Gun Rights vs. Gun Control

[Grounded]

Unless, of course, the one robbing your home is in posession of an AK. Don't the police regularly complain that the criminals are better armed than they are? If you are threatened by someone who is illegally armed better than you can legally arm yourself, then the 2nd amendment has failed.

Well, that's an extreme case. Things are different in those cases.

Also, it doesn't really matter if the one robbing your home has an AK. A bullet from a handgun can still kill anyone if shot in the right spot. Handguns are good enough for defense.

 

[Dave]

James Madison was President of this country from 1809 to 1817. In those days you had to worry about regiments of foreign troops who had horses, muskets, sidearms, sabres, and cannons, as well as fighting frigates and other wooden warships. A militia with enough weapons was a great defense against that because in the end it's people with guns vs. people with guns.

Today, that isn't the case. Weaponry has evolved to the point where it's people with advanced tech vs. people with advanced tech. This isn't always the case but any foreign force capable of invading this country would have to have some pretty impressive technology, or a truly killer strategy.

Bottom line, in a world where ballistic missiles, tanks, and advanced warplanes are the norm for combat, citizens with machine guns wouldn't do a whole hell of a lot of good. In the case of a successful foreign invasion of America it would be nice to be able to fight back; I just don't think that letting those types of weapons sit in peoples' homes is a good idea because the contingency scenario of which they are a part is just as unlikely to become reality as a nuclear war - perhaps even less so.

I'm all for allowing citizens to own and carry for personal defense, but you don't need semiautomatics and automatics for "personal defense." If someone is trying to rob your house having an AK-47 is what you might call overkill. If someone is trying to invade your country chances are that they will be using new-age war tech that an AK-47 wouldn't do a whole lot of good against, and you'd just be getting yourself killed with no potential for gain.

Most of what you said in your post simply isn't the case. If you think that an AK-47 isn't effective against a high-tech army, just take a look at how civilians are using them in Iraq and then talk to me. A well placed, well trained sniper can wreak havoc on any amry. That's a rule of the battlefield that won't ever change unless you take humans off of it.

Just 50 years ago, the threat of a Russian invasion was very real. They weren't extremely high tech, and relied solely on throwing wave after wave of troops at a target until it is overrun. I would consider China to fit in this same catagory, and I would not put a war with China on American soil out of the realm of possibility. A well armed populace would be extremely effective against this form of military.

You might be going a little far in saying that semi-automatic weapons aren't needed for personal defense. Most pistols produced today (other than revolvers) are semi-automatic, meaning that they fire one shot with each pull of the trigger and require no action between shots. Unless you are banking on there only being one intruder, you do need a semi-automatic weapon. And what do you do if the intruder has on body armor? I hope you have armor piercing round, or that gun will be pretty useless. What if the intruder is stung out on drugs? A little 9mm isnt going to come close to taking down a crackhead. My point is if you limit the type of guns that law abiding citizens can possess, you are limiting their rights to protect themselves and their property.

 

[Rokerijdude11]

Unless, of course, the one robbing your home is in posession of an AK. Don't the police regularly complain that the criminals are better armed than they are? If you are threatened by someone who is illegally armed better than you can legally arm yourself, then the 2nd amendment has failed.

Exactly Excellent Points

 

[vyo476]

Most of what you said in your post simply isn't the case. If you think that an AK-47 isn't effective against a high-tech army, just take a look at how civilians are using them in Iraq and then talk to me. A well placed, well trained sniper can wreak havoc on any amry. That's a rule of the battlefield that won't ever change unless you take humans off of it.

Just 50 years ago, the threat of a Russian invasion was very real. They weren't extremely high tech, and relied solely on throwing wave after wave of troops at a target until it is overrun. I would consider China to fit in this same catagory, and I would not put a war with China on American soil out of the realm of possibility. A well armed populace would be extremely effective against this form of military.

You might be going a little far in saying that semi-automatic weapons aren't needed for personal defense. Most pistols produced today (other than revolvers) are semi-automatic, meaning that they fire one shot with each pull of the trigger and require no action between shots. Unless you are banking on there only being one intruder, you do need a semi-automatic weapon. And what do you do if the intruder has on body armor? I hope you have armor piercing round, or that gun will be pretty useless. What if the intruder is stung out on drugs? A little 9mm isnt going to come close to taking down a crackhead. My point is if you limit the type of guns that law abiding citizens can possess, you are limiting their rights to protect themselves and their property.

Aren't we moving towards taking people off the battlefield? If you look at what's going on in Iraq you'll see that a majority of the attacks on Iraqi civilians and US personnel are being conducted using bombs, not rifles - which, aside from being sneakily effective, removes insurgent combatants from the battlefield. There are plenty of ambushes going on too but they haven't proven nearly as effective for our enemies as those bombs have.

Russia, 50 years ago, had so large a number of tanks that they had more than us, Britain, and France combined. WWI and WWII were harsh lessons for the Russians, lessons which they learned well enough - they'd have used their tanks on us any way they could. In terms of preventing a successful invasion, no, a group of American citizens with automatic weapons wouldn't have done a whole lot of good. In terms of starting an insurgency afterwards, they'd make a good start - however, with registration laws existing previous to an invasion and occupation, the Russians would have access to comprehensive lists of everyone licensed to own and carry an automatic weapon. The Soviets were hardly the kings of efficiency but I think they'd have managed to see a threat like that, don't you?

And China, besides having the largest standing army in the world, also has the fifth largest nuclear arsenal in the world and are considered by the NPT to be a "Nuclear Weapons State." An all-out war with China probably would never see an invasion of either country; they know that if they had us so far up against the wall that their troops were on our soil than we'd launch nukes at them. They might go ahead and do it anyway, but you can bet that our leaders would hold up their end of the scenario - they'd launch nukes at China, the Chinese would launch them at us...and then it doesn't much matter if you have an AK-47 or a popgun.

I'll concede your point about semiautomatics as you are clearly, to me, correct. However, I do believe that things like armor piercing rounds and automatics shouldn't be part of the US household. Statistics have proven that allowing citizens to carry firearms reduces crime; however, at the same time those statistics were recorded (think mid- to late-90s) there was a ban in effect on automatic weapons in the US (it has since expired and no great drop in crime has been recorded anywhere). If you're facing a robber who is wearing body armor you're facing one rare robber indeed.

 

[palerider]

Well, that's an extreme case. Things are different in those cases.

Also, it doesn't really matter if the one robbing your home has an AK. A bullet from a handgun can still kill anyone if shot in the right spot. Handguns are good enough for defense.

Have you ever been in combat? I have. I would not want to enter into it with a handgun if my enemy posessed any sort of a long gun. A well placed rock, or a 2x4 can dispatch an enemy, why not eliminate guns and issue rocks and 2x4s?

 

[palerider]

What if the intruder is stung out on drugs? A little 9mm isnt going to come close to taking down a crackhead. My point is if you limit the type of guns that law abiding citizens can possess, you are limiting their rights to protect themselves and their property.

Quite true. I used to shoot combat matches back in the 80's. .45 auto was the weapon of choice but most only hold 7 rounds. There was a part of the course that involved shooting 7 bowling pins off a table. When the high capacity 9mms hit the market a lot of them were bought, their owners thinking that reloading less would equal shorter times through the course. They found rather quickly that the 9mm was capable of knocking a bowling pin down, but not capable of knocking it off the table. They would just sit there and spin.

After a number of years and much complaining, the requirement that the pins be knocked off the table was dropped. A 9mm is not an effective defense weapon. An effective defense weapon eliminates your enemy in short order.

 

[Grounded]

Have you ever been in combat? I have. I would not want to enter into it with a handgun if my enemy posessed any sort of a long gun. A well placed rock, or a 2x4 can dispatch an enemy, why not eliminate guns and issue rocks and 2x4s?

I have never been in combat.

But how many percentage of the robbers in home robberies had AK's?

How do you think this percentage would change if we legalized AK's? And how many households would actually go buy those AK's?

There is a great averse consequence from legalizing AK's than from illegalizing it. Machine guns were illegalized because those are weapons made to kill many people, not to protect oneself.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

i still find irony in the fact that the right wing is willing to compromise and curb the 1st amendment, but try and set some parameters for the 2nd amendment and all hell brakes loose.

 

[Dave]

Aren't we moving towards taking people off the battlefield? If you look at what's going on in Iraq you'll see that a majority of the attacks on Iraqi civilians and US personnel are being conducted using bombs, not rifles - which, aside from being sneakily effective, removes insurgent combatants from the battlefield. There are plenty of ambushes going on too but they haven't proven nearly as effective for our enemies as those bombs have.

Russia, 50 years ago, had so large a number of tanks that they had more than us, Britain, and France combined. WWI and WWII were harsh lessons for the Russians, lessons which they learned well enough - they'd have used their tanks on us any way they could. In terms of preventing a successful invasion, no, a group of American citizens with automatic weapons wouldn't have done a whole lot of good. In terms of starting an insurgency afterwards, they'd make a good start - however, with registration laws existing previous to an invasion and occupation, the Russians would have access to comprehensive lists of everyone licensed to own and carry an automatic weapon. The Soviets were hardly the kings of efficiency but I think they'd have managed to see a threat like that, don't you?

And China, besides having the largest standing army in the world, also has the fifth largest nuclear arsenal in the world and are considered by the NPT to be a "Nuclear Weapons State." An all-out war with China probably would never see an invasion of either country; they know that if they had us so far up against the wall that their troops were on our soil than we'd launch nukes at them. They might go ahead and do it anyway, but you can bet that our leaders would hold up their end of the scenario - they'd launch nukes at China, the Chinese would launch them at us...and then it doesn't much matter if you have an AK-47 or a popgun.

I'll concede your point about semiautomatics as you are clearly, to me, correct. However, I do believe that things like armor piercing rounds and automatics shouldn't be part of the US household. Statistics have proven that allowing citizens to carry firearms reduces crime; however, at the same time those statistics were recorded (think mid- to late-90s) there was a ban in effect on automatic weapons in the US (it has since expired and no great drop in crime has been recorded anywhere). If you're facing a robber who is wearing body armor you're facing one rare robber indeed.

Banning only automatic weapons is pretty arbitrary to me. Even the M-16A2 is only semi-automatic. I would like to ask you why you feel that making automatic weapons illegal would make any difference? Considering that all assault weapons were used in less than 1% of all violent crimes before the assault rifle ban in 1994. That statistic remained constant after the ban.

Actually, bombs and artillary strikes are not being used as much in Iraq today. They caused too much colateral damage and it was determined that they were turning the people against our troops. The real work in Iraq is being done by soldiers and marines with boots on the ground. A bomb can't go house to house and conduct searches to gather intelligence and that is the job that needs to be done in Iraq today. Even in attacking convoys, the roadside bombs are intended to disable the vehicle and draw troops out in the open so that a sniper can inflict casualties.

I don't believe that nuclear weapons would be used in a conflict with China unless either side determined that victory by any other means was impossible. Nuclear weapons were never intended by anyone to be a first strike weapon. They are a deterrent, and possibly a defensive weapon under extreme conditions. Just because 2 countries have nuclear weapons doesn't mean they will use them in a conflict. If the U.S. fired nuclear weapons at China, it probably means that 3/4 of the country has already been lost, and I would much rather be able to put of a meaningful resistance with our citizens than see that happen.

I would also go back to my first point, that the 2nd ammendment should serve as a protection for the other rights we have in America. If government power does ever get into the range of oppression, and the Democratic process does not work, then people will need the right to own guns, assault weapons included.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

I just read through this thread and I've seen Dave and palerider make a number of great points. I just want to add one thing.

As I've stated in a number of other threads, especially ones considering "church and state," the thing that makes American government and democracy superior to every other one in history, is that the citizens own their rights. These inalienable rights come from "The Creator" to the people -- not from the government to the people. They are "God-given" rights, not government-given rights.

Therefore, it is the government who has to justify taking away "x" (in this case, their 2nd Amendment rights). The onus is not on the citizen to justify maintaining their right to x.

That's why the questions regarding the removal of automatic weapons are misplaced. It's not the citizens responsibility to justify keeping their automatic weapons. If you can't provide a list of cases and a sound argument that would justify the governmental removal of our automatic weapons, then we keep them.

 

[palerider]

But how many percentage of the robbers in home robberies had AK's?

If the one that enters your home and threatens your family has one, what difference does a percentage make. In your case, the percentage who broke into your home and threatened your family would be 100%.

How do you think this percentage would change if we legalized AK's? And how many households would actually go buy those AK's?

I don't know. You can go and buy a semi automatic AK 47 today if you wish. How many are owned in this country? Hundreds of thousands would be my bet if the number imported is any indication.

There is a great averse consequence from legalizing AK's than from illegalizing it. Machine guns were illegalized because those are weapons made to kill many people, not to protect oneself.

Since they are already legal (in semi automatic) the question is moot. Machine guns were made to lay down suppressing fire. That is, to hurl a large enough number of bullets toward enemy positions that they would be effectively unable to advance on your position. Machine guns were not intended to kill large numbers of people who are not engaged in a concentrated attack on your postion. Semi automatic fire is much more effective for that task and semi automatic weapons are legal today.

 

[Eternal]

looking at the virginia tech thing... if students were allowed to have guns.. then fewer would have been dead i think.

the people who shouln't get the guns will probably get their hands on them anyway (at least thats how i see it)

 

[vyo476]

looking at the virginia tech thing... if students were allowed to have guns.. then fewer would have been dead i think.

the people who shouln't get the guns will probably get their hands on them anyway (at least thats how i see it)

I was rather expecting it was going to be someone on my side who broached that particular topic first but whatever.

It is far, far too early to start throwing around the Virginia Tech shootings in a debate as leverage for either side.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

I was rather expecting it was going to be someone on my side who broached that particular topic first but whatever.

It is far, far too early to start throwing around the Virginia Tech shootings in a debate as leverage for either side.

Why? Stuff like this happens in the Middle East (and Iraq, specifically) everyday, and we're able to talk about it the second it pops up on CNN. Politicians use it as leverage and play politics with it, etc.

On to the topic at hand. I don't believe that every student should be given a gun. But those who are able to go through the process of obtaining a permit (CCW or something like that) and pass the psychological, criminal, and all those other tests that grant them the Constitution-given right to carry a weapon, should be allowed to bring their guns with them to class.

One last note -- we trust kids of college-age with much more lethal weaponry in the military every day, so age is certainly not the issue.

 

[vyo476]

Why? Stuff like this happens in the Middle East (and Iraq, specifically) everyday, and we're able to talk about it the second it pops up on CNN. Politicians use it as leverage and play politics with it, etc.

On to the topic at hand. I don't believe that every student should be given a gun. But those who are able to go through the process of obtaining a permit (CCW or something like that) and pass the psychological, criminal, and all those other tests that grant them the Constitution-given right to carry a weapon, should be allowed to bring their guns with them to class.

One last note -- we trust kids of college-age with much more lethal weaponry in the military every day, so age is certainly not the issue.

Because this topic is just a little too close to home. What's going on in the Middle East is tragic but it's happening all the way over there, and it isn't like we're throwing around names of US soldiers recently killed as evidence points (and if anyone is you may consider me in line to punch him or her in the face).

I just think there ought to be a period of time between a domestic tragedy and when that domestic tragedy ought to be jumped upon by people using it for political purposes. If we just start looking at everything as politics than the tragedy will be lost on us eventually, and that, above everything else (guns in classrooms and war in the Iraq included) scares the living hell out of me.