right design. I can even understand that people buys pistol but when people buy rifle, this is to much. In this case, I encourage Obama's solution.I live in Moscow, but I have a plans to immigrate to USA. Hence, it's important for me what happens in U.S. I want to give the benefit U.S.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

That's a different kind of criminal. There's lots of things a woman can do, but those women are probably less targeted (in other words, someone is still getting rapped). Shit happens... Should the woman shoot the criminal?

(keep in mind, I'm not saying right or wrong here... I have to qualify every statement on this forum or someone might think I'm an immoral serial killer child beating rapist and try to argue with me on moral grounds)

I don't know why there is so much morality assigned to causing a death. Death is something everyone must eventually experience.

Rape is not.

-edit-
Are overweight women and women with scared faces less likely to be rapped???

I'm not sure. I know the crime of rape usually has more to do with power and control rather than sexual gain, so it might not matter as much as we're tempted to think.

However, the odds of her being kidnapped and/or sold into forced prostitution drop considerably.

We haven't even touched on psychological crimes caused by those with mental illness. Should I shoot my friend with BPD because he might scar me for life, psychologically?

Would you shoot him to put him out of his misery if he contracted a horribly painful disease?

Some people create misery. If you shoot them, you may not be stopping them from suffering, but you are certainly stopping *someone* from suffering.

Originally Posted by kojax

I don't know why there is so much morality assigned to causing a death. Death is something everyone must eventually experience.

Rape is not.

And for the record (which I think I made clear in my post), I'm not passing moral judgement on either. Just asking the question.

And now, for something completely different:

When I teach martial arts I teach that the more skilled you are the more responsibility you have in controlling the situation. An unfortunate thing about firearms, and even other weapons for that matter, is that the amount of damage which can be inflicted far out weighs the amount of control which can be applied to the scenario. Of course there are also plenty of bare fisted beat downs, or rapes, which transgress good self control. That's life. The martial artist also learns to live a life which does not attract such scenarios.

(meant to demonstrate control vs lethality, not martial artists' responsibilities)

Originally Posted by DaBOB

The martial artist also learns to live a life which does not attract such scenarios.

And there's a huge difference highlighted there. Many of the marshal arts are more comprehensive and teach more than simply the mechanics of fighting, but also get into a broader philosophy. Firearms courses usually emphasize the safety, mechanics of use and laws surrounding owning a gun and seldom get into the practical skills of avoiding having to use a gun in the first place...such as negotiation. That, combined with the overconfidence many get by carrying a gun, makes them many times more dangerous to their owners than not carrying one.

I love the notion that one should disarm and obey and give way to crime and criminals rather than do what one wants in America.... Don't go out late, don't wear a mini skirt.... In fact, don't do anything the wonderfully beloved criminals can take advantage of, and if you do, it is somehow your fault for being stupid... It is your fault for not respecting them, their time and their space. And by the way, if you do not give way to the criminals and respect their wishes and wants over your rights, and they get you, they will not really be punished and they will be right back out on the streets to get you again, and they are well armed and violent, so obey, shut your mouth and give way. .. Oh, and give us your guns, we don't want you owning them.

Don't you know, Gonzales? Every criminal was abused as a child, lacks job skills, comes frokm a poor background and acts the way they do because we as a society have let them down.Every lastt one of them. No exceptions. Or well....maybe one exception. Some are mentally ill.

Originally Posted by kojax

Don't you know, Gonzales? Every criminal was abused as a child, lacks job skills, comes frokm a poor background and acts the way they do because we as a society have let them down.Every lastt one of them. No exceptions. Or well....maybe one exception. Some are mentally ill.

Yea, its pretty sad and it exposes Obama and the democrats real agenda. If there agenda was to stop the killing of children, they could drastically reduce the number of murderers and murders in america by simply locking up the murderers rather than allowing them to remain free but, they don't and they wont because it is not about preventing children from being murdered, it is about using those murdered to push a tyrannical agenda forward that needs the second amendment abolished or severely weakened in order to ultimately be successful.

In 2010, 6000 murders went unsolved in the US. Most of them with guns and most of them in democrat controlled areas. The murderers who committed these murders are free to murder over and over again because of the policies and agendas of the democrat party. Those pushing gun control against law biding citizens, those trying to destroy and limit the second amendment even further, do not care and they put in place laws and policies that support crime and murder so they can use that crime and murder as a tool to help them attack the second amendment.

ABC
"The percentage of homicides that go unsolved in the United States has risen alarmingly even as the homicide rate has fallen" "Despite dramatic improvements in DNA analysis and forensic science, police fail to make an arrest in more than one-third of all homicides. National clearance rates for murder and manslaughter have fallen from about 90 percent in the 1960s to below 65 percent in recent years." "The majority of homicides now go unsolved at dozens of big-city police departments" "Some police departments solve most of their homicides, even the tough ones, while others have growing stacks of unsolved cases." "police solved 35 percent of the homicides in Chicago, 22 percent in New Orleans and 21 percent in Detroit. Yet authorities solved 75 percent of the killings in Philadelphia, 92 percent in Denver and 94 percent in San Diego." "We've concluded that the major factor is the amount of resources police departments place on homicide clearances and the priority they give to homicide clearances," said University of Maryland criminologist Charles Wellford, who led a landmark study into how police can improve their murder investigations."The Scripps study found enormous variation in the rates that homicides are cleared around the nation. The police departments with the most dramatic improvements made concerted and conscious efforts to change."


Ask Obama and these democrats if they will support 20 year mandatory sentences for those who are caught illegally carrying a gun or mandatory life sentences for those who commit a crime with a gun..? This alone would remove most of the guns out of the hands of criminals and it would drastically reduce the murder of adults and children but, reducing or preventing child murder and crime is not what all this "gun control" talk is about for Obama and these democrats. It is solely about attacking the second amendment to remove the ability of law biding citizens to protect and defend themselves.

Countless children are murdered every year by thugs/criminals but, they remain free to do it over and over again, and the few that are caught are put back out on the streets relatively quickly by democrats to murder again. If Obama and the democrats cant use the courts to reduce the second amendment to limit law biding citizens to a class of ineffective protectors/defenders of all their rights, freedoms and liberties, then Obama and the Democrats are going to use laws and policies that allow criminals, gangs, thugs and the criminally insane plenty of opportunity, government support and even free reign to scare law biding citizens into supporting the removal of effective arms from law biding citizens.

You're not connecting the dots Gonzalas and your own quotes refute some of the things your saying. Is San Diego a "Republican controlled" area? Is Denver? It seems more a diatribe against the straw man of what your think Obama wants to do, rather than one based in fact.

Ask Obama and these democrats if they will support 20 year mandatory sentences for those who are caught illegally carrying a gun or mandatory life sentences for those who commit a crime with a gun..? This alone would remove most of the guns out of the hands of criminals

How? Those not caught, about a 3rd according to you, it would have no effect on. And people typically served at something like 7 years on good behavior for homocide, which puts them well over the hump for most assailants. I think you're grossly exaggerating the effects of mandatory sentencing.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

You're not connecting the dots Gonzalas and your own quotes refute some of the things your saying. Is San Diego a "Republican controlled" area? Is Denver? It seems more a diatribe against the straw man of what your think Obama wants to do, rather than one based in fact.

Ask Obama and these democrats if they will support 20 year mandatory sentences for those who are caught illegally carrying a gun or mandatory life sentences for those who commit a crime with a gun..? This alone would remove most of the guns out of the hands of criminals

How? Those not caught, about a 3rd according to you, it would have no effect on. And people typically served at something like 7 years on good behavior for homocide, which puts them well over the hump for most assailants. I think you're grossly exaggerating the effects of mandatory sentencing.

Sane democrats tend not to let murderers murder, and they actually have policies and agendas in place to catch them, unlike Obama and leftist democrats, whom could arrest most murderers by changing policies and agendas but, whom refuse to do so. The point is clear... Most murders can be solved if you have the will to do so, and if you dont, then the murderers will remain free and keep on killing.

Mandatory gun sentencing would work.. It would prevents criminals who use guns from being released shortly after committing crimes with guns so they can be back out on the streets doing it again. Any crime committed with a gun should be met with 25 years in prison and not a day less. No good time... And if you are in public carrying a gun illegally, 20 years, not a day less, no good time, and then most criminals will not carry them or use them in crimes. This alone would also prevent 100's of children from being murdered each year.

Democrats (for the most part) do not want this to happen though.. They want the little old lady to be murdered and robbed while getting cash out of an ATM, and they will do anything to put or keep that criminal on the streets to do it over and over again. Again, the study is clear. Democrats can actually reduce murder by catching murderers but, they choose not to do that. They can actually reduce child murder by tougher laws as well and they do not support those either... The only thing they support and want to do is remove guns from law biding citizens.

Democrats have made it to where if a law biding citizen puts a fore-grip on his legal pistol, that person has to serve at least 8 years in prison and pay up to 10,000 dollars. Democrats love to attack and restrict law biding citizens but, when it comes to criminals who put a gun in a civilians face, kill them, democrats have it set up to not really look for the murderer or if and when they find a murderer to give him or her just a few years and put him or her back on the streets to kill again. The agenda is clear.. You might not want to see it, you might even ignore it but, it is right in your face.

I admit that I agree that people who have been convicted of violent crimes (especially involving a gun) should lose their gun privileges for life. I even agree that the sentence for such a person being caught in possession of a gun should be very long.

However the agenda issue is harder to agree with. Democrats are just overly optimistic about human nature..


There is a part of us that wants to believe that nobody chooses to become a criminal. That everyone would be an upstanding citizen if offered the right circumstances. I'm sure they would if they could own a mansion, swimming pool, and nice sports cars all without actually going to a job everyday. Isn't that the American dream? To just hang out with your friends all day, as your bank account miraculously refills and refills, so you can have fun spending money and never worry about the consequences?

And when that dream fails, you and your friends just have to go beat up some people outside of an ATM machine a few times, and then you can go right back to living in it again. It's an ugly reality, and society needs to do something about it. (The part about having to rob people for it to work, anyway. Why isn't the money simply free?)

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Sane democrats tend not to let murderers murder, and they actually have policies and agendas in place to catch them, unlike Obama and leftist democrats, whom could arrest most murderers by changing policies and agendas but, whom refuse to do so. The point is clear... Most murders can be solved if you have the will to do so, and if you dont, then the murderers will remain free and keep on killing.

More broad brush and completely unsupported tripe since you couldn't do us the goodness of providing a single example. Convince us with logic..not the shrill of your emotion.

Mandatory gun sentencing would work.. It would prevents criminals who use guns from being released shortly after committing crimes with guns so they can be back out on the streets doing it again. Any crime committed with a gun should be met with 25 years in prison and not a day less. No good time... And if you are in public carrying a gun illegally, 20 years, not a day less, no good time, and then most criminals will not carry them or use them in crimes. This alone would also prevent 100's of children from being murdered each year.

And again...the proof? And I hope you realize manditory sentencing laws, while quite popular ten years ago, niether show any convincing change or effect on crime where they have been placed (e.g. Florida and Oregon) and have run into several Constitutional Law problems. (e.g. State v. Rodriguez)

Democrats (for the most part) do not want this to happen though.. They want the little old lady to be murdered and robbed while getting cash out of an ATM, and they will do anything to put or keep that criminal on the streets to do it over and over again. Again, the study is clear. Democrats can actually reduce murder by catching murderers but, they choose not to do that. They can actually reduce child murder by tougher laws as well and they do not support those either... The only thing they support and want to do is remove guns from law biding citizens.

What study?

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by gonzales56

Sane democrats tend not to let murderers murder, and they actually have policies and agendas in place to catch them, unlike Obama and leftist democrats, whom could arrest most murderers by changing policies and agendas but, whom refuse to do so. The point is clear... Most murders can be solved if you have the will to do so, and if you dont, then the murderers will remain free and keep on killing.

More broad brush and completely unsupported tripe since you couldn't do us the goodness of providing a single example. Convince us with logic..not the shrill of your emotion.

Mandatory gun sentencing would work.. It would prevents criminals who use guns from being released shortly after committing crimes with guns so they can be back out on the streets doing it again. Any crime committed with a gun should be met with 25 years in prison and not a day less. No good time... And if you are in public carrying a gun illegally, 20 years, not a day less, no good time, and then most criminals will not carry them or use them in crimes. This alone would also prevent 100's of children from being murdered each year.

And again...the proof? And I hope you realize manditory sentencing laws, while quite popular ten years ago, niether show any convincing change or effect on crime where they have been placed (e.g. Florida and Oregon) and have run into several Constitutional Law problems. (e.g. State v. Rodriguez)

Democrats (for the most part) do not want this to happen though.. They want the little old lady to be murdered and robbed while getting cash out of an ATM, and they will do anything to put or keep that criminal on the streets to do it over and over again. Again, the study is clear. Democrats can actually reduce murder by catching murderers but, they choose not to do that. They can actually reduce child murder by tougher laws as well and they do not support those either... The only thing they support and want to do is remove guns from law biding citizens.

What study?

I posted this in an earlier post.

"We've concluded that the major factor is the amount of resources police departments place on homicide clearances and the priority they give to homicide clearances," said University of Maryland criminologist Charles Wellford, who led a landmark study into how police can improve their murder investigations."The Scripps study found enormous variation in the rates that homicides are cleared around the nation. The police departments with the most dramatic improvements made concerted and conscious efforts to change."

If all democrats have to do to get murderers off the streets is to make a concerted and conscious effort to do so, to make it a priority, and they refuse to do so, one has to ask themselves why that is. Why is it that they allow murderers, including child murderers, to roam free and murder over and over again when they can remove them from the streets? It is a simple question.

Lanza was crazy, he was being doped up, seeing a therapist and it has been reported that he tried to purchase a gun and had an altercation with people at the school just a few days before he killed his mother, stole her guns and murdered those children at the school. A simple effort, following the law, would have prevented those murders.

The guy who killed the firefighters in NY, again, beat his grandmother to death with a hammer years earlier, was crazy as all get out, and he should not have even been on the streets of NY in the first place, yet he was, and he killed again. It is also likely that his grandmother and the fire fighters were not his only victims.. Killers tend to kill over and over again.

We can go on and on....

"We've concluded that the major factor is the amount of resources police departments place on homicide clearances and the priority they give to homicide clearances," said University of Maryland criminologist Charles Wellford, who led a landmark study into how police can improve their murder investigations."The Scripps study found enormous variation in the rates that homicides are cleared around the nation. The police departments with the most dramatic improvements made concerted and conscious efforts to change."

Again what study. Where is it? Who did it? How does it even support your position about democrat versus republic controlled places, when even your own examples such as California and Denver counter your argument?

I don't see how current law would have prevented Lanza from getting the gun. In many states he could have gotten the same weapons from a gun-show without any waiting or background check--that's the loop hole that should be closed. The waiting check prevented him from buying another gun from a gun-shop so he pulled assault weapons and a semi-auto pistol from his mom's home--leaving the excellent WWI 30-06 with small capacity.

and they refuse to do so, one has to ask themselves why that is.

Because your broad brush, still unsupported despite three attempts to get you to provide evidence, false dichotomy, is a myth you choose to repeat over and over again--some of the hardest laws in the nation are in predominately democratically controlled states, such as California and Oregon. And please don't check out actual violent crime stats until your willing to see the actual data that shows the "liberal" democratically controlled states actually have overall lower crime rates than the red states, but not enough of a difference to make a strong political conclusions that either side has a good solution.

You realize that you don't actually need a gun to kill a classroom full of kindergarteners, right? They're small and weak. A baseball bat would do.


The important element of this crime was the unregulated crazy person.

Originally Posted by kojax

You realize that you don't actually need a gun to kill a classroom full of kindergarteners, right? They're small and weak. A baseball bat would do.


The important element of this crime was the unregulated crazy person.

Of course. But as any of us could come up with horrendous ways to kill others by the dozen, few are as dramatic, quick, effective. or easier to obtain for a "crazy person, than a high capacity semi-automatic rifle or handgun. It is likely the only effective solutions to reducing the likelyhood of such mass killing without entirely violating people's inherent rights is comprehensive reform that establishes mulitple checks, hurdles and opportunities to identify at risk "crazy" individuals and reducing their assess to such lethal weapons.

I'll admit that, for a crazy person seeking to invoke horror in the local population a gun offers advantages beyond the tactical advantage, because they are loud, and any unarmed person would be forced to stand back and watch the atrocity from a vantage point far away.

The psychological satisfaction felt by the perpetrator is certainly greater than if they used a baseball bat.

I guess the main question is: are guns necessary to these psycho's, or just preferred? If this guy couldn't get a gun would that really have stopped him from committing a massacre? Is it really that easy? Are these people really that easily discouraged into giving up on their power lust?

Originally Posted by kojax

I'll admit that, for a crazy person seeking to invoke horror in the local population a gun offers advantages beyond the tactical advantage, because they are loud, and any unarmed person would be forced to stand back and watch the atrocity from a vantage point far away.

The psychological satisfaction felt by the perpetrator is certainly greater than if they used a baseball bat.

I guess the main question is: are guns necessary to these psycho's, or just preferred? If this guy couldn't get a gun would that really have stopped him from committing a massacre? Is it really that easy? Are these people really that easily discouraged into giving up on their power lust?

There's probably no good answers to your question. No doubt some of these crimes are quick flash impulse. I havent' seem much evidence for Sandy hook that that it was planned over a great length of time, but under current checks (or lack of them) he didn't need to do much planning. On the other hand, people like Tim McViegh planned and worked for months to do their atrocity. Every possible check and obstacle though, is an opportunity to prevent such acts. The report by a neighbor of the guy next door with a garage filled to the brim with fireworks the dude is harvesting to build a bomb---the gun dealer who reports the nervous attempt by the same dude to buy a semi-auto rifle with two fake credit cards, or with cash without showing his ID; the concerned friend who calls the anonymous hotline to report his friend's talk of showing those evil school kids...etc. Every check increased the odds of prevention. Establishing security in depth is basic to most security theory, because it usually works. The problem with single point security such as NRA suggest to just put guards in school, is more often than not it has to be so detailed as to easily violate peoples rights and invites simpler means to bypass. (e.g., Imagine if TSA only did complete cavity searches before a passenger could board--instead of the less intrusive searches combined with multiple other less onerous checks at every step of taking a flight)

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

"We've concluded that the major factor is the amount of resources police departments place on homicide clearances and the priority they give to homicide clearances," said University of Maryland criminologist Charles Wellford, who led a landmark study into how police can improve their murder investigations."The Scripps study found enormous variation in the rates that homicides are cleared around the nation. The police departments with the most dramatic improvements made concerted and conscious efforts to change."

Again what study. Where is it? Who did it? How does it even support your position about democrat versus republic controlled places, when even your own examples such as California and Denver counter your argument?

I don't see how current law would have prevented Lanza from getting the gun. In many states he could have gotten the same weapons from a gun-show without any waiting or background check--that's the loop hole that should be closed. The waiting check prevented him from buying another gun from a gun-shop so he pulled assault weapons and a semi-auto pistol from his mom's home--leaving the excellent WWI 30-06 with small capacity.

and they refuse to do so, one has to ask themselves why that is.

Because your broad brush, still unsupported despite three attempts to get you to provide evidence, false dichotomy, is a myth you choose to repeat over and over again--some of the hardest laws in the nation are in predominately democratically controlled states, such as California and Oregon. And please don't check out actual violent crime stats until your willing to see the actual data that shows the "liberal" democratically controlled states actually have overall lower crime rates than the red states, but not enough of a difference to make a strong political conclusions that either side has a good solution.

The news report says who did the study and what they found. You dont have to click on the link and read it if you dont want, and you can even continue to ask who did the study, as if the article is not clear about that..

If 10 democrats do one thing and 2 do something else, 10 democrats still did it. I am talking about the party, their agendas and what they do and stand for as a whole. San Diego chooses to remove and reduce murderers and murder, and because of that they are effective... It shows that democrats who dont care in other cities, which is many of them, choose to let murders go unsolved and they let murderers remain free. At the very least they could stop most murderers from murdering again by locking them up but, they choose not to. That is very clear and the study done shows that... I do not care if you refuse, over and over again, to digest the evidence. That is on you.

Back to the point... The radical agenda to ban semi-auto rifles and handguns nationally will not happen. The Supreme court and the american people will not allow the democrats and Obama to do it.

Originally Posted by gonzales56

The news report says who did the study and what they found. You dont have to click on the link and read it if you dont want, and you can even continue to ask who did the study, as if the article is not clear about that..

I read the news article, but it didnt' provide the link...I'd simply hoped you might have found it somewhere. I guess not.

If 10 democrats do one thing and 2 do something else, 10 democrats still did it. I am talking about the party, their agendas and what they do and stand for as a whole. San Diego chooses to remove and reduce murderers and murder, and because of that they are effective... It shows that democrats who dont care in other cities, which is many of them, choose to let murders go unsolved and they let murderers remain free. At the very least they could stop most murderers from murdering again by locking them up but, they choose not to. That is very clear and the study done shows that... I do not care if you refuse, over and over again, to digest the evidence. That is on you.

Of course you still fail to show an link between party, agenda, implimentations or their effects, but instead continue to charge windmills. Carry on. Did you by chance look at political association and crime rates? Here I'll help:
Red States Have Higher Crime Rates Than Blue States - Smart Politics

And lets to brass tacs shall we and look at most violent crime states which are in order: Eight of the top 11 states with the highest property crime rates voted for McCain: Arizona (#1), South Carolina (#2), Alabama (#4), Tennessee (#6), Georgia (#7), Texas (#8), Arkansas (#10), and Louisiana (#11).

You really think there's no relationship between Arizona being the most violent and having the least constrained gun laws in the nation?

But there's a lot of other factors of course which I'm honestly too bored to get into because I realize the tremendous overlap in laws, socioeconomic and crime rates. My key point is your open contempt and assertions about liberal and democrats policies increasing the crime rates are completely unwarranted, unsupportable and contrary to the data we do have. You're distaste for democrats, or the straw man you think represents them, is displacing your objectivity.

If only the world were so simple and black and white as putting a guard at the entrance of a school like the narrow minded NRA suggest, or putting people away for life/death after they do violence. But it isn't. Here's the far more complex realities:
-there's strong links between socioeconomics and crime.
-deterrence is only weakly effective because most violent crimes are committed by adolescents and young adults who's rational parts of their brains haven't' even fully developed yet (studies going back 50 years show this--I learned it in the military because it so much of our risk assessment process)--they consider themselves immortal and uncatchable--the penalty seldom enters their heads.
-criminals were often abused as children
-drug use and dealing often compound the problem
-all these factors interact with each other.

Work on all these fronts is most effective to reduce crime and in many states is already working towards a combination of robust social programs to ID abused children, get families support, treating drug addiction instead of criminalizing it, AND tough crime laws have been able to dramatically improve children's success, including lower criminal acts, over the past two decades. Reasonable gun controls tied to those types of comprehensive approaches to heal broken families and neighborhoods will be just one more lego brick to reduce it even further.

Break down the states by county, city and then neighborhood and it becomes clear were the super majority of the crime in the US is coming from. That is just a reality. If 10 cities have the same gun laws and 5 of them are the safest places to be on the planet while the other 5 are among the most unsafe places to be, you cant possibly show or support a claim that the crime is due to guns or gun laws. If it was, then every city, every neighborhood, would be relatively identical in its number of violent crimes and crimes committed by people holding guns.

If it is not guns or gun laws, then what is it? Those issues have to be dealt with, not guns or gun laws. Common and popular guns today are protected by the second amendment, and they will not be banned.

If 10 cities have the same gun laws and 5 of them are the safest places to be on the planet while the other 5 are among the most unsafe places to be, you cant possibly show or support a claim that the crime is due to guns or gun laws.

How many of those 5 dangerous places have neighbouring states or cities with lax gun laws? Funnily enough, cities with strong restrictions on gun ownership are the same as all other cities in one important respect - they don't have walls or checkpoints to control residents who drive over the state line to buy guns in an unrestricted environment. There are more factors in play than local laws.

Originally Posted by adelady

If 10 cities have the same gun laws and 5 of them are the safest places to be on the planet while the other 5 are among the most unsafe places to be, you cant possibly show or support a claim that the crime is due to guns or gun laws.

How many of those 5 dangerous places have neighbouring states or cities with lax gun laws? Funnily enough, cities with strong restrictions on gun ownership are the same as all other cities in one important respect - they don't have walls or checkpoints to control residents who drive over the state line to buy guns in an unrestricted environment. There are more factors in play than local laws.

It does not matter what the gun laws are. There is absolutely no correlation between gun ownership, gun laws and violent crime and murder. If there was a correlation between guns and gun laws to violence then every neighborhood in the US under the same laws would have roughly the same amount of murders and violent crimes but, they do not.

What you call "lax gun laws" are present in many neighborhoods and in many neighborhoods there is no murder and no violence committed with guns. It does not matter if a community has lax or strict gun laws, it has nothing to do with violent crimes and murder. Your claim that violent crimes and murders that are being done in democrat controlled communities are because of lax gun laws in other communities, when the communities that have the lax gun laws do not commit those violent crimes and murders under the "lax gun laws", is a testament, is proof, that your claim is completely wrong. Again, it is not lax gun laws, if it was, then every neighborhood in the US would have roughly the same amount of violent crimes and murders, and they don't.

Very few neighborhoods, a very small percentage of neighborhoods, and the people in them, account for just about all of the violent crimes committed with guns in the US. Remove these few neighborhoods from the numbers, these few communities skewing the heck out of the numbers, and the US is as safe as any nation in Europe that allows or doesn't allow guns.

Actually gun laws do matter, especially when well focused.

For example, here's a summary sheet by John Hopkins that looked at several studies that looked at permit to licence handgun laws effects on criminal access to guns--they had dramatic reductions on criminal access.
http://www.jhsph.edu/research/center...eLicensing.pdf

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Actually gun laws do matter, especially when well focused.

For example, here's a summary sheet by John Hopkins that looked at several studies that looked at permit to licence handgun laws effects on criminal access to guns--they had dramatic reductions on criminal access.
http://www.jhsph.edu/research/center...eLicensing.pdf

Do a study on if people had to get a permit from the government police to go outside or speak in public and it will show that this to will place reductions on what criminals can get or do.

Again though, there are going to be people who give up their rights to the government and government police but, those who give up their rights, liberty and freedoms deserve not to have liberty nor safety. There are also millions and millions of people who are not going to allow government workers or government's police the awesome power to decide which rights they get to have or not have, it is these type of people who have sacrificed themselves in the millions for the rights, liberties and freedoms the american people have and it is also these type of people who know better than to give up their rights, liberties and freedoms (especially for government promises to be fair, just, kind, to care for them and to protect them).

It does not matter what a criminal does or has, the right to own and use capable guns, the right to protect and defend ones self and loved ones with capable guns, is the most important right of all.

If a criminal attacks you, your family or your friends, or the government does it, and you decided to give up your freedom and right to be properly armed in order to protect you and yours, or your family and friends gave up the freedom and right to be properly armed, you have to ask yourself why you gave up your rights, liberties and freedom because the government promised you and yours safety...? Then you have to ask yourself how far that got you and then you have to wonder why you did not take the words and wisdom of Benjamin Franklin to heart ("Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety") ...

The nature right and constitutional right of the individual citizen to defend and protect his and hers, has created, shaped and defended america. It has saved millions and millions of peoples lives, it has insured that freedom still exists and it will continue to defend, protect and save billions more to come. Giving that up, throwing that way, for the promise made by a government to save 1 life, even 1000 lives or 10,000 lives, is not worth throwing away the sacrifice of millions, it is not worth throwing away the right and liberties of millions, as well as future billions, and it is not worth throwing away an individuals right to defend and protect themselves.

The cost of not arming oneself or having someone armed around them is brutality, suffering and death for people and their families.... And the government will not and cannot protect the american people.. It is the american people who do that. What the government will do, and does now (besides victimize many american people left and right), is remove Americans from crime scenes after the crimes have already been committed. Maybe you are dead, maybe you are not but, that will not be up to the government, that will be up to the choices individuals make. Are they going to be armed, or are they going to trust the government to defend and protect them? That is their choice.

Instead of refuting the study or offering counter argument backed by data you launch into the same illogical tirade you used in the other thread. I should use some of your recent postings as an example to teach logic-by it misapplication; "class read the following passage and see how many logical fallacies you can find." The biggest is the straw man of responding to a post about licensing handguns and leaping off the crazy train as if it's complete removal of handguns--or completely denying people the right to defend themselves; it's nothing of the sort.

--

The cost of not arming oneself or having someone armed around them is brutality, suffering and death for people and their families.

Do you really want to go down what the data says about handguns? The cost of arming yourself with a handgun in the home is a dramatically increased risk of accidental, successful suicide attempt, and deliberate homicide of a family member in a domestic quarrel, with hardly any evidence suggesting it serves a deterrent or defensive role.

In a rather detailed study of studies the conclusion was:
"However, for most contemporaryAmericans, the scientific studies suggest
that the health risk of a gun in the home is
greater than the benefit. There are no credible
studies that indicate otherwise. The
evidence is overwhelming that a gun in the
home is a risk factor for completed suicide
and that gun accidents are most likely to
occur in homes with guns. There is compelling
evidence that a gun in the home is
a risk factor for intimidation and for killing
women in their homes, and it appears
that a gun in the home may more likely be
used to threaten intimates than to protect
against intruders. On the potential benefit
side, there is no good evidence of a deterrent
effect of firearms or that a gun in the
home reduces the likelihood or severity of
injury during an altercation or break-in."

This matches studies by John Hopkins I've posted, and earlier CDC's conclusions before Congress, in an NRA lead denial campaign, blocked further research about gun violence.

http://www.iansa.org/system/files/Ri... Home 2011.pdf

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Instead of refuting the study or offering counter argument backed by data you launch into the same illogical tirade you used in the other thread. I should use some of your recent postings as an example to teach logic-by it misapplication; "class read the following passage and see how many logical fallacies you can find." The biggest is the straw man of responding to a post about licensing handguns and leaping off the crazy train as if it's complete removal of handguns--or completely denying people the right to defend themselves; it's nothing of the sort.

--

The cost of not arming oneself or having someone armed around them is brutality, suffering and death for people and their families.

Do you really want to go down what the data says about handguns? The cost of arming yourself with a handgun in the home is a dramatically increased risk of accidental, successful suicide attempt, and deliberate homicide of a family member in a domestic quarrel, with hardly any evidence suggesting it serves a deterrent or defensive role.

In a rather detailed study of studies the conclusion was:
"However, for most contemporaryAmericans, the scientific studies suggest
that the health risk of a gun in the home is
greater than the benefit. There are no credible
studies that indicate otherwise. The
evidence is overwhelming that a gun in the
home is a risk factor for completed suicide
and that gun accidents are most likely to
occur in homes with guns. There is compelling
evidence that a gun in the home is
a risk factor for intimidation and for killing
women in their homes, and it appears
that a gun in the home may more likely be
used to threaten intimates than to protect
against intruders. On the potential benefit
side, there is no good evidence of a deterrent
effect of firearms or that a gun in the
home reduces the likelihood or severity of
injury during an altercation or break-in."

This matches studies by John Hopkins I've posted, and earlier CDC's conclusions before Congress, in an NRA lead denial campaign, blocked further research about gun violence.

http://www.iansa.org/system/files/Ri... Home 2011.pdf

This alone is enough to laugh and stop silly studies from being introduced into records.

"there is no good evidence of a deterrenteffect of firearms or that a gun in the
home reduces the likelihood or severity of
injury during an altercation or break-in."

No evidence, this amazing study of yours finds, that a person with a gun in their home reduces the likelihood or injury during and altercation or break-in. So a woman who shoots a rapist before the rapist can beat and rape her, that makes no difference in her injuries? This is science to you?

Having guns increases the chances of gun accidents? Really? You got to be kidding me? I am shocked, taken aback and blown away that gun owners have a higher rate of gun accidents than non gun owners..

Having a gun in the house also possesses people to threaten and beat their spouses? Really? "You are a good guy, buy a gun though and you become very likely to beat your wife and put the gun to her head".. That is not science, that is politics, that is propaganda. Beating and abusing ones spouse has nothing to do with the second amendment.

The rest of your claims are along the same lines. Nothing to do with guns or the second amendment, let alone science..

No evidence, this amazing study of yours finds

Ya, only 101 referenences and over two dozen specific studies....against your Zero. Skepticism is ok....complete denial in the face of overwhelming evidence is lower than ignorance.

if good people are issued guns , bad people will steal it from them. maybe Steven Levitt the rogue economist must called to find out what exactly is the reason for such shootings and how to prevent them in the future

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

No evidence, this amazing study of yours finds

Ya, only 101 referenences and over two dozen specific studies....against your Zero. Skepticism is ok....complete denial in the face of overwhelming evidence is lower than ignorance.

Lets put your study to the test.

Remember the claim:
No evidence that a person with a gun in their home reduces the likelihood or injury during an altercation or break-in

Woman shoots would be rapist
"As Sandoval continued to push her to undress, the woman told deputies, she reached under her pillow, grabbed a loaded gun and pointed it at him. She told investigators the man “continued to come toward her placing his knee on her,” so she pulled the trigger.

The woman told deputies that she ran out of her home after shooting Sandoval because she was scared, and then she called 911."

This is clear evidence that a gun in this home reduced this woman's injuries. A claim your paper states that there is absolutely no evidence for.

Such claim, in a study or not, is blatantly wrong. Whoever published the paper you posted should reevaluate there own screening and evaluating process. If not, they are doing nothing but blatantly pushing false propaganda.

Originally Posted by Tranquille

Perhaps others just aren't as afraid that their Government is out to get them?

We have to ask ourselves, logically, why would a Government be "out to get" its' citizens? The interpretation of that term will have quite different meanings, given greatly differing walks of life among the citizens. For example, it is sufficiently documented that a Government did "get its' citizens", Russia being the example, in that the so-called "purges" under Stalin caused the deaths of millions of citizens. Fact is, those deaths consisted of the sick, the elderly, and those unable to provide adequate foodstuffs for themselves; thus, it can be argued by some, notably Government authority, that the effort simply accelerated the inevitable, thereby enhancing the lives of those surviving. However, surviving citizens whose loved ones perished would most likely believe wholeheartedly that their Government was "out to get" them.

jocular

What exactly does partisanship, being quoted herein so frequently and boisterously, have to do with Science? jocular

Originally Posted by jocular

What exactly does partisanship, being quoted herein so frequently and boisterously, have to do with Science? jocular

It can decide how much funding goes to NASA, or whether evolution will get taught in school..... etc.

A good thing to know your way around if you want to research anything.

People who think the present administration is on the verge of tyranny are being a bit alarmist to say the least. However, tyrannical government has occurred throughout history and we have no idea what the U.S. government will be like in 20+ years. I feel like some "anti-gun" people don't fully appreciate the good reasons for the 2nd amendment.

Some think those people who are afraid of the government taking away their guns are crazy while also supporting a ban on gun ownership. Having both of these positions simultaneously is, perhaps, not logically sound.

Finally, although I support reasonable gun control, I feel like there are more important issues that the media should be covering. On average, less than one person per day dies from a mass shooting whereas something like 1,300 die per day from tobacco. Think of other issues politicians and the media barely mention that have so much more potential for harm (obesity, climate change, nuclear weapon proliferation, human overpopulation issues, etc.)

Originally Posted by markashley

People who think the present administration is on the verge of tyranny are being a bit alarmist to say the least. However, tyrannical government has occurred throughout history and we have no idea what the U.S. government will be like in 20+ years. I feel like some "anti-gun" people don't fully appreciate the good reasons for the 2nd amendment.

Some think those people who are afraid of the government taking away their guns are crazy while also supporting a ban on gun ownership. Having both of these positions simultaneously is, perhaps, not logically sound.

Finally, although I support reasonable gun control, I feel like there are more important issues that the media should be covering. On average, less than one person per day dies from a mass shooting whereas something like 1,300 die per day from tobacco. Think of other issues politicians and the media barely mention that have so much more potential for harm (obesity, climate change, nuclear weapon proliferation, human overpopulation issues, etc.)

Tyranny and oppression tends to hit different people at different times within a country, and under many different circumstances and situations. The United States and its government/s have, at one point, oppressed, harmed and placed its boot on the necks of the people, and they are always doing it to someone. The right to defend and protect oneself against criminals, tyranny and tyrants is not just about the possibility and reality that the entire US government will sooner or later throw out the constitution, it is also about the right of an individual to be able to protect themselves from any criminal or tyrant.

So be a rapist, a bigot trying to harm someone, a rouge cop, a bad seed in the government (any government), fight against slavery, anti-gay abuses, anti-woman abuses, harm, abuse against rights, etc.. Tyrants and tyranny as well as crime and criminals often shows itself and attacks people in much smaller pockets and under many different situations and circumstances spread widely and vastly over wide areas and at different times. This reality of tyrants, tyranny, crime, criminals and abuses is much different than say a uniformed and coordinated attack or assault on the people and/or their rights by the federal government. However, they are both just as damning for the people involved, and the right to defend and protect oneself from either one of them is not more or less important than the other.

1st rule of gun control
don't shoot yourself

2nd rule
hit what you're aiming at