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
Sat, 02-09-2013 - 6:59pm

  It is clear that you are spouting what the Dems say and your emotional feelings.

    Modern civilian rifles do not spray they cannot.  They are semi-automatic.  The rifles in question are superior in design  to the old obsolete guns.  Here is a series of video including police and explanation of what is cosmetic and what is not.  You will find Leroy Pile's explanation helpful in understanding the differences and why there is confusion. 

In Leroy's video titled: San Jose Police Officer explains Assault Rifles the three rifles he first introduces the viewer to are Kalashnikov designs. From 1947!  

 http://www.awbinfo.com/?gclid=CJKX8KqjqrUCFcc-MgodoRYAiQ

 

  

In 2010 there were 358 murders involving rifles. Murders involving the use of pistols in the US that same year totaled 6,009, with another 1,939 murders with the firearm type unreported*

Two-thirds of all gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides. Of the 30,470 firearm-related deaths in the United States in 2010, 19,392 (63.6%) were suicide deaths, and 11,078 (36.4%) homicide deaths.

 

 

chaika

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Sat, 02-09-2013 - 4:41pm

  Ignorance is what the media promotes because it sells newspapers and brings in advertising dollars.  High capacity is 75-150 rounds,  Most modern rifles have 30.  They are semi-automatic not full automatic.  We had the ban in1994 and it did nothing. 

  There is people who have never experienced lethal violence.  I have.  You are very wrong.  I have handled weapons since I was 7.  It Is the lack of training in weapon usage,safety and the constant reminders that most kids received that is the difference.  The guns we are talking about are NOT military weapons they have modern features.  You would not go to a car dealer and expect to choose between Model T's would you?

chaika

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-31-2013
Sat, 02-09-2013 - 4:27pm

Nelle, while there is a middle ground here, nothing proposed by either the far right or far left is rational or well reasoned.  Having no restrictions on firearms is not any more reasonable than banning a type of firearm simply because it's been used in some high-profile shootings.  This is especially true in that the weapon class in question here (assault weapons) are used in relatively few homicides compared to other types of weapons.  That makes this debate a political exercise rather than a simple, wholly understandable concern over homicides.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-31-2013
Sat, 02-09-2013 - 4:09pm

Mom, practically any firearm you care to name is capable of killing a number of people relatively quickly in the hands of someone who knows how to use it.  That doesn't justify banning practically all firearms even if their possession wasn't a Constitutionally protected right.  Doesn't make them "high-powered" either.  The cartridge used in the AR-15 and it's clones has less energy (power) than a the cartridge used in a 30-30 Winchester lever-action rifle.

The motive by the killer was always to kill as many people as possible otherwise the killer would have used a knife or even pistol which would have given victims a fighting chance.

According to whom, you?   You claim to know the reasoning and thought processes of everyone who harbors homicidal tendencies?  Must be quite a burden.   

Sometimes a killer is after a single individual and kills them with a single shot, sometimes not.  As for using a pistol in order to give their victims a fighting chance, how well did that work out at Ft. Hood?  How about when Gabrielle Giffords and many others were shot?  Is that an example of giving others a chance by using a handgun rather than a rifle?

 Logical people do not want these type weapons available to the general public especially if you are refusing to have them registered.

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.  This illustrates that it's not really a reduction in homicides you're after, but merely banning a firearm you don't personally like.

 It is fact that this high capacity magazine sprayed bullets on people and killed them in seconds. These types of weapons have no place in a civil society.

But having multiple small capacity magazines would be fine with you, is that what you're saying?  Somehow I don't think so, nor am I inclined to believe that you have much experience with how little time it takes to change a magazine. 

BTW, magazines don't spray anything.

I do believe many violent crimes are done in the heat of the moment but people who have the motive of mass killings will use a weapon that satisfies that needs. They don't have a place in the hands of the general public.

That's your opinion.  There are others with somewhat different perspectives and rationales.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Sat, 02-09-2013 - 2:46pm

"Do you really thing you will be safe?  When there is always potential for a criminal to target you."

What is that you said about "frightening" people?  Seems there is a bit of irony going on here.  Only it is the gun lobby who is trying to do it.  I think it is more likely for someone to massacre in a random act of violence for the purpose of a mass killing then a gang of mass killers to rob my house and I will have to defend myself with high capacity magazines.

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Sat, 02-09-2013 - 1:37pm

  If you ever have the experience then you feelings will change very quickly.  My answers come from experience in the world.  Victimized when one wishes to limit my freedoms to choose what I know is best so they control my purchase decisions.  Control is what it really is about.  The anti-gun use terminology such as "gun violence" as if there is no other kind.   Frightening people is a time honored tactic by those who wish to gain power from the people.  There are no guarantees in life wanting such is an error in thinking.  Life implies risk. One can either prepare for it or not I choose to prepare for it.  I am not forcing you to do anything.  But your stance is to control my choices for your advantage.  Because your experiences and philosophy are different does not make it right for you to attempt to control me. 

    Do you really thing you will be safe?  When there is always potential for a criminal to target you.  Or as we have seen police shootings in CA. of innocent people.  One is never completely safe,ever.  Accept it because it is life.  Nothing will change that. 

 

dragowoman

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Sat, 02-09-2013 - 1:33pm

Funny you use the word "ignorant" and then post false information.  Currently, much more than 30 rounds is available to those who so desire and yes close to (if not surpass) that 75-150 rounds.  High capacity magazines allow it and those who have any knowledge about them KNOW it.  You also can not contest that the ban had no effect.  

I have to say I love the sematics being used.  Modern "features" as if that doesn't matter.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Sat, 02-09-2013 - 11:17am

Right and those weapons suitable for militia service are high powered weapons that can wipe out a large group of people in a few minutes.  Insanity to allow that to civilians.

Also, you want to talk about what is most likely; a person using a high powered weapon to kill as many people as possible or the US government trying to eliminate its citizens, I know which I'm going toward because that is reality based.  The motive by the killer was always to kill as many people as possible otherwise the killer would have used a knife or even pistol which would have given victims a fighting chance.  Not so with high power weapons.  You are eating in a restaurant, working on the job, shopping at a mall, going to see a movie or just going off to school and the chances of you surviving such an attack that day have been severly reduced.  We need to ban these weapons used in CT and other places/ not include more dangerous and deadlier ones.  All you do is just add to the casualities.  Logical people do not want these type weapons available to the general public especially if you are refusing to have them registered.  It is just absurd.

I'm also finding it tragic to allow paranoid people to have very dangerous weapons.  It is really a bad combination.  It is strange to think the US government is going to war with its citzens as a reasonable explanation to allow access to high power weapons and the topping on the cake is to NOT allow them to be registered.  Does it get anymore unreasonable?  

Also, this argument is not based on an emotional reaction.  It is fact that this high capacity magazine sprayed bullets on people and killed them in seconds.  These types of weapons have no place in a civil society.  

I do believe many violent crimes are done in the heat of the moment but people who have the motive of mass killings will use a weapon that satisfies that needs.  They don't have a place in the hands of the general public.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-31-2013
Sat, 02-09-2013 - 8:36am

Speaking of an objective analysis of the situation, how about we take a look at the numbers involved here?  Perhaps the number of homicides committed by rifles (includes all rifles, not just "assault weapons")?

For the year 2011, the last year for which complete data is available and documented in the UCR, there were 323 homicides committed with rifles.

Care to look at some other data from the same year?

For 2011, the number of homicides committed by individuals using knives or other edged weapons was 1694.  Over a thousand more people died that year due to wounds inflicted by someone using an edged weapon than died as a result of injuries by rifle fire, which again includes the so-called "assault weapons".

For 2011, the number of homicides committed by someone using nothing more than their hands and feet (which includes shoving someone off a cliff) was 728.  That's more than double the number of people who died from wounds inflicted by someone using a rifle.

Kind of puts a new perspective on the subject, doesn't it?  Perhaps provides a somewhat better overall view of the issue of inflicted death and the tools used to inflict it?

Or is this all really just about some people's dislike of guns in general and "assault weapons" in particular, regardless of the facts surrounding their overall use in the commission of homicides?

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-31-2013
Sat, 02-09-2013 - 8:21am

The logic is solid if you learn about the history of such things, even in our own country, even in the modern era.  New York City and California back in the 90's enacted registration for certain firearms after assuring firearms owners that confiscation would not follow.  They lied, and used the registration lists to later ban legal ownership of the weapons in question and force the registered owners to surrender the registered firearms.  Feel free to check on this yourself, or I can provide cites for the events if you prefer.

Additionally on the subject of registration, felons or other individuals prohibited from legal firearms ownership cannot be compelled to register their firearms.  To do so would constitute self-incrimination.

Plus, it is untrue that registration is a necessary precursor to "any" confiscation. No it's not. Remember in Nazi Germany the government confiscated many items that were not registrated,

They also confiscated many weapons which WERE registered on the basis of their 1928 and 1938 gun control legislation.  As for other things, well, if you have the authority to kick in doors of undesirables such as those of Jewish origin and use any weapon you care to with government authorization, you can confiscate basically anything you might find if you so desire even if you didn't know it was there to begin with.  Knowing who owns what makes such things much easier for the government, and that is the problem with registration.

So, the logic of my posts is solid, based both on the historical record and our own laws as interpreted by our Supreme Court.  What's not logical is enacted laws based on an emotional reaction to the illegal actions of someone rather than after an objective analysis of the event. 

Pages