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

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-31-2013
Sun, 02-10-2013 - 4:53pm

 The NRA should be ashamed of itself.

For trying to protect our rights?  If that's the case then the ACLU should be ashamed of itself as well for engaging in precisely the same thing. 

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-31-2013
Sun, 02-10-2013 - 4:49pm

Of course I'm deliberate, I know what I'm talking about from personal experience when I state that even a handgun can inflict the number of injuries seen at SH.  And the ban in question was on new manufacture and sale, not possession or use.  So even re-enacting the ban would not eliminate the existance or use of these firearms or magazines.

Certain kinds of explosives are banned because of the extreme danger they pose to the public.

Explosives are not firearms, and are covered by a different set of laws addressing explosive devices.  Nor are explosives covered under the umbrella of the 2nd Amendment.  So that's just another invalid analogy on your part.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Sun, 02-10-2013 - 9:23am

Seems you're being deliberate again.

No hand gun can do the same degree of damage that was done in those massacres discussed unless of course said gun has a large capacity ammunition feeding device and that was part of the ban that was in place 19 years ago due to the degree of damage it can cause.  Also, you missed the entire point of my last post about bans on planes.  We have bans off planes too.  Certain kinds of explosives are banned because of the extreme danger they pose to the public.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-31-2013
Sun, 02-10-2013 - 7:08am

 A hand gun or knife would not have done that same degree of damage.

A knife, probably not.  A handgun, or course it could.  Depends on caliber, range, and things of that nature, but a handgun could certainly inflict wounds just as lethal as those of a rifle. 

And I didn't say you couldn't ban items based on arguments such as your's, just that it didn't make sense as it wasn't particularly logical.  What you're wanting isn't banning something under certain circumstances, such as being on a mode of public transportation like an aircraft, but under all circumstances.  So yes, I get your drift, but you're relying on a false analogy to support your conclusion.

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Sat, 02-09-2013 - 11:46pm

  Good state of the art weapons have a very good place in civilized society.  It is the fact that they are superior to any thing else.  This is about politics.  This is Obama trying to make the US like Chicago and following the UN creed.  It is designed to steal from the individual the rights that are ascribed to that individual.  Oppression is another word for bullying. 

     These are the gunmaker's art.  A truly civil society does not run around like a chicken with out it's head.  Gabby was shot by a pistol. A much more powerful pistol  "9mm Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting

  "You are trying to convince me that the weapons that were once banned are not that dangerous compared to let's say a pistol or a knife."

    That's right.  They are the same.  Most pistols shoot a heavier bullet.  One cannot compare a pistol to a knife.  A pistol is easier to use in close quarters.  That is where the conspiracy theory comes from the corner could not tell the caliber of the bullets. 

  "A hand gun or knife would not have done that same degree of damage."  Yes, it would.    Now let me ask have you ever fought for your life?  No?  I have.  It is not like movies or tv!    This person had plenty of time.  11 bullet wounds so?  That is quite possible but they could also be pass thru from other victims too.  So what?  Any hand gun can do that  some can do more.  .223 is a wounder not a stopper round.  It's velocity would pass the bullet thru not stop in tissue.  However, so would most other calibers in small mass targets.

 http://www.ballistics101.com/the_gun_is_civilization.php

 

  http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/12/27/sandy-hook-huge-hoax-and-anti-gun-psy-op/

  A  .223 is a very small bullet.  In a Bushmaster it would have a muzzle velocity of 3000 fts (feet per second) There should be bullet holes all over the place.  If that scares you go down to see what a 357 magnum wound looks like.  

    To shoot 11 bullets into one victim means he had a lot of time. 

What is a civil society?     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_society

What is civilization?   a : a relatively high level of cultural and technological development; specifically : the stage of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of written records is attained   http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilization

  Now do we live in a civil society no we do not.  From HOV's to gun control the desire to effect control over another is uncivilized behavior.  Yet we embrace the bully over the individual.  Greed is more important than the welfare of the population. 

Goldfish

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Sat, 02-09-2013 - 10:44pm

[quote=maskedmullet]<p>So it doesn't matter how often or how seldom the firearms in question are used in homicides, nor how many people are killed by someone using them, you just don't like them and they need to be banned.   Thanks for making that clear.</p><p><em>

That is a blatant attempt to misrepresent what I said.  You can ban items due to the potential hazards it can cause regardless of how often it happens.  When the topic of banning items on planes comes up, do people start pulling out statistics on how many airplane tragedies happen compared to off airplane tragedies?  Do people bring up statistics on how much deadlier kung fu is when comparing say hairspray, a pocket knife or nail clippers and then go on to argue therefore those items should not be banned on a plane?  Everyone knows those items are banned due to the potential hazards they can cause and have caused even though airplane killings/hijackings are rather rare compared to the deaths off planes. Get my drift? 

And, facts are facts so feel free to play semantics. The bodies of the people in that rampage had multiple bullets, some up to 11 and they were killed in a matter of minutes.  That degree of destruction by that weapon was significant.  A hand gun or knife would not have done that same degree of damage.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Sat, 02-09-2013 - 10:35pm

Bologna, it did not take a lot of time to do that damage. Feel free to minimize all you want.

And you are right about that greed thingy.  The NRA should be ashamed of itself.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-31-2013
Sat, 02-09-2013 - 9:03pm

So it doesn't matter how often or how seldom the firearms in question are used in homicides, nor how many people are killed by someone using them, you just don't like them and they need to be banned.   Thanks for making that clear.

You are trying to convince me that the weapons that were once banned are not that dangerous compared to let's say a pistol or a knife. REALLY?!

Not what I said.  What I posted and firmly stand by is data from the FBI which quite clearly establishes that rifles (including assault weapons) are used in fewer homicides than handguns, edged weapons, or even hands & feet.  Disbelieve that if you will, but the numbers are there in the UCR if you care to look at it.  It's on the FBI website.

You may not like the word "spray" but I think its fitting.

So because you think it, that makes it so?  And you comment on the logic of my posts.

Again, no place does such a weapon have in a civil society.

Again, according to you.  Others have a different opinion, and that opinion is just as valid as yours, more so if you take actual personal experience with the weapons into account as well as objective knowledge of the facts surrounding this issue.  By your own admission your arguments and position on this subject aren't about saving lives, or eliminating those firearms used most often in homicides, it's just about what you personally like and dislike, what you feel and what you think rather than any objective rationale or purpose. 

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Sat, 02-09-2013 - 7:49pm

Semantics is all you got?  You don't like the word spray so I won't use it.  Let's use the word Oppa and what is means is that over 20 people died in a matter of minutes with multiple gun shots to the bodies with up to 11 shots in a single body.  There is clearly NO debate that this weapon caused massive damage and a very short period of time and that is the problem with such a weapon.  It has no place in the hands of the general public.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Sat, 02-09-2013 - 7:42pm

"Logical people wouldn't chose to try and ban a weapon used in so relatively few homicides while ignoring other weapons which are used in far, far more homicides, yet you and others are agitating for exactly that."

Who said the premise was to fix the number of homicides?  Talk about a strawman.  That is not at all the reason I'm saying specific weapons have no place in a civil society.  You are trying to convince me that the weapons that were once banned are not that dangerous compared to let's say a pistol or a knife.  REALLY?!  When an autopsy was performed on some of these children's bodies in CT some had up to 11 bullets in a single body.  He killed over 20 people in just minutes.  You may not like the word "spray" but I think its fitting.  Again, no place does such a weapon have in a civil society.  Sadly, getting stabbed or shot with a bullet can lead to death but bullets spraying out and deliving up to 11  shots in a victim is just beyond words and will indeed cause massive damage to a victim with nearly zilch chance for survival.  We don't need these weapons legal and we don't need to stop all violence before declaring the importance about this specific problem.  If the same weapon used in the CT killing was used against Gabby, she may not be with us today. 

Pages