Connecticut Massacre

Remove all ads!

Assault weapons should be outlawed without a grandfathering clause. People should be required to turn any assault weapon to the police. Failure to do so should result in significant prison time (and massive fines).

Ditto for sniper weapons.

Anyone converting their gun to an automatic weapon should do prison time.

I personally think there is no reason for hand guns in the general populace. Hand guns should be licensed and require a valid reason for issuance. Locking mechanism or storage should also be required.

I don't agree with concealed carry.

The best defense weapon is a shotgun, not a pistol.

Hunting is overrated and could be greatly curtailed.

Ammunition should be obscenely expensive.

No weapons should be allowed in homes where any resident is in counseling. I don't care why they're in counseling.

I'm pretty damned proficient with weapons but I don't own one. I've never owned a gun. I don't think there is any valid reason for a parent to have a gun in the home with children. I'll go one step further -- if a child can obtain access to the gun unsupervised the parent should do prison time.

... and I'm the 'resident conservative' on the boards.

 

Just jumping back in to say, I'm pleasantly surprised by that T2. I thought that maybe your military background might give you a pro-gun mindset. Good man - a pretty sensible outlook pal.

 

(what I'm taking to be) You're basic premise here, that firearms somehow in and of themselves "empower people" and presumably inspire them to commit acts of violence, is almost certainly false. Within the context of persons licensed to carry concealed firearms in the United States at least, the percentage who commit any crime, let alone murders, is very very low. Surely if the firearm itself automatically caused all people to feel bold and brash and murderous, we would have widespread murders and assaults committed by license holders? I would strongly suspect the principal might apply among criminals, but that only again supports the notion that the person determines the actions, not his tools.

Anecdotally I can tell you from years of personal experience that what you assert is simply not true, and that in fact the opposite effect tends to occur. I've never once felt an irresistible urge to murder or otherwise assault anyone based on the fact that I was carrying a firearm, and in fact I refrain from otherwise common risky behaviors - giving someone the finger in traffic or taking umbrage with strangers over basically anything - specifically because I am aware of the greater responsibility I hold. Essentially everyone I know and work with who carries a firearm is similarly responsible. Sorry, but I bristle a bit at being painted as somehow a 'threat' to society when I am in fact almost the complete opposite. Criminals or criminal-minded people no doubt behave less responsibly, because they are criminals or criminally-minded people.

Regarding published studies, please consider these:

Guns and Violence: A Summary of the Field - Gary Kleck

WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE? - Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser

Lastly, this:

Constructive as in demonizing everyone who doesn't share your 'common sense' opinion as being "batsh!t crazy?" The main beef I have with the anti-gun movement is that so often it does just that, and in the process instantly makes any dialogue essentially impossible. Sorry, but that and the 'take my ball and go home' mentality is just childish and counter-productive - a real shame in the face of tragedies like Newton, CT.

 

That's a bit unnecessary, I've already said I'm not very good at debating stuff. I haven't got the intelligence. I don't feel I have 'demonized' anybody - except maybe dogsoldier but IMO he's a *censored*. I just didn't see the point in continuing to argue when it's obvious my point wasn't hitting home.

 

Fair enough, but surely you can see that calling someone a name (though I fail to see why dogsoldier deserves that, as, like his points or not, I don't see how he's being anything but honest and forthright) will do nothing to endear them to you and make them feel open to discussion. If your intent is to eliminate any chance of meaningful discussion and progress, starting out with a "you are crazy and stupid" is an excellent way of doing it. If you're instead hoping to actually get somewhere, which I assume we all basically want, it's much better to allow people their dignity and acknowledge that their positions are or at least may be no less principled than your own, even if you don't understand and/or agree with them. You also might consider examining and modifying your own point of view in light of evidence presented that may be counter to your own position. It's not everyone else's duty to simply agree with you.

In the context of the two studies I cited, you can see that both actually advocate some form of gun control within the constraints of what the studies themselves showed to be meaningful (along with efforts directed in other important areas). That shows that there is at least some room for compromise and improvement coming from what is typically branded a 'gun nut' point of view, e.g. anyone who doesn't unilaterally support gun control.

 

While I agree with this in principle, do we even know who owns all assault weapons that they can be made to turn them in? (I'm presupposing that many will not turn them in of their own accord.) I'm just asking how conceivable this is in reality. I guess if you actually registered the weapon, there would be a record. But if you bought it at a gun show, or said you sold it to someone or whatever, is there a means to know who has these weapons short of searching their homes, which certainly wouldn't be justifiable.

Perhaps in your house, but I was thinking of something you can bring along with you. (And I do understand you are opposed to concealed carry.) I just don't think it would be particularly practical nor convenient to carry around a shotgun with you.

That's the Chris Rock argument - don't bother legislating against gun ownership, but make bullets cost $1000 a piece. "Damn, I would shoot your ass if only I could afford it! I'm going to go out, get a second job, and then you're in trouble!"

Totally agree with that.

 

Ha! I don't know what I did to deserve getting "demonized," but I didn't notice it. I saw & experienced a lot worse on the IPLY and BIS boards years ago, or actual politics boards like DCJunkies.

 

If I had a dollar for every reference that isn't widely, freely available... what is your point exactly? That just because a reference can't be found on the internet or through university online journal databases, a hard copy doesn't exist? That's absurd. Why am I even having to point this out? I used to have to drive 2 hours or put in a request for materials and wait a week for them to arrive from another campus when I did my first degree.

The reference following the line:
"which bypassed the standard peer review process."
is dead, 404, gone.

So following your logic, that passage is null and void. Also if you compare the current version of that wikipedia page to earlier versions, the revisions have been staggering, and passages explaining that media reports suggested the article bypassed peer review were not substantiated, and were completely disproven by recorded exchanges of emails between Simon Chapman and the editor of the journal in question, something he himself even attempted to bring to light by editing the page himself, have been removed.
This is why wikipedia is always taken with a grain of salt.

I explicitly stated they used the REFERENCE, not the opinion.

I didn't put forward any propaganda, I put forward facts and figures, you brought in propaganda, don't try to create a false equivalency here. I don't deal in conspiracy theories.

This is what I'm getting at, you aren't being thorough or critical with your own investigation, I'm not pulling stories from the far reaches of the internet or wikipedia, I've only submitted real research and facts.

I worry you can't see that you've assembled a view on an issue, made up of exceptions to the rule. On other issues it wouldn't bother me, but we're talking about life and death here.

 

I never implied my opinions would be in any way practical....

 

you can get short barrel shotguns tal, for reference Ill post a link to a product from the company I mentioned earlier (red jacket):
http://www.redjacketfirearms.com/in...&category_id=2&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=3

very effective at short range and not requiring the accuracy of a handgun, very effective, very deadly.

Alot has been posted here since I last read so I'm going to pick up here where I was actually addressed by Gaear

no, that's not what I'm saying, what I'm saying is that it will empower an individual who would already have the impulse to commit such an act being an effective tool for that job. Many professions wouldn't attempt their job without the right tools even though they could do the job without them, I suggest that people in the mindset who would pick up a gun to kill others would have the same position, without the right tool to empower them to do the job they will shy away and not attempt it instead sitting in a dark corner somewhere dwelling on 'what may have been'

 

lets just say that Red Jacket specialise in killing things.

Why don't you take a look at the other items of death they have available for purchase

 

A pump action shotgun doesn't even need to be fired to be effective. The distinct sound of chambering a round is generally enough to get a person to soil their drawers. For home defense an 18" barrel with a pistol grip, pump action, and three round magazine will suffice (although some combat shotguns hold nine rounds). I also like the double barrel shotgun (side-by-side or over-under) as it also makes a distinctive sound when loaded.

A 12-guage shotgun will fire the equivalent of eight .32 calibre rounds in an 20 cm spread at ~10 meters -- and you get two or three tries at the bad guy. Many will also hold solid magnum loads -- which will go through most walls.

For all its deadly power (very catastrophic injuries), the shotgun has a very limited number of rounds before reloading and is difficult to hide.

 

That seems rather idealistic, no? You really think virtually everyone would willingly hand over their assault rifles? To refer back to DR's point a few pages back, people who purchase assault rifles are not your average gun enthusiasts. They're not hunters, or interested in home defense, they're interested in owning a big f'ing gun. If they were reasonable people they might go along with the ban, but by owning an assault rifle, chances are we aren't dealing with the most reasonable people to begin with.

What's more, they "need" this gun to protect their safety and freedom in case an armed insurrection against the US government is necessary. They aren't going to view the ban as an act of safety. They'll view it as the government pre-emptively disarming them so they won't be able to rise up when the time comes. You think these people will gladly just turn them over? You don't think they'll hide them instead? If you live in a rural area you could still even use them without anyone really noticing.

That's why I say that the ban has effects in the long term. If you can't get more, then over time the supply will dwindle. In the short term, a ban would probably increase gun sales - people would specifically purchase assault rifles prior to the ban being put in place because they would view it as their "last chance". These people don't think like most of the rest of us.

 

Practicality issues aside, I agree with all of T2's points regarding what should ideally be done, except for one:

While I don't necessarily disagree with the idea that these weapons should be taken out of the hands of anyone but military or law enforcement personel, the problem is that people paid money to to legally acquire them so far, so to tell them that they now have to turn in their gun is a bit unreasonable unless you're willing to reimburse them for what they paid.

 

Thanks for clarifying, Shoshino. I can't speak to the validity of what you're asserting here as I haven't seen specifics about that sort of causation in any studies I've read (they may be there, I just haven't seen them), but now I understand your point.