Proof that we need more gun control

[AUDub 11,784]

http://news.yahoo.co...-214426747.html

http://www.dailymail...es-OWN-SON.html

http://www.wcpo.com/...rglar-fires-gun

^^Here are a few quick stories about "self-defense" working the other way around. As long as we have 300 million guns in the US we will continue to have an outrageous rate of gun-related deaths. Every case is unique, and the one originally posted in this thread will no doubt be touted as a quality defense for the allowance of firearms, but if we're going to look at those stories we also need to look at the other side of reality--kids accidentally shoot themselves or other kids, cases of mistaken identity lead to tragic deaths, etc.

Bottom line: While I strongly oppose the allowance of guns, I beleive that the Left needs to accept and respect basic gun rights but the Right needs to get real about intended purposes of things like extended magazines and assault rifles. The cultural and sociological issues related to gun violence should be addressed (although culture and sociology are difficult to legislate), but those issues are merely complemetary to the direct issue of firearms themselves and therefore should not be used as the sole scapegoat that some are making it. ...Sorry for the rant... WDE

While I am still self debating some issues with the "assualt" type rifles, I think we need to make sure understand the intended purposes of the 2nd amendment. It is not for hunting or sport shooting etc, it was/is to protect ourselves from the government. In the day, the musket was an "assault" weapon; an instrument of war. I believe our founders certainly understood the fear a government would/could have of an armed citizenary.

That 1776 assault rifle was a Kentucky or Pennsylvania black powder long rifle. It was used at long range to make widows out of the wives of British officers.during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812.

Ah, come on guys. We live in a country where flame throwers are perfectly legal--I think we all need to get real. If we're going the 2nd Amendment route then I do kind of insist that everyone reads it in its entirety (it's only one sentence...). The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to allow Americans to keep and bear arms in order to form a "well-regulated militia." This was written at a time when militias were necessary, but we've since created the National Guard for these purposes (I'm just counting down the minutes until someone responds to this with a misunderstood Thomas Jefferson quote...).

Aside from constitutional arguments, I also just fail to see any American's need for an assault rifle. I think all firearms are created as tools intended to kill--and I accept that. But assault rifles facilitate murder with such great efficiency that I do beleive--even for law-abiding gun-lovers--that their legality needs to be reexamined. Most assault rifles that I know of are illegal to hunt with (not to mention there's no sport in that) and their capacity is vastly beyond that which is required for personal security. I do understand though that some people simply enjoy firing these weapons in a completely responsible manner. For those people, I think we should have provisions allowing them to continue this hobby but with certain regulations and restrictions. For example, I'd be fine with customers being able to rent fully-automatic weapons for recreational purposes at firing ranges--in my mind this could satisfy gun enthusiasts by allowing them to legally enjoy assault weapons in a controlled environment and to a greater degree than they currently can while also providing better general protection to the public from mass shootings. WDE

Why do we need to ban things simply because some people don't think other people need them? I'm open to changing my mind, but I need to see where these things are being used to committ malice on a grand scale. I've never heard of any crime committed with a flame thrower. The only crime I can remember involving assault rifles was a bank robbery in CA; the North Hollywood Shootout (AK-47s).

^That's what I'm getting at, we all need to just be realistic about firearms. And I mentioned flame throwers just to show the extremes of our gun laws--but you're right, I don't think it's likely we're going to see a rash of mass murders committed with flame throwers anytime soon.

As far as crimes involving assault rifles, they are far more common than that. Just for a few quick examples, the Newtown shooting was done with an AR-15 http://www.nytimes.c...ll&_r=0

The Columbine shootings involved a TEC-9 assault pistol, hi-point 9mm carbine, and shotguns

http://www.vpc.org/s.../wgun990420.htm

William Spengler killed multiple firemen on Christmas Eve with an AR-15: http://www.cnn.com/2...oter/index.html

The Aurora theater shooting also involved an AR-15: http://www.washingto...eater-shooting/

Ok if we are going to be realistic people kill people not guns, flame throwers, or in the cases below hammers. After all we don't need hammers in 2013. We have drills and good old fashioned rocks for our construction needs. But by all means ban assault hammers if it makes you feel safer.

http://stlouis.cbslo...f-pevely-woman/

http://www.sltrib.co...ington.html.csp

http://www.wltx.com/...her-with-Hammer

http://www.lawdailyr...;ArticleID=1424

http://www.suntimes....her-in-law.html

http://www.myfoxtamp...tack-in-seffner

False equivalence. Hammers are tools. They were designed to drive nails and hit things. The fact that you can hit people with them is irrelevant.

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a tool as a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task. Sounds like a gun to me. Guns were designed to fire projectiles. The fact you can shoot people, animals, paper targets, or old cars with them is irrelevant. It is the person behind the tool that determines what task the tool is used to accomplish. Whether that tool is a gun or a hammer.

Guns are not tools. They are weapons. Yes, they accomplish a task. They're designed to maim, kill, hurt, threaten, destroy, damage, hit, etc., etc, ad nauseum. I own guns. They are not tools like a hammer. They are deadly weapons to be treated with the utmost respect, and used with the greatest care and only in the rare (emphasis) but necessary extraordinary situation, hunting, or days at the range. You do not discuss them flippantly. Impressionable people might be listening. An insane person with a knife is one thing. A ignorant (dare I say Stupid?) person with a gun presents the same level of danger. An insane person with a gun is a horrible, but all too common occurrence. One who calls guns tools does not properly respect what he holds and should not be holding it. Tools accomplish constructive things (eg cut that rope, carve that lumber, assemble that gun). A gun pointed at anything is only necessary if you want to destroy it, or kill it. Either way if you're aiming a gun at it, you don't really care if it's intact after a round or two. Don't parrot NRA talking points and expect to come up with your own definitions for words like tool. They aren't open for interpretation.

Not sure at all about the NRA reference. I'm not a member of the organization. Again guns are designed to fire projectiles. After all if wasn't for the bullet. Then nobody would fear the gun. Guns in the hands of Americans built this country. They are used by police to maintain its laws. They are used by civilians to equalize the physically weak to the strong. They are used to feed people's families. If I were you I would take my own advice and wouldn't discuss flippantly the destruction of a God given right enshrined in the Bill of Rights by our founders. Impressionable people might be listening. After all an ignorant (dare I say Stupid?) mob whipped up by an agenda driven media and opportunistic politicians presents a level of danger greater than any type of firearm. If you have a problem with the definition then take it up with the Webster people not me. I'm glad you own guns. You probably own a hammer, car, baseball bat, frying pan, or a pocket knife. All of those are tools just like a gun. But all are capable of being used to injure our destroy objects and people. They are all inanimate objects. The responsibility for their use or missuse is squarely on the shoulders of those who wield them. The tools themselves are incapable making that decision.

No. I was trained to make this distinction. I will never define something used exclusively as a weapon as a tool. No person should consider a gun a tool until they understand what it's capable of, and it's not something the ignorant need to hear. It's true that a tool can be used as a weapon, but compared to a gun, this is the only thing they have in common. Some things that are usually weapons can make useful tools. Sharps and the like. But not guns. You will never accomplish any constructive task using a gun for anything other than the demise of what it's pointing at or the resulting fear if whoever it is knows what could be coming. You can't build/modify/assemble/dig/etc. with a gun. They fire projectiles at high velocities to harm things.

Inanimate though they may be, they are only safe in the hands of the responsible. Then it's a matter of degrees. I would trust my moron brother with a hammer, baseball bat, knife, or frying pan long before I would ever let him borrow my revolver. The police enforce our laws. In good faith I assume they are responsible.

Irresponsible people do not understand the gravity of what they carry when they have with a gun. The government should not keep you from obtaining a gun, but you should be fully trained and proficient in its use, as well as gun safety, before you should be allowed to use it on your own. Like a drivers license, only with firearms. I welcome more regulation. Too many stupid people think guns are toys these days. Too many people are dying as a result. Why shouldn't a gun license with strict psyche eval be OK, if I may ask, if having to pass a test for your drivers license is OK? It's not the guns fault people can't use them properly. Limiting access to the sane and proficient seems pretty reasonable, in my opinion.

God given right to guns? This is strictly opinion, I'm well aware of our second amendment rights, but where is that in the Scripture? Why would we be given such efficient instruments of death by the Lord? They are a strictly human invention, like the lightbulb. But unlike the lightbulb which produces light so we can see, the gun produces death, and inspires fear (your words) because it can lob a 9 millimeter round at a speed which will do grievous harm. No gun will ever "feed a family." If I killed that deer with a pointy stick, would I thank the pointy stick for putting food on my table? America was not built by Americans because they had guns. It was freed by patriots who did what had to be done (extraordinary situation), not by the firearms themselves. What if the most advanced weapons of the time were the pike or bow and arrow? The war could have been fought with clubs and pointy sticks. Would that have made the revolution any less glorious? We fought with what we had at the time.

Actual tools had more to do with building America than any gun ever did. Do you think American greatness sprung up just after the revolution? It took years of determination to make us the best. Lots more hammers and nails than guns and lead. We were liberated by our own determination. Brits had the same weapons we had. Level playing field. /diatribe

[alexava 6,974]

^^^^^take that

[homersapien 12,172]

^^^^^take that

+1

Well stated.

[3rdgen 2]

I think it would be great if we could all make up my own definitions for stuff too. But, the people who do that for a living have spoken on what a tool is take your disagreement up with them. Just because you view your brother as a moron doesn't mean that he is any less worthy of exercising his God given rights. The right to keep and bear arms is very different than the privilege of driving a car. If it wasn't I doubt many of us could pass the test that would be enacted to be able to exercise our freedoms of speech, press, or assembly. Too many people think all tools are toys. Everyday people die from people's recklessness with nail guns, chainsaws, plastic bags, wood chippers, candlesticks, and ropes among a myriad of other tools. The Lord gave us the gift of liberty and freedom see 2 Corinthians 3:17, Galatians 5:1, Galatians 2:4, 1 Corinthians 10:29, James 1:25 and 2 Peter 2:19 among others. Our founders went to war to ensure these liberties. As they said in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”The Bill of Rights records some of these liberties on paper because they knew all too well how governments too often disregard them. It didn't create them. Well I think Sam Colt, Annie Oakley, Herb Parsons, Tom Knapp, or any of the other millions of people who have used guns to feed their families would disagree with you. Without guns we probably don't ever start the revolution. The shots fired at Lexington and Concord occurred because the British came to seize and destroy firearms/ammunition. It was that attempt to seize weapons/ammunition that sparked the shot heard round the world. Guns in the hands of people were tools that kept use independent and expanded our country and our prosperity. The gun was the tool used by Americans to preserve liberty throughout the centuries. That is what made us great. If not for that we would be a more populous Canada. Actually, the Brits were at a fairly large technology disadvantage compared to the American forces as far firearms were concerned. The Brits used mostly smooth bore brown Bess muskets. It favored their linear tactics which required disciplined troops. The Americans were inferior at linear tactics but superior in the unsporting by that day's style of warfare. We hid and fired from cover with rifles using sniping tactics to disrupt British disciplined command and control by killing their officers. The Americans used long rifles in much larger numbers than the 100 Ferguson rifles made by the British. The rifles in the hands Morgan's Riflemen were pivotal in both the Battle of Saratoga and the Battle of Cowpens two of the largest American victories of the entire war. The gun produces nothing but what the person wielding it causes it to produce just like a hammer. Whether that be food or security in the case of the gun both are possible. While a house or a fatality both can come from a hammer. Once again it is the person using the tool not the tool responsible for the acts.

[AUDub 11,784]

Please allow me a few minutes 3rdGen. I'm giving it all my focus. Your effort here deserves it. I appreciate that you took the time to reply.

[RunInRed 18,113]

Language Warning

[3rdgen 2]

Please allow me a few minutes 3rdGen. I'm giving it all my focus. Your effort here deserves it. I appreciate that you took the time to reply.

Take all the time you need Bigbens42. It will be Friday night or Saturday afternoon before I'll be around a computer again to respond.

[autigeremt 7,131]

Constitution, and the explanations of its founders, mean nothing. Some want a state to control us....unless it kills babies in the womb or allows you to smoke weed til you eat a house.

[AUDub 11,784]

Constitution, and the explanations of its founders, mean nothing. Some want a state to control us....unless it kills babies in the womb or allows you to smoke weed til you eat a house.

I had to drop what I was doing. I happen to appreciate 3rdgen because he actually put some effort into refuting me with his wall o' text. You, on the other hand, can go pound sand. How have you been on a forum and gotten to 11,000 posts without learning how to interject an opinion like a grown up?

[AUDub 11,784]

I think it would be great if we could all make up my own definitions for stuff too. But, the people who do that for a living have spoken on what a tool is take your disagreement up with them. Just because you view your brother as a moron doesn't mean that he is any less worthy of exercising his God given rights. The right to keep and bear arms is very different than the privilege of driving a car. If it wasn't I doubt many of us could pass the test that would be enacted to be able to exercise our freedoms of speech, press, or assembly.

Actually, you can make up your own definitions to words. Whether they're accepted by the majority is another matter. I was wrong when you said you could not. Anyway...

Just because you think it's a God given right doesn't mean I'm obligated to let him borrow my gun. Where are the verses deeming it a God given right? I want to see those. You can give him yours, if you feel he needs to practice those rights.

How do you feel about felons being armed? Why is it ok to take away convicted felons' rights if they're God given?

Too many people think all tools are toys. Everyday people die from people's recklessness with nail guns, chainsaws, plastic bags, wood chippers, candlesticks, and ropes among a myriad of other tools.

I've addressed this

It's true that a tool can be used as a weapon, but compared to a gun, this is the only thing they have in common.

…

You will never accomplish any constructive task using a gun for anything other than the demise of what it's pointing at or the resulting fear if whoever it is knows what could be coming.

Purpose

Gun, hammer, rope, blade

All capable of grievous harm. But one of these is not like the rest. What makes it different?

The Lord gave us the gift of liberty and freedom see 2 Corinthians 3:17, Galatians 5:1, Galatians 2:4, 1 Corinthians 10:29, James 1:25 and 2 Peter 2:19 among others. Our founders went to war to ensure these liberties. As they said in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”The Bill of Rights records some of these liberties on paper because they knew all too well how governments too often disregard them. It didn't create them. Well I think Sam Colt, Annie Oakley, Herb Parsons, Tom Knapp, or any of the other millions of people who have used guns to feed their families would disagree with you. Without guns we probably don't ever start the revolution.

Never in my life would I debate the first 3/4 of this. Though, I still don't see how God gave us weapons, but I'll let that one go.

Using a gun to earn a living is not using it to feed your family. If I made, rode, maintained, or repaired bicycles for a living, bikes did not put food on my table. That was me. I work on medical equipment for a living. I will never say the defibrillator I repaired this morning fed my family. Same for the screwdriver I used to disassemble it. My skill at enacting the repair is the reason we get to eat.

"Without guns we probably don't ever start the revolution."

Appeal to Ignorance. Guns do not define us, and they most certainly did not free us. That was us.

We'll be back with more after the break:

Argument Of Contradictions

lol

[autigeremt 7,131]

Constitution, and the explanations of its founders, mean nothing. Some want a state to control us....unless it kills babies in the womb or allows you to smoke weed til you eat a house.

;)/>

I had to drop what I was doing. I happen to appreciate 3rdgen because he actually put some effort into refuting me with his wall o' text. You, on the other hand, can go pound sand. How have you been on a forum and gotten to 11,000 posts without learning how to interject an opinion like a grown up?

Because the wink at the end of that post would suggest that my comment was a bit in gest. You, sir, can pound something much less appealing than sand. I've pounded sand and did it with the full support of my brothers and sisters. If you don't like the United States Constitution you can argue somewhere else.

[autigeremt 7,131]

Constitution, and the explanations of its founders, mean nothing. Some want a state to control us....unless it kills babies in the womb or allows you to smoke weed til you eat a house.

;)/>

I had to drop what I was doing. I happen to appreciate 3rdgen because he actually put some effort into refuting me with his wall o' text. You, on the other hand, can go pound sand. How have you been on a forum and gotten to 11,000 posts without learning how to interject an opinion like a grown up?

Because the wink at the end of that post would suggest that my comment was a bit in gest. You, sir, can pound something much less appealing than sand. I've pounded sand and did it with the full support of my brothers and sisters. If you don't like the United States Constitution you can argue somewhere else.

Once again, the right to bear arms is to protect the citizens from the uncivil and government.

[AUDub 11,784]

Once again, the right to bear arms is to protect the citizens from the uncivil and government.

Well at least you know how to assert a position properly.

Wait, you think abortions are funny?

I've pounded sand and did it with the full support of my brothers and sisters

Go pound it for a little longer. I'll be glad to support you wholeheartedly, just as they do.

[autigeremt 7,131]

Once again, the right to bear arms is to protect the citizens from the uncivil and government.

Well at least you know how to assert a position properly.

Wait, you think abortions are funny?

I've pounded sand and did it with the full support of my brothers and sisters

Go pound it for a little longer. I'll be glad to support you wholeheartedly, just as they do.

Um..no. I don't think abortions are funny. I also think you have proven your ability to be the ass that you are.

[autigeremt 7,131]

Once again, the right to bear arms is to protect the citizens from the uncivil and government.

Well at least you know how to assert a position properly.

Wait, you think abortions are funny?

I've pounded sand and did it with the full support of my brothers and sisters

Go pound it for a little longer. I'll be glad to support you wholeheartedly, just as they do.

I doubt you support it.

[AUDub 11,784]

Um..no. I don't think abortions are funny. I also think you have proven your ability to be the ass that you are.

I doubt you support it.

Good for you. You can go to the top of the politics forum and view the topic "instructions for ignoring users"

Then you'll never have to listen to me again. How cool is that?!

[autigeremt 7,131]

Um..no. I don't think abortions are funny. I also think you have proven your ability to be the ass that you are.

I doubt you support it.

Good for you. You can go to the top of the politics forum and view the topic "instructions for ignoring users"

Then you'll never have to listen to me again. How cool is that?!

No fun in that.

[savorytiger 182]

Lets change this topic slightly: what kind of society do we want? That's the first thing that comes to mind when I hear people suggest that we allow school officials to have guns is I really hope that we don't live in a society where that's necessary. If we could live in a state where having a gun for personal protection wasn't needed, would you go for it?

[CCTAU 3,458]

Lets change this topic slightly: what kind of society do we want? That's the first thing that comes to mind when I hear people suggest that we allow school officials to have guns is I really hope that we don't live in a society where that's necessary. If we could live in a state where having a gun for personal protection wasn't needed, would you go for it?

Utopia is an idea, not an actual place.

[CCTAU 3,458]

The arguments from the left are moot. Changes in gun law regarding "assault weapons" and mag capacity had no effect on what happened in CT. The same laws were already in effect in that state. Therfore, any argument dealing wiht the same issue, is a failed argument,

Assault weapons and mag capacity is the drum being beaten now. Registration and confiscation will be next.

If you are a gun owner and are considering any of these failed measures as a valid step in the right direction, you are a fool. And your rights will soon be forfieted.

And I bet 99% of the people on this forum could never even describe/define an "assault weapon".

[AUDub 11,784]

The arguments from the left are moot. Changes in gun law regarding "assault weapons" and mag capacity had no effect on what happened in CT. The same laws were already in effect in that state. Therfore, any argument dealing wiht the same issue, is a failed argument,

Fallacy Of Division and Association Fallacy

Assault weapons and mag capacity is the drum being beaten now. Registration and confiscation will be next.

False Equivalence and Slippery Slope Fallacy

If you are a gun owner and are considering any of these failed measures as a valid step in the right direction, you are a fool. And your rights will soon be forfieted.

Appeal To Ridicule and Appeal to Fear/Consequence

And I bet 99% of the people on this forum could never even describe/define an "assault weapon".

Extended Analogy and Ad Hominem attack

[CCTAU 3,458]

All of your responses fall into the "I live in a 55 gallon barrel drum" defense.

I bet you believe that socialism has failed everywhere else because "we haven't tried it yet" too.

In all instances in the WORLD where these types of restriction have been put on firearms, the resulting actions have been some sort of confiscation.

[AUDub 11,784]

All of your responses fall into the "I live in a 55 gallon barrel drum" defense.

I bet you believe that socialism has failed everywhere else because "we haven't tried it yet" too.

In all instances in the WORLD where these types of restriction have been put on firearms, the resulting actions have been some sort of confiscation.

More illogical thinking. Do you even know me?

All your responses are unfounded assumptions in some failed attempt at to discredit me as a socialist. Explain to me how favoring reasonable restrictions on firearms equals socialism, and why you think I'm being unreasonable. I want empirical evidence, not your anecdotes.

[autigeremt 7,131]

Bigbens, I have a very simpleton question to as of you.

If people of all backgrounds did everything they could to live by the 10 Commandments would the world be a better place?

[autigeremt 7,131]