Okay ladies/wives let's hear it!

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lou

New member
My husband, Karanas, has been posting on this site for some time. He has been real involved with gun related issues for the last three years. I guess the "issue" really heated up at that time. He has gotten soooooo involved, it has caused some great concern for me. I posted earlier as an alias to get some feed back from "the group." Considering you guys aren't very bias... yeah right, I really did get some very good advice. I DO believe in the right to purchase guns, but do they have to be ones that will wipe out a whole bunch of people?
At first, when the anti-gun people came against semi-automatics, I agreed. Why do you need a gun like that to shoot a poor defenseless animal. To me, a gun was for a hunter to shoot an animal (hopefully for dinner). SO, why would you need a gun that would rapid fire. Okay, to forbid such a gun would put a foot in the door for the anti-gun people. But really, do we need such a weapon? I, myself, own a SW642. I got it because I would go rollerbladding on a secuded area called The Trace, a rail-to-trails type of area. A woman had been raped and I certainly wasn't going to end up a victim. I do not (at this time) have a permit to carry a concealed handgun, but I would much rather face a jury than a man who would want to rape me and possibly kill me. I take my sw642 with me in the car when I go out at night. Better prepared than not. So ladies, (and any men who want to respond) what are your feeling on these weapons that shoot out an unbelievable amount of ammo at one time. Should they be legal?


I am editing this post after a 24 hour period. I don't want anyone else getting their bloodpressure up over this. Karanas has sat me down and we discussed this (and I listened!) and I have seen the light! I now understand!

[This message has been edited by Lou (edited December 12, 1999).]
 
Lou...

You fall into a logic trap when you try to base justification on a "need" basis. No one needs a Cadillac, Mercedes or Lincoln when a Yugo can do the same thing. No one needs a house when an apartment will serve the same function.

In the hands of a skilled shooter a bolt action rifle is much more deadly than an inexperienced person with a semi-auto. So is a 12 gauge pump shotgun

So, to answer your question...yep, they are and should remain legal

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
I just watched a show on NASCAR. It makes for a good analogy - no one needs to go that fast or have a car that powerful. But, they sure as hell seem to have a lot of fun doing it! And I might add none of them go out on the highways and go crazy running all the others off the highway and causing general mayhem.
 
DC, I don't quite understand your logic. You stated that a bolt action rifle or a 12 qauge shot gun is more deadly with an experience user than an inexperienced person with a semi-auto. SOOOO why do we need these guns that fire off a large round of ammo? Please explain your logic. I still not see why they should be in existence.
 
I also can speak for my wife. I asked her if she cared to try something other than her Browning Buckmark and handed her my Smith and Wesson model 19 revolver. After trying to open the crane for what seemed an eternity she handed it back and said she drove an automatic instead of a stick for similar reasons. Point well taken by me. Everyone should have the chance to use whatever works best for them. Interestingly we both prefer a lever action in a longarm for much the same reason as above.

------------------
CCW for Ohio action site.
Deliberatley Unarmed People (DUPs) are one thing, we demand the choice.
http://www.ofcc.net
 
Lou-
Though DC can answer for herself, for me, your argument is specious. Once we outlaw semiautos, we can make the same comparison between six shooters and double barreled guns; then between double barreled guns and single shots; finallly between single shots and black powder weapons.

You have to decide what your true goal is. If you wish to decrease violent crime, you regulate the behavior of criminals. If you wish to decrease ownership of a class of weapons, you demonize and then outlaw the class of weapons, as though the item is, of itself, dangerous.

One goal has nothing to do with the other.
Rich

[This message has been edited by Rich Lucibella (edited December 11, 1999).]
 
For me "assault weapons" have one very important purpose, to protect my civil rights. Without them we have no defense against that would be dictator who buys his way into office and decides we don't need any rights at all. It is a defense against tyranny, and a deterrent to anyone that would try to remove our freedom. Without them we have already lost that battle. I don't speak for my wife on this issue, but I'm she'll probably come let you know her stance on this sometime soon.

------------------
Like an animal locked up in a cage, through my inheritance I was born to rage.
 
For me that argument is answer by this-A slave is told what he needs, a free man is allowed to decide for himself.

Lou-From a legal standpoint you are forgetting what the Second Amendment is about, and it is NOT HUNTING!!! It is about the ability of Americans to resist goverment abuse of power. For this to be effective American citizens need to be armed with the same equiptment as the modern military.

Who am I to tell you, or anybody else on this form, the state of Kentucky, or in America what they need? I do not know your situation or anything about you and the same applies to me.

Please read up on crime statistics that are related to semi-auto assault rifles. You will find that assault rifles account for less than %1 of all crime. The Violence Policy Center on it's wed site said assault rifles only accounted for 9%(this is inflated) of crime, but should be banned
anyway. Now how are you going to put a dent in crime by banning an item that is not used in crime anyway? TOTALLY ILLOGICAL, based on high publicity cases, looks, and emotional drivil. Now these are not good reasons to make laws, any laws.

Please take the time to inform yourself on the subject. You will probably go out and buy an "evil assault rifle" :)

By the way the same people who want my AR & AK want your S&W, after all they are HANDGUN Control Inc. You really don't NEED a handgun anyway.


Later
Daren
 
M'lady wants a semi-auto (a Glock). The fact that she wants one is enough reason. The fact that she can use it to fire rapidly and repeatedly to stop an assailant is also enough reason; not every rapist or murderer will cease an attack when shot just once.

BTW: A revolver IS a semi-automatic, as it fires one shot with each trigger pull.
 
Lou, There is some statistical data out that defensive shootings usually involve few rounds; often less than 4. Assuming you trusted the data, would you consider leaving as much as half of the capacity of your Smith empty when you left home due to a mathematical probablity for redundancy? Or, would you choose to err on the side of caution and load more than you "need".
 
Lou...

Re-read my post. The logic of "need" based justifications is faulty and only serves to advance a particular agenda, not solve a problem or even make a logical point.

Humans "need" very little and we need absolutely nothing this or any of the last 20 centuries has produced. People lived quite satisfactory lives 2000 yrs ago, others didn't. People were murdered, people were enslaved, people starved, others didn't. They faced the very same problems we do today. Other than education and technological/scientific advances and the concomittant affect on standard of living (which isn't universal by the way), nothing is different.

Thus, a need based debate about a societal problem is inherently faulty

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
My favorite gun is my Enfield (a dinosaur-era bolt-action). Most of my guns are semis. Would I give up the semis if allowed to keep the bolt?

HELL NO.

Lou, it isn't about need, and it damn sure isn't about hunting. No one has the right, legally or morally, to tell me what I need. That's been tried (USSR comes to mind most readily) in several countries, and it's ALWAYS failed.

Like others have noted, who needs a Lincoln when a Yugo will do? (or, for the Southerners, who needs a Lincoln when a Jackson will do? ;) )Who needs all those books when all you NEED is a Bible/Torah/Quran/Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance?


------------------
"The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it."
-- John Hay, 1872
 
Lou, others have said it all quite well. Let me only add that when you state your question re: 'an unbelievable amount of ammo', it makes me wonder what you think that means.

So, ignoring the political and philosophical arguments well made above, let's consider the practical issues. If I have an AR-15, then a 30 round (or perhaps 20 round), mil-spec magazine is probably the best from a standpoint of reliability and practical use. Do I really expect to use 20 or 30 rounds? No, of course not - if I did, then I would vacate that situation, pronto! But, you see, that is one of the points. You and I are arming ourselves for unknown, but possible eventualities. And, different situations call for different firearms.

Here in Phoenix, we have occasional home invasion robberies. And, don't forget the occasional riot, such as LA in '92 (?). While it is unlikely I'll be a victim of one of these incidents, it is also unlikely I'll ever be subject to any level of violence in my life. But ... it happens. And, both you and I have chosen to arm ourselves just in case we have to face such a risk. You will make your choice about what to use if the need arises, and I demand to make my own choice. You've apparently chosen to limit yourself to 5 rounds.

Now, I've chosen a 12 gauge shotgun for home defense instead of an AR - with the extended magazine and side-saddle I carry 13 rounds of shotshells. At an average pellet count of 9 for 00 buck, I can shoot a total of 117 projectiles. Now, why is that considered less lethal than an AR? That is absurd.

On the other hand, there have been a number of good studies that show a 55 grain, .223 hollow point round doesn't penetrate as much as many handgun rounds. An AR is actually an excellent home defense firearm in the proper situations, and I should be able to make such a choice.

So, what does all of this mean? It means that as long as you can choose to defend yourself with 5 rounds from your S&W 642, and I can choose to defend myself with an AR, then everything is fine. However, it makes no sense at all for you and I to tell each other what we need. That is one of the beauties of freedom - it allows each of us to make the right decision based upon our circumstances, and it has the same beneficial results as a 'free market'.

Lou, I assure you that this entire argument has been created by people who want to divide and conquer. They want to carve out small groups of gunowners, and defeat all of us little by little. I can't remember how it was put, but people like Sun Tsu and General Giap (NVA) talked about the strategies of defeating superior forces - the concept was to carve out smaller portions of the large group, and attack them with greater strength. It works.

The anti-self defense movement has attempted to do this (with too much success, I'll note) by attacking features on guns (pistol grips, etc.), types of ammunition, amount of ammunition, allowable gun owners (e.g. 'domestic violence' misdemeanors), where you can carry guns and so on - ad infinitum.

DC and others had it so right above - this whole discussion of 'need' is absurd, and totally contrary to the principles of freedom. Don't fall for it.

And, with all due respect, I do hope you carry a couple of speedloaders, just in case. ;)

Regards from AZ
 
Lou, Ctdonath beat me to my first point but I want to hammer it home, so to speak. Your revolver is NO different from a semi-auto in function, it only achieves the same result a different way. Each time you pull the trigger, it fires one round, and you can't pull the trigger so fast the gun can't keep up with you. Your revolver holds six rounds, a 1911 holds 7 (sometimes 8) What's the difference? Well, a 1911 has a safety, which some people prefer. It's also flatter, for easier carry, and can be reloaded more quickly. Does that make it an evil object? I think not.

Second, if you are ever in a real fight with a thug (or 2 or 3) who have firearms of their own, you may have a similar hit rate to what the cops have achieved--around 10%, give or take. That means it takes 10 rounds to hit a man with ONE. That means you would have to reload twice with any autoloader in existence, and 3-4 times with your revolver, just to survive. This isn't likely, since you probably shoot much better than the average cop and since you aren't likely to be forced to gunfight with armed thugs (you have the option of running or complying if obviously outgunned, unlike cops) but does it really make sense for anyone to tell you that you can't have that capability because you don't "need" it? Only you can decide what you need.
OK, this is long-winded enough.
 
"SOOOO why do we need these guns that fire off a large round of ammo? Please explain your logic."

Lou,

If I might ask a few questions in return? 1. Why do I need a microwave, electric or gas stove works fine?
2. Why do I need a washing machine, a bucket will work?
3. Why do I need paved hiways, gravel used to get me to the same places?
Indoor plumbing?
Carpet floorcovering?
These are all things that could be dangerous if used in the wrong manner. I just do not think the government has any business telling me what I "need".

Regards
Deven


[This message has been edited by Rotorhead (edited December 12, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Rotorhead (edited December 12, 1999).]
 
We live in America, land of the free. With all the laws out there today it's hard to say that now with out feeling like I'm lying. I already feel caged with out them making more pointless laws. I just can't fathom why we make more laws in an effort to make crime go down. Criminals break the law, what good are more laws going to do? All I can see they accomplish is to limit those that follow those laws.
Are all Americans really bad enough to say that we are all potentially dangerous enough to need this many laws? Maybe I'm off the subject here, but I think what we need is to seriously go over the laws we have and find out why they aren't having the desired affect rather then making new laws and taking away more rights.
No matter what the t.v tells me, I refuse to believe we need to start war with everything that is deemed by society as bad. War on drugs, war on poverty, war on this, and war on that. Its almost like were saying 'Gee we're American if we don't like it, we'll go to war with it but please don't trust us with guns or knives, we aren't responsible enough to handle them.' Pardon my rant but I just can't decipher what the goals of this country are anymore. No longer is it the pursuit of happiness. Now it is the pursuit of control, and it's not just the government that is playing the control game.
Back to the subject of automatic weapons. It should be a warning signal to us all that our government is getting way to powerful and way to corrupt when the president decides to publicly denounce our right to protect ourselves from the government he presides over, and helps sue the manufacturers of our weapons.
If you want to know how I would do things (if I had any money to play with what so ever =o) I'd bow hunt because I feel that's more like the hunter I was supposed to be. I'd carry an MK .40 for personal protection and keep my automatic, and other powerful guns for defending my home and my country.
That's me, and my point of view. I don't expect everybody to share my point of view, but I do expect the right to make my own decisions and not be told by law that I can't.


------------------
Gun control isnt about guns, Its about control.
 
Tank girl, I want a ride in that HUMMER.

If need is the basis for things how bout this. We put governers on all cars and truckS to regulate the speed automatically based on singnals inset in the road like the bump reflectors. So if you are in a 25 mph neighborhood then that is the max speed your car will go. Also have your now computerized car shut down at the touch of a button from a law enforcement officer in his car, he shuts down your car by remote.No more chases. No more speed traps. Maybe bumper detectors that automatically keep you vehicle one car length away per 10mph from the car ahead of you. Very little rear end crashes.
Maybe a special application showing why you need a vehicle and cannot use public transportation. Since driving is just a priveledge and not a right. Now we have some clean air.

You think high capacity is 30? Take a look at the governments mini guns that fire 100 shots a second. One reason for all the ammo is to lay down suppressing fire to manuever while your enemy has his head down.

------------------
The beauty of the second Amendment is that it is not needed until they try to take it. T JEFFERSON

Do you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. We're after power and we mean it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breakings laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted-and you create a nation of law breakers--and then you cash in on guilt.

A RAND
 
ARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
You Got Me! ;)

I wrote a long scathing reply to this. BUT.
Methinks Mama wants a Smith 342 from Santa and wants to give her 642 to glockgirl79, glockgirl79 prob thinks revolvers are fogey guns. Poor Karnas is caught in the middle.
Just ask the guy for it already.
http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=33334
------------------
CCW for Ohio action site.
Deliberatley Unarmed People (DUPs) are one thing, we demand the choice.
http://www.ofcc.net


[This message has been edited by Hal (edited December 12, 1999).]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top