The goal isn't to take away all guns.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011
The goal isn't to take away all guns.
123
Mon, 01-07-2013 - 11:48am

Despite the scare tactics so typical of the right - see health care - there is no desire to take away all guns amongst most on the left. That is how the right wants to define the debate, as all or nothing. It knows it wins in that case.

All we want is common sense, but listen to, see the howls and declarations of 'you won't take away my gun!'

Which position is actually rational and reasoned?

Pages

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Sun, 02-24-2013 - 2:00am

  I will answer your question;  Much depends on where you live work and have land.  You see distance from the attacker/criminal makes a very big difference.  A pistol of say 10mm -.40 is sufficient for small area defense if the person has extra magazines.  Now if you add a bit of distance or the wildlife like coyotes.or wolves, etc. then a smart person would not let them close.   If you live on a large lot then a rifle is by far the better weapon.  I myself prefer rifles to pistols.   Modern rifles firing .223 or 5.56 have limited effective range(300-600yards).  Much better than pistols. The light caliber is very sensitive to wind. 

  However, they do make excellent hunting/ varmint rifles for short to medium distances and have deer kills being very accurate which is because of the superior handling of modern rifles.  In personal defense the advantage is keeping the criminals /attackers running away.  

  Another misconception as the "assault rifle" is a killer.  The military designed as a wounder.  The math is it takes 8 people to tend to 1 wounded.  The theory is that attrition of effective combatants will cause the enemy to run out of resources. Robert MacNamera"He concluded that there were a limited number of Viet Cong fighters in Vietnam and that a war of attrition would destroy them. He applied metrics (body counts) to determine how close to success his plan was."

  Now to answer killing as many in a short amount of time there are only two American guns that qualify.  The Thompson .45 and the MAC 10.  The Thompson is very heavy!  I have handled the Thompson.  The mac 10 is not reliable due to a fault in the firing pin.   A very high rate of fire is not good as unless handled by an expert it is ineffective.  

    I have lived in several environments.   I hunted small game a .223/5.56 is perfect with a modern rifle with it's increased accuracy means meat on the table. 

   As I have outlined these guns have many uses.  Being superior to other firearms in design and accuracy as well as ease of use. They do serve the public very well indeed.

   

  These guns are not the military versions not even close. 

dragowoman

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Sat, 02-23-2013 - 9:51pm
Sweeping generalizations and ad hominems galore, I'll come back when the adults are on the board.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Sat, 02-23-2013 - 8:56pm

No, not all guns are made the same. Hunting guns and hand guns at least serve a purpose (hunting and protection) but specific assault weapons made for the purpose of killing many in a short period of time which also poses a danger to those who are hired to protect us should be banned.

All guns serve a purpose, that's why they're made and sold.  But it's the height of arrogance when people, so obviously ignorant about firearms and their use, try to dictate their ignorance and tell law abiding citizens how many rounds we need to protect ourselves, our families and our property?

As has been mentioned many times, a mother in Georgia locked herself in an upstairs room when an intruder broke into their home.  The intruder didn't just steal the stereo and leave...he went after the woman and her kids.  She had a handgun with six shots...at point blank range, she missed once and hit him FIVE TIMES...and he was still able to leave the house and drive his car away.  What if she had missed a few more times?  Would that guy have been able to overpower the woman and harm her and the children?  Sorry, dear, but you only get six shots...more than that will upset the liberals so you and your children will just have to conveniently die to make them happy.

What if there were more than one intruder?  How about three?  Five?  What if there are riots like in LA or Greece, or after Katrina when gangs went about looting and killing?  What if you're a storeowner and a gang breaks into your store?  Sorry, a bunch of ignorant liberals don't think you should be able to defend your property and your life so you and your employees have to die.

Joe Biden thinks you should buy a shotgun, then go out on your balcony and fire off the two shots in your shotgun to scare the would-be assailants away.  But Joe Biden is a moron.  First of all, not everyone lives a stone's throw away from a police precinct, or lives in an area where police always rush in to save the day in three seconds flat...the woman in Georgia is evidence of that.  And instead of being frightened away, some criminals might just realize that you wasted your ammo firing off your balcony and now you're completely disarmed and at their mercy.  Like I said, Joe Biden is a moron.

Generally speaking, we don't care if liberals are ignorant and want to protect themsleves with cotton-candy and wishful thinking.  Why don't they just move to rural farming communities where there are no guns and no cars and everything runs on hopes and dreams instead of nasty oil.  A "progressive" nirvana where success is demonized and mediocrity is lauded...where everyone has free everything and illegal aliens are welcomed with open arms to do all the jobs that those hypocritical liberals won't condescend to do.

Would that it were true, but that's probably wishful thinking...so for now, let's just give 'em a big smack and tell them to keep their ignorant, hypocritical hands off our Constitutional rights. ; )

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Sat, 02-23-2013 - 9:58am
No, not all guns are made the same. Hunting guns and hand guns at least serve a purpose (hunting and protection) but specific assault weapons made for the purpose of killing many in a short period of time which also poses a danger to those who are hired to protect us should be banned. They serve no purpose in the hands of the general public.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Sat, 02-23-2013 - 4:48am

I didn't say he compared it to a military weapon.  You are making up arguments again.  He stated that the type of weapons being used are highly dangerous.

You said..."He left because he said the dangers these people have to face (including highly skiled and trained swat teams) is significant.  The weapons are much like their own."...comparing weapons like the AR-15 with those carried by SWAT officers.  This is incorrect because SWAT does not carry AR-15 type rifles...they do, however, use shotguns, the type of gun that Joe Biden thinks you should buy and shoot off your balcony to scare away intruders.  And unless you're talking about the fuzzy pink guns that shoot moonbeams and fairy dust, one could say that all guns have the potential to be highly dangerous...but then, so are cars.

When bullets can penetrate through steel like a knife to butter you have a potential hazard to the public and to the police who are suppose to protect the public.

Through steel?  You realize that steel armor fell out of favor because arrows and lead balls fired from hundreds of feet away could pierce it, don't you?  So let's start with a ban on bows and arrows and matchlock rifles.  And if you're afraid of "steel piercing" bullets being a potential hazard to the public, then why do you want your police using them?  Or are you also suggesting that the police disarm as well?  But as I said, a car is a FAR more potential hazard to the public than any gun, so if you're interested in saving lives, why not try to get all those cars off the roads?

These things need to be banned from the general public for everyone's safety.

Guns are used every day to defend people's safety, so your suggestion only endangers people's lives.

Someone refusing to have them banned because it interfers with them shooting at empty cans is what you call an entitlement issue.  There is no better word to describe it

You could try "Constitutional."

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Fri, 02-22-2013 - 7:39pm

  Any higer caliber bullet will penetrate steel plate.  You see there many different grades of steel.  A.223 cannot penetrate but a 7.62 might.  A SPEAR can go through a car door.  These are things one should know.  So some politician cannot lie to you.  The .223  has very poor penetration not enough mass.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_ballistics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stopping_power

 

dragowoman

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Fri, 02-22-2013 - 1:00pm

I didn't say he compared it to a military weapon.  You are making up arguments again.  He stated that the type of weapons being used are highly dangerous.  When bullets can penetrate through steel like a knife to butter you have a potential hazard to the public and to the police who are suppose to protect the public.  These things need to be banned from the general public for everyone's safety.  Someone refusing to have them banned because it interfers with them shooting at empty cans is what you call an entitlement issue.  There is no better word to describe it.  

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Thu, 02-21-2013 - 4:02am

Yes, your argument is an all or nothing argument.  We can ban things that pose a danger to the public.


No, it's not an all or nothing argument, it's an argument based on facts and statistics.  Of course guns pose a danger to the public...but then so do drugs, alcohol, cars, etc...the list is too exahustive to include.  But to liberals focus on the top ten?  The top five?  No...the focus their hypocritical, uninformed rage on the thing that kills a MINISCULE number of people each YEAR...and try to ban that thing, rather than the "things" that actually kill expontially MORE people each year...even though their twisted agenda defies the FACTS and is in direct opposition to the Second Amendment.


Liberals are haters...liberals are fools.





iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Thu, 02-21-2013 - 3:43am

The armed janitor/teachers argument is just plain nonsense.

Except where it's entirely relevant.  Who better to empower as a line of defense than the people who work at the establishment and have a vested interest in their own safety as well as the safety of their charges.

He left because he said the dangers these people have to face (including highly skiled and trained swat teams) is significant.

So "I'm afraid" is now justification for not protecting our children?

The weapons are much like their own.  His words, "There is no need for civilians to be carrying around these very deadly weapons.  None whatsoever.

And we're supposed to take the word of someone who's "afraid" to define what's appropriate for other people to defend themselves?  If he actually said what you claim he said, then it's a demonstration of how bad the training is for our military...if they can actually compare an AR-15 type gun to the automatic weapons our military is armed with. Btw...clue to your cousin...all guns are deadly weapons, by their very nature...and so are knives...cars...hammers...the list goes on and on and one.  Deadly if the person wielding this instrument has deadly intent.

Btw..."deadly intent" could also apply to the woman firing at an assailant to stop a rape or to stop an intruder, as the woman in Georgia did to stop the intruder from doing who-knows-what to her and her small children.  thank God that liberals didn't take away the right to the gun that saved her and her family.

Liberals should be ashamed.

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Wed, 02-20-2013 - 9:09pm

  So what danger do they pose?  None.  Actually less than 2% not much when looking at the big picture. 

dragowoman

Pages