Gun control discussion

[phesina]

Gotta go now, duty calls, gotta defend the free world against the civilian nut jobs. Tough job, but somebody's got to do it.

Do you have a job doing something like this?

[Alysser]

Do you have a job doing something like this?

Hopefully not, she'd probably assumes everyone who owns a firearm is a nut job.

[blue]

Hopefully not, she'd probably assumes everyone who owns a firearm is a nut job.

Thats what the main stream media wants you to believe. Its what ES wants you to believe.

An armed populace ensures a Democratic Republic remains intact. Tyrants and dictators understand this, that is why they enjoy a disarmed populace. ES would rather be a subject then a free citizen.

[lizbud]

An armed populace ensures a Democratic Republic remains intact. Tyrants and dictators understand this, that is why they enjoy a disarmed populace. ES would rather be a subject then a free citizen.

Hear this all the time & wonder if people really believe what they are saying.A USA military could take down whole other Nations within days will be held in check by a group
of wannabe Rambos with their trusty "firearms". It's laughable. Evidently, repeating this phrase in every discussion about gun control, somehow makes them feel invincible.

[RICHARD]

Hear this all the time & wonder if people really believe what they are saying.A USA military could take down whole other Nations within days will be held in check by a group
of wannabe Rambos with their trusty "firearms". It's laughable. Evidently, repeating this phrase in every discussion about gun control, somehow makes them feel invincible.

Well, since we are talking about 'wannabe Rambos' let's talk about the "Stupid peaceniks", can we?

It's pretty insulting to be thought of as a 'wannabe Rambo' because I like to shoot a gun or want to own one.

That would be just like me saying that people who want green energy or drive hybrid cars are treehugging idiots.
Or that women who like cats are lonely and incapable of having a relationship with others, especially men.

---------------------

I haven't really read anything about people being Rambo or wanting to be Rambo - on this thread.

Of course, if I want to own a gun, bullets and want to target shoot on the weekends, that makes me a 'clear and present danger' to the people around me?

What an effing laugh.

I fear the idiots that drink and drive, talk on a cell phone, smoke cigarettes while driving -I fear people who smoke in bed, prepare my food or someone who decides that a nice biohazard in my water or air is the answer to THEIR problems?

----------------------

I do not think my guns are an extension of my penis, neither is my car, wallet or tax bracket.

I find the insinuation that I am a "rambo" because I like guns to be a direct reflection of the people who either do not like, trust or would not be able to handle a gun or the responsibilities of owning firearms.

If you don't like it or cannot handle it, suck it up.

My lifestyle choices shouldn't bother you - nor should my responsible ownership of any firearm.

[lizbud]

It's pretty insulting to be thought of as a 'wannabe Rambo' because I like to shoot a gun or want to own one.

Said nothing about indivdual gun owners .Said something about the"Rambos" who delude themselves into believing that arming themselves
will somehow protect us all from tyranical goverment excesses.

[blue]

Said nothing about individual gun owners .Said something about the"Rambos" who delude themselves into believing that arming themselves
will somehow protect us all from tyrannical government excesses.

When I mention being armed, Im not talking about the individual. The Second Amendment is not that simple.

[chocolatepuppy]

Hear this all the time & wonder if people really believe what they are saying.A USA military could take down whole other Nations within days will be held in check by a group
of wannabe Rambos with their trusty "firearms". It's laughable. Evidently, repeating this phrase in every discussion about gun control, somehow makes them feel invincible.

No desire to be Rambo. Would just like to protect myself in my own home.

[pomtzu]

No desire to be Rambo. Would just like to protect myself in my own home.

But I sure as heck wouldn't keep my gun on the dresser like you do. If I had one it would be on the nightstand - it's much closer than the dresser and I wouldn't even have to get out of bed!

[mon]

I am not really sure what there is to discuss. Folks who want guns get them. Those who do not, do not. Right , wrong, legal or illegal. People have the free will to get what they want. As far as the law goes....

[Karen]

But I sure as heck wouldn't keep my gun on the dresser like you do. If I had one it would be on the nightstand - it's much closer than the dresser and I wouldn't even have to get out of bed!

All depends on how your furniture is set up ... At the old house, my dresser was right next to the bed (old New England house, second floor room with sloping ceilings ...) and it was where my glasses rested at night - close enough so I could reach them without any effort!

[chocolatepuppy]

But I sure as heck wouldn't keep my gun on the dresser like you do. If I had one it would be on the nightstand - it's much closer than the dresser and I wouldn't even have to get out of bed!

Ok Ellie! It's only three steps to my dresser. I can grab my gun and switch the safety off in the dark.

[lizbud]

No desire to be Rambo. Would just like to protect myself in my own home.

I don't disagree with you.

[Edwina's Secretary]

The NRA Claims the AR-15 Is Useful for Hunting and Home Defense. Not Exactly.
By Justin Peters

On Dec. 24, in Webster, New York, an ex-con named William Spengler set fire to his house and then shot and killed two responding firefighters before taking his own life. He shot them with a Bushmaster AR-15-style semi-automatic rifle—the same weapon that Adam Lanza used 10 days earlier when he shot and killed 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary. James Holmes used an AR-15-style rifle with a detachable 100-round magazine this past summer when he shot up a movie theater in Colorado. (Though the AR-15 is a specific model of rifle made by Colt, the term has come to generically refer to the many other rifles built to similar specifications.)

Three makes a trend, as we all know, and many people have reacted by suggesting that the federal government should ban the AR-15 and other so-called assault weapons. Gun advocates have responded with exasperation, saying that, despite appearances, AR-15-style rifles are no more dangerous than any other gun. In a piece today on humanevents.com titled “The AR-15: The Gun Liberals Love to Hate,” NRA president David Keene blasted those critics who “neither understand the nature of the firearms they would ban, their popularity or legitimate uses.” Keene noted there are several valid, non-murderous uses for rifles like the AR-15—among them recreational target shooting, hunting, and home defense—and argued that law-abiding firearms owners shouldn’t be penalized because of homicidal loners who use semi-automatics like the AR-15 for criminal purposes.

I generally consider myself a Second Amendment supporter, and I haven’t yet decided where I stand on post-Newtown gun control. I would own a gun if New York City laws didn’t make it extremely difficult to do so. But I nevertheless find Keene’s arguments disingenuous. It’s odd to cite hunting and home defense as reasons to keep selling a rifle that’s not particularly well suited, and definitely not necessary, for either. Bolt-action rifles and shotguns can also be used for hunting and home defense. Unfortunately, those guns aren’t particularly lucrative for gunmakers. The lobby’s fervent defense of military-style semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15 seems motivated primarily by a desire to protect the profits in the rapidly growing “modern sporting rifle” segment of the industry.

The AR-15 was designed in 1957 at the behest of the U.S. Army, which asked Armalite to come up with a “high-velocity, full and semi auto fire, 20 shot magazine, 6lbs loaded, able to penetrate both sides of a standard Army helmet at 500 meters rifle,” according to ar15.com. When it entered Army service in the 1960s, it was renamed the M16, in accordance with the Army Nomenclature System. “AR-15” came to refer to the rifle’s semi-automatic civilian equivalent. From 1994 to 2004, AR-15-style rifles were subject to the now-expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Since then, the rifle and others like it have become tremendously popular. Last month, I estimated that upward of 3.5 million AR-15-style rifles currently exist in the United States. People like the rifle because it is modular and thus customizable (one article calls the AR-15 “perhaps the most flexible firearm ever developed; in seconds, a carbine can be switched over to a long-range rifle by swapping upper receivers”), because it is easy to shoot, and because carrying it around makes you look like a badass.

But the AR-15 is not ideal for the hunting and home-defense uses that the NRA’s Keene cited today. Though it can be used for hunting, the AR-15 isn’t really a hunting rifle. Its standard .223 caliber ammunition doesn’t offer much stopping power for anything other than small game. Hunters themselves find the rifle controversial, with some arguing AR-15-style rifles empower sloppy, “spray and pray” hunters to waste ammunition. (The official Bushmaster XM15 manual lists the maximum effective rate of fire at 45 rounds per minute.) As one hunter put it in the comments section of an article on americanhunter.org, “I served in the military and the M16A2/M4 was the weapon I used for 20 years. It is first and foremost designed as an assault weapon platform, no matter what the spin. A hunter does not need a semi-automatic rifle to hunt, if he does he sucks, and should go play video games. I see more men running around the bush all cammo'd up with assault vests and face paint with tricked out AR's. These are not hunters but wannabe weekend warriors.”

In terms of repelling a home invasion—which is what most people mean when they talk about home defense—an AR-15-style rifle is probably less useful than a handgun. The AR-15 is a long gun, and can be tough to maneuver in tight quarters. When you shoot it, it’ll overpenetrate—sending bullets through the walls of your house and possibly into the walls of your neighbor’s house—unless you purchase the sort of ammunition that fragments on impact. (This is true for other guns, as well, but, again, the thing with the AR-15 is that it lets you fire more rounds faster.)

AR-15-style rifles are very useful, however, if what you’re trying to do is sell guns. In a recent Forbes article, Abram Brown reported that “gun ownership is at a near 20-year high, generating $4 billion in commercial gun and ammunition sales.” But that money’s not coming from selling shotguns and bolt-action rifles to pheasant hunters. In its 2011 annual report, Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation announced that bolt-action hunting rifles accounted for 6.6 percent of its net sales in 2011 (down from 2010 and 2009), while modern sporting rifles (like AR-15-style weapons) accounted for 18.2 percent of its net sales. The Freedom Group’s 2011 annual report noted that the commercial modern sporting rifle market grew at a 27 percent compound annual rate from 2007 to 2011, whereas the entire domestic long gun market only grew at a 3 percent rate.

As the NRA’s David Keene notes, a lot of people do use modern sporting rifles for target shooting and in marksmanship competitions. But the guns also appeal to another demographic that doesn’t get nearly as much press—paranoid survivalists who worry about having to fend off thieves and trespassers in the event of disaster. Online shooting message boards are rife with references to potential “SHTF scenarios,” where SHTF stands for “shit hits the fan”—governmental collapse, societal breakdown. (Adam Lanza’s mother, Nancy Lanza, has been described as “a gun-hoarding survivalist who was stockpiling weapons in preparation for an economic collapse.”) An article on ar15.com titled “The Ideal Rifle” notes that “the threats from crime, terrorism, natural disaster, and weapons of mass destruction are real. If something were to happen today, you would need to have made a decision about the rifle you would select and be prepared for such an event. So the need to select a ‘survival’ rifle is real. Selecting a single ‘ideal rifle’ is not easy. The AR-15 series of rifles comes out ahead when compared to everything else.” Depending on where you live, it’s perfectly legal to stockpile weapons to use in the event of Armageddon. But that’s a far different argument than the ones firearms advocates have been using since the Newtown shootings.

As I said, I generally think of myself as a Second Amendment supporter, and a month ago, I would’ve probably agreed with the NRA’s position. But the Newtown shooting caused me to re-examine my stance—as is, I think, fitting—and to question some of the rhetoric advocates use to defend weapons like this. In his piece at Human Events, Keene ridiculed the notion that AR-15-style rifles ought to be banned just because “a half dozen [AR-15s] out of more than three million have been misused after illegally falling into the hands of crazed killers.” But the AR-15 is very good at one thing: engaging the enemy at a rapid rate of fire. When someone like Adam Lanza uses it to take out 26 people in a matter of minutes, he’s committing a crime, but he isn’t misusing the rifle. That’s exactly what it was engineered to do.

[phesina]

An armed populace ensures a Democratic Republic remains intact. Tyrants and dictators understand this, that is why they enjoy a disarmed populace. ES would rather be a subject then a free citizen.

How come, say for instance Canada, England, Germany, Denmark, countries with strong gun-control laws, are not tyrannical dictatorships?

And why are these countries not overrun with gun violence, gun crimes, gun deaths? After all, the bad guys can always get guns, but the good guys can't. How come bad guys aren't going around shooting up schools, theaters, malls, churches all the time in those places?