Gun Control(long)

A

amacks

Inactive
Wouldn't it be easier to just have England-Style, almost total gun control? Are we living in a society that is so barbaric, that each member needs to have the ability to kill another instantly.
Gun's have ligitimate uses for sport, but hunting an animal with a high powered rifle...thats no challenge. I believe that black-powder rifles should be kept legal for hunting(the lower range and accuracy almost make hunting a challenge) but all other guns limited to the shotting gallery. (obvious exceptions for law enforcement and military)
With guns illegal, police officers could immediatly detain anyone with a gun, not waiting for them to commit a crime with it. As with limits on automatic knives, limit the accessability of guns, reduce crime.
Although some may saw that with guns outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. With, the gun industry reduced to ranges and law enforcement/military, sources for gun supplies and ammunition will cease to exist. This is the other half of ther crime reduction: outlaws will have guns, but they'll have to get close enough to hit you with them!
That's my 2c
Aaron

Contest Entry
 
Amacks-
Hmm, interesting post. Is this your honest position or can we assume you're playing "Devil's Advocate" in the interests of the contest? Obviously you'd have no interest in the Mad Dog Holster and little interest in the Surefire Tactical light. Guess the AFCK strikes your fancy.

Don't get me wrong, we welcome all sides of the issue to The Firing Line, within the constraints of our policies. If you are stating your honest position, I'd just like to know how you heard about is....it would help us to get the message out to the right people.
Welcome.
Rich Lucibella
 
Amack...

I suppose your premise would be correct if we were British subjects. We chose not to be.

In principle our form of government, democratic republic, protects the individual againts "tyranny of majority and minority". This principle also assumes personal responsibility and as such one should not be penalized for the crimes or infractions of someone else...in short, if you have not broken a law or shown that you can't be trusted, there is no legitimate reason to penalize you for what you might do, or what I could imagine you might do.
Using your logic, I as a woman, could legitimately say all men are rapists or potential rapists and therefore expect state control of the male sex drive. Perhaps, at the onset of puberty, all males should be required to take drugs that erase the sex drive. Show your marriage license to the appropriate governmental office and you can have a license to be off the drug. However, if it is shown that your wife is medically unable to have children, then you don't need to have sex, so license is denied.
 
DC:
Ah, but the purpose of a gun is to injure, preferably at as great a distance as possible, while the purpose of the male sex drive is to procreate with women, preferably as close as possible.
Aaron
ps The example of England was just that, an example of good, sucessfull gun-control
 
Amacks..

That is your perception. I see firearms as tools and recreational implements.
Please be consistent in your original premise..to whit: the control and/or banning of something(object or activity) that can occasionally be abused; thereby penalizing individuals that have committed no offenses. Anything else is specious and intellectually dishonest.
 
firearms as tools? I can see knives as tools, but guns i cannot(unless you use your beretta to make a hole in your bagel
smile.gif

Aaron
ps towards my original premise I still hold true, Guns are designed to propel a small piece of lead a high speed toward a target in the hopes of doing appreciable damage to the target
 
Amacks...

I have participated in similar debates ad nauseum and frankly it bores me.
You fear and/or have an aversion to an object and its function, apparently perceiving that the propulsion of a body over unit distance with the intent to strike an intended target/object is bad and unnecessary.
I see the debate as the penalization and infringement of the rights of innocent people. I'm not interested in the semantics of minutia.

Therefore as moderator I bow out of this thread. I shall leave it open until such time as our standards are violated...at which time I can figuratively demonstrate a gun control analogy
smile.gif
 
What amazes me is that you post how much you despise guns, can't understand how they could be considered tools, etc, etc here and then you post details and questions about the HK Mark 23 on the handguns forum.

What kind of loon are you?
 
I would like to clarify two points that may help explain my position<ol>
<Li>I have no aversion, fear, or even dislike guns. I shot 22lr rifles when I went to camp as a kid, and more recently I have gone shooting at a local range which rents handguns(Selectfire in Glen Burnie, MD)
[*]To attempted point of my post was that I am opposed to the CARRY of handguns.
[/list=a]
Aaron
ps in re-reading my second post it seems that I was smoking something powerfull...it conveys a point almost opposit to it's intenet
 
Please....no further personal insults.


(this referee post not applicable to contest count)
 
Aaron,
Please explain why you are opposed to the carry of a handgun. To just make a blanket statement like that without reasons is kind of like saying spandex should be outlawed. Not a flame, I just want to know why you are opposed to the carry of a handgun. It makes a difference in how I can answer your question.
 
I do not mean to be inflammatory, but this reminds me of an old question. When you argue with a fool, what are you? As much as writing about gun freedom in gun magazines seems to be fruitless (preaching to the choir), so, it seems, is arguing with gun control zealots. Our efforts could better be spent in an attempt to demonstrate to the uninformed the errors of the zealots ways. I don't think the people who vote are priveleged to these discussions between the control/non-control factions. The voters are the ones who need to understand the nuances of the Second Amendment. I don't think they are getting that information. In many cases, they are responding to emotional outbursts unaccompanied by rational thought.
 
I attended a sub-committe hearing on the 2nd Amendment in the capitol building last month and learned more in 2 hours about the picture our legislators have of issue than a lifetime of these discussions.
I learned that there are a large number of people (including most of the senators there) who see the gun issue as a subset of individual rights issue. There are very sympathetic to the pro-gun view of the 2nd Amendment when it is looked upon in this light. I now believe that we do ourselves a disservice when we talk baout reduced crime, sporting uses and most of these other issues. The legislators understand this subject and the impact it can have on our entire society much more than I thought they did. While you might convince your neighbor that Trap shooting is fun and that not all guns are "weapons" the fact seems to be that the most powerful argument in Washington is the most important one anyway, without the right to keep and bear arms all other individual freedoms cease to exist.
I can forward transcripts of the statements and testimony to anyone interested.
 
Amacks,
You stated that to hunt with high powered weapons results in a turkey shoot? You must not be a hunter. A turkey shoot. That must be why only 5% of 100,000 plus elk hunters last year in my state brought home meat. Yeah. A real turkey shoot. Incidentally, along the lines of being against carrying guns, if a bad guy aproaches you with a knife, dont you think you should have the right to pull out that H&K you've inquired about? Or would you rather pull a knife to level the playing field. Make it fair.......more sporting?
 
Various Replies:
<ul>
[*] Rob: could you fwd me the transcript? I am interested in hearing what the DC guys say about guns
[*] If a knife was pulled on me, I would have no choice but to respond with a knife. I live on a college campus in Mass, there are NO CCW permits even thought of.
Aaron
 
Amacks, check out the 'website of the armed liberal' at http://www.arcrafts.com/2think.html, and while you're there, read the essay " A Nation of Cowards". Furhter, by the FBI's own stats, armed citizens use guns upwards of 2.5 million times/year to deter crime, but the firearms were actually fired in less than one percent of the incidents. Don't you think it ironic that the Revolution started in the now People's Republik of MA because 'the authorities' were trying to take away the colonists' arms in the dark of night? Do you trust a government that doesn't trust its citizens? Better to have and not need. . . . M2
 
Aaron: Being married to a Brit with a number of relatives over in England that we visit every few years I can tell you firsthand that gun control over there only hurts the law abiding citizen the same as it does here. The drug trade there has gotten violent with criminals using firepower that was once unheard of. The once unarmed Bobbies are beginning to carry pistols.

Do us in Maryland here a favor and don't cast an absentee ballot. With your attitude you would probably vote for Glendening.
 
I think that it would be irresponsible not to vote, but my gubinatorial decision has not yet been made. Nice pickup on the MD absantee balot.
Aaron
ps both Glendenning and Sauerbrey sent my mailings, neither mentioned gun control
 
I just wanted to thank you all for your contributions. I posted the original message as a infrequent gun owner who had heard very little about the cons of gun control. (As a resident of a very liberal college campus, where the police can not carry..) To try and form a valid opinion, I wanted to hear as much of the opposition as possible.

I have come to the conclusion that I can accept some limits on gun ownership, ie no full automatic, no exploding rounds etc, but I am against limits on ownership of rifles, handguns or shotguns. I also am pretty much ok with the manditory trigger locks.


Aaron
 
Amacks: the data is in!
Take a look at Dr. Lott's studies on the reduction of crime in areas where CCW are permitted.

Rob,
Just because the legislators MAY believe in our viepoint of the 2nd amendment doesn't mean that they will always vote to protect it. If we don't argue our point at every possible truth, non-gun owners may vote us out.

p.s. Amacks, hope you win the contest!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top