Why you have no right to bear arms

[avelanch]

Interstate Commerce (federal law) already prohibits a transfer of a handgun from Indiana to an Illinois resident without the use of an FFL dealer in Illinois. Said FFL dealer is required to send in the paperwork for a background check through the Illinois protocal before the handgun can be transferred to the purchaser. So this nonsense about criminals just crossing the state borders to buy a gun is nonsense yet it kepts getting regurgitated.

because they care about the transfer laws? and there are over 10,000 abandoned houses they could claim they lived at, and 80,000 residents of the town of which a large proportion would be willing to procure it for them for a small fee. it's not hard to get around the residency thing.

[Bocivus]

because they care about the transfer laws? and there are over 10,000 abandoned houses they could claim they lived at, and 80,000 residents of the town of which a large proportion would be willing to procure it for them for a small fee. it's not hard to get around the residency thing.

Thank you for illustrating the point that more gun laws only affect the law abiding citizens.

[VanGnome]

I was at a dinner party last night, and this subject was broached.

I think it is asinine to suggest that certain firearm types shouldn't be prohibited, outside of hunting rifles for the purpose of hunting, no one needs a gun with a caliber larger than 9mm and even that is pushing it. People want guns with higher caliber.

This is why it's my belief that firearms in and of themselves should not be fully prohibited across the board, because doing so punishes the freedom of choice that we enjoy in this society, and does nothing really to curb the flow of guns obtained by criminals for nefarious purpose, it just drives the acquisition of these firearms further underground.

I'm all for tightening existing regulations, loosening others while also restricting more types of firearms. Again, outside of someone who is a legitimate hunter, there is never a need to own a multitude of guns, there's a want for the sake of ownership. I suppose it's too inconvenient for people to go to a gun range to fire off a M16, Desert Eagle or other such firearm types.

Absolute prohibition doesn't work, never has never will. Didn't work for liquor, drugs or prostitution. All it does is create a framework to generate new criminals for our current retributive justice system, when these offences do not warrant the time or energy of the courts, or our police services.

As to the OP, it's not my fault that you are fearful of something. If I were afraid of Carnies and Clowns, I wouldn't campaign to shut down the circus. While you may argue that you can simply avoid going to the circus to have it not affect you, and is not the same as having people next door to you own guns.

The fear of guns, and in fact the fear of anything in anticipation that that thing might lead to something bad happening is all relative. It depends on circumstance, and any number of factors outside of human control going a certain way. People choose for themselves whether to live in fear of things they cannot control.

People have a difficult time separating their fear of something, and a legitimate need to remove that same thing from the population so that no one can have it.

This is not unlike the Pitbull prohibition. The breed is not inherently vicious or violent, it all amounts to how the animal has been raised and treated. Those animals that lashed out and caused injury may not have had the attention it needed, may never have learned how to deal with specific situations and so defaulted to basic animal instinct; ie the fight or flight response. If backed into a corner and felt fear, an animal will lash out to defend itself. Conversely if an animal is repeatedly put into situations where it is fearful, it is more likely to proactively attack if it feels the least bit threatened in order to prevent being backed into a corner.

Unlike dogs, guns are inanimate and therefore anything that happens as a result of their use is directly tied to those who are behind the trigger. It's the exact same for any weapon, whether it's a machete, katana, baseball bat, golf club or composite long bow.

[Bocivus]

I was at a dinner party last night, and this subject was broached.

I think it is asinine to suggest that certain firearm types shouldn't be prohibited, outside of hunting rifles for the purpose of hunting, no one needs a gun with a caliber larger than 9mm and even that is pushing it. People want guns with higher caliber.

This is why it's my belief that firearms in and of themselves should not be fully prohibited across the board, because doing so punishes the freedom of choice that we enjoy in this society, and does nothing really to curb the flow of guns obtained by criminals for nefarious purpose, it just drives the acquisition of these firearms further underground.

I'm all for tightening existing regulations, loosening others while also restricting more types of firearms. Again, outside of someone who is a legitimate hunter, there is never a need to own a multitude of guns, there's a want for the sake of ownership. I suppose it's too inconvenient for people to go to a gun range to fire off a M16, Desert Eagle or other such firearm types.

Absolute prohibition doesn't work, never has never will. Didn't work for liquor, drugs or prostitution. All it does is create a framework to generate new criminals for our current retributive justice system, when these offences do not warrant the time or energy of the courts, or our police services.

As to the OP, it's not my fault that you are fearful of something. If I were afraid of Carnies and Clowns, I wouldn't campaign to shut down the circus. While you may argue that you can simply avoid going to the circus to have it not affect you, and is not the same as having people next door to you own guns.

The fear of guns, and in fact the fear of anything in anticipation that that thing might lead to something bad happening is all relative. It depends on circumstance, and any number of factors outside of human control going a certain way. People choose for themselves whether to live in fear of things they cannot control.

People have a difficult time separating their fear of something, and a legitimate need to remove that same thing from the population so that no one can have it.

This is not unlike the Pitbull prohibition. The breed is not inherently vicious or violent, it all amounts to how the animal has been raised and treated. Those animals that lashed out and caused injury may not have had the attention it needed, may never have learned how to deal with specific situations and so defaulted to basic animal instinct; ie the fight or flight response. If backed into a corner and felt fear, an animal will lash out to defend itself. Conversely if an animal is repeatedly put into situations where it is fearful, it is more likely to proactively attack if it feels the least bit threatened in order to prevent being backed into a corner.

Unlike dogs, guns are inanimate and therefore anything that happens as a result of their use is directly tied to those who are behind the trigger. It's the exact same for any weapon, whether it's a machete, katana, baseball bat, golf club or composite long bow.

The issue regarding the caliber size restriction to 9mm can be misleading. For example: A .357 Sig round or a .38 super are more powerful catridges than, let's say a .45 round, which is a lot bigger. Wound ballistics studies tell us that the difference between a .45, .40 and 9mm are miniscule when it comes to wound cavity, both permanent and temporary. I see what you are saying, but it's not necessarily the size of the projectile that causes the most damage, but the velocity. That's why a 65 grain .223 round fired from an AR at 3200fps will do way more damage than a 230 grain .45 round traveling at 900fps. If you're only talking handgun rounds, FN makes a 5.7mm pistol round that can do quite a bit of damage and that is also smaller than a 9mm. It's a slippery slope and when one attempts to draw the line in the sand as what is and is not prohibited for civilians there is a lot of fuzzy grey area in between the black and white.

Outside of that +1 for a well thought out comment. I especially liked the pit bull comparison as I am a dog lover and one of the counties in my state prohibits them and if they are discovered they are put down, no questions asked whether or not they are considered aggresive.

[Bocivus]

Double post.

[MANGO]

Most people can't handle the responsibility of owning a car, which is also a weapon. Do I think that the people I see eating a bowl of cereal, or reading a book.....? while driving to work in the morning, are responsible enough to own a gun. NO. The problem isn't the gun, it is the decision making capability/judgement of the average person that is the most worry some part.

[VanGnome]

The issue regarding the caliber size restriction to 9mm can be misleading. For example: A .357 Sig round or a .38 super are more powerful catridges than, let's say a .45 round, which is a lot bigger. Wound ballistics studies tell us that the difference between a .45, .40 and 9mm are miniscule when it comes to wound cavity, both permanent and temporary. I see what you are saying, but it's not necessarily the size of the projectile that causes the most damage, but the velocity. That's why a 65 grain .223 round fired from an AR at 3200fps will do way more damage than a 230 grain .45 round traveling at 900fps. If you're only talking handgun rounds, FN makes a 5.7mm pistol round that can do quite a bit of damage and that is also smaller than a 9mm. It's a slippery slope and when one attempts to draw the line in the sand as what is and is not prohibited for civilians there is a lot of fuzzy grey area in between the black and white.

Outside of that +1 for a well thought out comment. I especially liked the pit bull comparison as I am a dog lover and one of the counties in my state prohibits them and if they are discovered they are put down, no questions asked whether or not they are considered aggresive.

Regarding bullet caliber size, you'll have to excuse my ignorance. I was as you alluded to referring to the size of firearms in relation to bullet sizes, ie semi and fully automatic weapons iirc typically have a higher overall caliber of bullet vs a typical handgun.

You are correct however there are many handguns designed to deliver significant damage in a very small form factor, I suppose as a way to circumvent "power to size" ratios of larger guns, while maintaining all or most of the whollop.

Most people can't handle the responsibility of owning a car, which is also a weapon. Do I think that the people I see eating a bowl of cereal, or reading a book.....? while driving to work in the morning, are responsible enough to own a gun. NO. The problem isn't the gun, it is the decision making capability/judgement of the average person that is the most worry some part.

+1 on that one, I feel that compared to guns, ineptitude behind the wheel of a car is far more dangerous on a far more consistent basis. Especially since there is nothing preventing someone under the influence of anything from getting into a car and causing mass destruction and sometimes death, yet people are getting uppity because some people have guns in their homes.

There's a reason I don't drive a large bulky vehicle despite having a family and a young infant almost at all times... as a defensive driver acutely aware of the idiocy on the road, having a nimble vehicle affords me a better opportunity than most to avoid getting into unfortunate situations.

Much like the evolution of dinosaurs (ie bigger and more powerful), so too has the automotive industry grown; and just like the dinosaurs, there will be a culling of the herd

[Lockout Casualty]

I was at a dinner party last night, and this subject was broached.

I think it is asinine to suggest that certain firearm types shouldn't be prohibited, outside of hunting rifles for the purpose of hunting, no one needs a gun with a caliber larger than 9mm and even that is pushing it. People want guns with higher caliber.

This is why it's my belief that firearms in and of themselves should not be fully prohibited across the board, because doing so punishes the freedom of choice that we enjoy in this society, and does nothing really to curb the flow of guns obtained by criminals for nefarious purpose, it just drives the acquisition of these firearms further underground.

I'm all for tightening existing regulations, loosening others while also restricting more types of firearms. Again, outside of someone who is a legitimate hunter, there is never a need to own a multitude of guns, there's a want for the sake of ownership. I suppose it's too inconvenient for people to go to a gun range to fire off a M16, Desert Eagle or other such firearm types.

Absolute prohibition doesn't work, never has never will. Didn't work for liquor, drugs or prostitution. All it does is create a framework to generate new criminals for our current retributive justice system, when these offences do not warrant the time or energy of the courts, or our police services.

As to the OP, it's not my fault that you are fearful of something. If I were afraid of Carnies and Clowns, I wouldn't campaign to shut down the circus. While you may argue that you can simply avoid going to the circus to have it not affect you, and is not the same as having people next door to you own guns.

The fear of guns, and in fact the fear of anything in anticipation that that thing might lead to something bad happening is all relative. It depends on circumstance, and any number of factors outside of human control going a certain way. People choose for themselves whether to live in fear of things they cannot control.

People have a difficult time separating their fear of something, and a legitimate need to remove that same thing from the population so that no one can have it.

This is not unlike the Pitbull prohibition. The breed is not inherently vicious or violent, it all amounts to how the animal has been raised and treated. Those animals that lashed out and caused injury may not have had the attention it needed, may never have learned how to deal with specific situations and so defaulted to basic animal instinct; ie the fight or flight response. If backed into a corner and felt fear, an animal will lash out to defend itself. Conversely if an animal is repeatedly put into situations where it is fearful, it is more likely to proactively attack if it feels the least bit threatened in order to prevent being backed into a corner.

Unlike dogs, guns are inanimate and therefore anything that happens as a result of their use is directly tied to those who are behind the trigger. It's the exact same for any weapon, whether it's a machete, katana, baseball bat, golf club or composite long bow.

I don't know who's campaigning on shutting down the circus, or banning guns as it were. The OP itself states:

That doesn’t mean you can’t have one, it just means that the terms under which you own one are going to have to be negotiated, and you’re going to have to expect to make some compromises.

[Mike Vanderhoek]

This is nonsense.

1. Name the uses for a knife; name the uses for a firearm. Here's a hint: one has many uses, the other kills.

2. People can die from stray fire, it happens all the time. On the hand hand, I don't need to worry about whether you know how to cut a steak. You'll hurt yourself and yourself only.

3. All the "examples" you cited have a reference to harming another as an unintended consequence. Compare that with firearms and think about it for a moment. Does it make sense to you why your "parallels" are silly?

People should mind their own business so long as your actions don't have an adverse affect on them. Once that line is crossed, then your business becomes a matter of public consideration.

Exactly, I understand people's arguments when defensive of something that is a part of their life, finding parallels til the cows come home.

At the end of the day guns are used to kill. And kill whether be hunting, protecting, criminal activity or self defense...oh and the all too frequent " accidents ".

And also you should care what others think, this is a serious issue and being a gun owner you should care.

[VanGnome]

I don't know who's campaigning on shutting down the circus, or banning guns as it were. The OP itself states:

I don't really see how it does. That sentence is buried about half way through the OP which is really nothing more than a collection of other peoples opinions (read: articles) with a few tidbits of your own opinion sprinkled within their midst. You probably should do a better job of making your point, because the narrative of that OP is "Guns are bad, I'm afraid of guns".

In this debate/discussion/whatever you want to call it, there's no other logical conclusion to make from the tone and context of your post other than prohibition. Had you used proper formatting, it would have been easier to point out what were your genuinely unique positions to each article pasted instead of alternating bold/regular weighted text, but that's neither here nor there.

The point is, I used the circus/clown reference to analogously compare how ridiculous your argument appeared to be to me. It appears my initial and sustained commentary were and is perhaps missing the crux of what you were trying to convey, but the points I'm making I don't think can be refuted that easily in terms of the subject matter at hand.

Generally speaking, the entire anti-gun establishment is almost entirely missing the true heart of the matter, and the phrase which has comically been used as a rallying point for the NRA "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" actually is quite apt. I'm not going to go into the nearsightedness of the NRA, but that phrase really is true.

It also doesn't matter whether a gun, or golf club, or machete is used to commit a heinous act. It's that the act was committed at all, leading to where we should be placing the focus of our efforts: fixing people. There is absolutely no social framework, or services in place to create a culture of awareness in identifying troubled individuals and seeking to help these individuals early in life, as opposed to letting these things go unresolved, manifest and end up as the cause to something terrible happening.

How often has it been said by people close to those who commit violent acts that "we've seen that this person was troubled for a very long time"? You also can't simply say that those people should have done something, done what? Reach out to what services? What help?

Further gun restriction, regulation or out right prohibition doesn't change the fact that people do terrible things, often due to circumstances getting so bad that there just isn't any help for them. I'll re-iterate my previous thought; you aren't necessarily afraid of guns, you are likely more afraid of what they can do when certain people have them.

Education, awareness and support are far better tools to reducing violent crime than is swinging the banhammer of retributive justice or imposing ever more regulation. We can't even effectively regulate the public in alcohol use and the operation of motor vehicles, yet you seem to think that we can do a better job controlling guns.

[EmployeeoftheMonth]

Will you please find in my comment where I used this argument?

You expect me to leave my own home out of my bedroom window when there is an intruder in my house? Ha! Not going to happen. Call me what you will. And before you hit me with the "you will probably end up shooting your family member" comment, I will NEVER shoot anything that hasn't been 100% positivley identified as a threat to my life or family member's life. If they have all of the 3, intent, capability and opportunity and they're in my house, I will take care of business.

That's only regarding my house. If I'm in public and I can avoid a confrontation like that I will do everything in my power to do so. This includes getting the hell out of dodge if it's safely possible. Deadly force is only a last resort.

My expectations of anybody is to use their heads, especially people who also have the ability to use a deadly weapon. You assume I would say that but I do expect that most people who own guns are responsible and the reports of people shooting people by accident are a tiny percentage compared to people who own guns. I will say that no matter how safe a person is to say never is never a good idea. You may shoot someone or something without identifying it because you're human and you make mistakes. That's why as responsible gun owners we should always strive for safety.

Back to my expectation of people using their heads. If you have the opportunity to get out through a window instead of potentially getting into a gun fight you're an idiot for not going out the window. That has nothing to do with what gun you have, how much training you have etc etc etc. If you are really "taking care of business" for your family than you are making the smart choice. Stand your ground laws were not meant to be a free pass to defend your home. There was always the stipulation that if a person can get out safely they were to take that option first. If I can get my wife and kids out of the house before going into a potential gun fight that's what I would call taking care of business. Anything else just seems like bravado to me. That's not to say there isn't a time and place to "stand your ground", but is your families or your life really worth risking over a sweet 60 inch TV? Deadly force is a last resort; no matter what the situation to any responsible gun owner.

[riffraff]

My expectations of anybody is to use their heads, especially people who also have the ability to use a deadly weapon. You assume I would say that but I do expect that most people who own guns are responsible and the reports of people shooting people by accident are a tiny percentage compared to people who own guns. I will say that no matter how safe a person is to say never is never a good idea. You may shoot someone or something without identifying it because you're human and you make mistakes. That's why as responsible gun owners we should always strive for safety.

Back to my expectation of people using their heads. If you have the opportunity to get out through a window instead of potentially getting into a gun fight you're an idiot for not going out the window. That has nothing to do with what gun you have, how much training you have etc etc etc. If you are really "taking care of business" for your family than you are making the smart choice. Stand your ground laws were not meant to be a free pass to defend your home. There was always the stipulation that if a person can get out safely they were to take that option first. If I can get my wife and kids out of the house before going into a potential gun fight that's what I would call taking care of business. Anything else just seems like bravado to me. That's not to say there isn't a time and place to "stand your ground", but is your families or your life really worth risking over a sweet 60 inch TV? Deadly force is a last resort; no matter what the situation to any responsible gun owner.

No sane family man argues paragraph two.

[Bocivus]

My expectations of anybody is to use their heads, especially people who also have the ability to use a deadly weapon. You assume I would say that but I do expect that most people who own guns are responsible and the reports of people shooting people by accident are a tiny percentage compared to people who own guns. I will say that no matter how safe a person is to say never is never a good idea. You may shoot someone or something without identifying it because you're human and you make mistakes. That's why as responsible gun owners we should always strive for safety.

Back to my expectation of people using their heads. If you have the opportunity to get out through a window instead of potentially getting into a gun fight you're an idiot for not going out the window. That has nothing to do with what gun you have, how much training you have etc etc etc. If you are really "taking care of business" for your family than you are making the smart choice. Stand your ground laws were not meant to be a free pass to defend your home. There was always the stipulation that if a person can get out safely they were to take that option first. If I can get my wife and kids out of the house before going into a potential gun fight that's what I would call taking care of business. Anything else just seems like bravado to me. That's not to say there isn't a time and place to "stand your ground", but is your families or your life really worth risking over a sweet 60 inch TV? Deadly force is a last resort; no matter what the situation to any responsible gun owner.

I agree for the most part. Regarding me not leaving my house if an intruder breaks in, I was specifically talking if I have family in the house. If that is indeed the case then more than likely by the time I realize an intruder is in my house it's a bit late to be gathering everyone up and getting away. At that point defending my family is priority #1.

If no one is home but myself then I think getting to a place that provides cover and/or concealment in my room with the door locked and phoning the police is what will happen. I'm not juming out of my second story window. Clearing the house myself is out of the question because the intruder could hear me coming and hide/wait which will put me at a tactical disadvantage. If he comes in my room though, I will have no pity for what happens to him as HE will be at the disadvantage. My hope is, though that the police can arrive before that happens. Contrary to popular belief amongst the anti-gun crowd, I do not want to hurt anyone if I don't absolutely have to. As you said, last resort, no matter the situation.

[RUPERTKBD]

You mean this parent?

http://youtu.be/m-UfCr2VE_I

I'd love to. I'd love to go call him out for the lying scumbag he is just like the rest of them.

Right, because everyone expresses grief in exactly the same manner and those who don't conform to what people would consider the norm are lying scumbags.

And of course the whole incident is written off as a hoax by the pro-gun lobby because some NRA propagandist managed to find a video of one parent not acting in a way we might expect. This of course discounts the many who did show grief and the outpouring of the same from all over the world.

Go to Newton. Call them all liars. Please.

[Bocivus]

Right, because everyone expresses grief in exactly the same manner and those who don't conform to what people would consider the norm are lying scumbags.

And of course the whole incident is written off as a hoax by the pro-gun lobby because some NRA propagandist managed to find a video of one parent not acting in a way we might expect. This of course discounts the many who did show grief and the outpouring of the same from all over the world.

Go to Newton. Call them all liars. Please.

Yeah, ok. Hours after his daughter is killed he's in front of the cameraoing an interview? And why is there no tears? Watch almost every "parent" on the matter with their fake crying and you will see NO TEARS. Just a coincident though, right? Look up a guy by the name of Gene Rosen, the biggest fraud of them all. If you watch him tell his "story" and think he's legit, I don't know what to tell you.

I could go on all day about the countless evidence that directly contradict the official story but unless you research it yourself you're mind will stay closed and made up. I'll leave this here just in case you get bored and decide to open your mind and simply look.

8 min of your time:

This one is VERY long but covers everything:

http://youtu.be/7TgIbwaBb_U