At Least 21 Fatal School Shootings Since Sandy Hook
Our gun culture has only gotten worse since the Newton, CT shootings. A Mother Jones investigation shows 21 shootings in the two years since 20 lives were lost at Sandy Hook High School.
- A total of 32 victims were killed (not including shooters).
- 11 victims were injured.
- 5 shooters were killed (including four who committed suicide, and one shot dead by police).
- The school shootings occurred across 16 states.
- 14 attacks occurred at K-12 schools, and 7 occurred on college or university campuses.
Click here for reuse options!During the same period, there have been dozens of other gun incidents on school grounds that caused injuries, as well as seven additional cases where someone committed suicide with a firearm, but no one else died. (See this report from the advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety, which contains a broad list of firearm incidents at schools.) A handful of the cases we analyzed involved shooters who appeared to have mental-health problems, a prominent factor in the mass shootings database we compiled for another investigation.
(The attack last May near the University of California-Santa Barbara is not included here because although college students were among the victims it did not take place on campus.) Several other cases appeared related to gang violence or domestic disputes. Though it’s not clear in all cases what type of firearms were used, in several the perpetrators wielded shotguns, semi-automatic handguns, and AR 15-style assault rifles.
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
168 responses to At Least 21 Fatal School Shootings Since Sandy Hook
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
crc3 December 14th, 2014 at 11:51
The NRA: Working to destroy the democracy of America one shooting at a time…
crc3 December 14th, 2014 at 12:51
The NRA: Working to destroy the democracy of America one shooting at a time…
rg9rts December 14th, 2014 at 12:17
Time to fire up the troops…the NRA agenda is not being met…
rg9rts December 14th, 2014 at 13:17
Time to fire up the troops…the NRA agenda is not being met…
edmeyer_able December 14th, 2014 at 12:34
As much as the nra is to blame for this so is the voter for electing officials that ignore our wishes. NY passed what’s called “The Safe Act” which is facing push back from ‘sportsman’ who feel it somehow inhibits their “rights”.
I hunt and own several guns and am glad that it is still law. Seems like voting and education will be our only defense against the nra and the lawmakers they contribute to.
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 12:38
So you believe that my choice in firearms that I use to hunt should be restricted because my guns don’t look like your guns?
edmeyer_able December 14th, 2014 at 12:40
Sure……lol
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 12:41
That will be remembered when they decide to come after your high powered sniper rifle.
edmeyer_able December 14th, 2014 at 12:42
Who exactly is going to do that Bobbie?
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 12:43
The very same people that have advocated to restrict firearms based solely on appearances. For instance, I hunt with a 7.62×39 AR variant with a pistol grip. It keeps the recoil off my damaged shoulder and keeps me hunting. Is my firearm somehow more deadly than say a Ruger Mini30 Ranch Rifle?
edmeyer_able December 14th, 2014 at 12:47
It’s not based on appearance so your argument is moot.
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 12:54
Really? Mind explaining how it is not? Seriously. Look at the list of banned firearms and explain how they differ from any other and we will be off to a start anyway.
edmeyer_able December 14th, 2014 at 12:58
It’s abundantly clear to me that you will not accept any explanation that is offered so have a nice day.
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 13:00
And yet you have offered no explanation whatsoever. You are avoiding the facts because your firearms are not presently under fire.
According to the NY Safe Act this is what makes an assault weapon.
Folding or Telescoping Stock
Protruding Pistol Grip
Thumbhole Stock
Flash Suppressor
Muzzle Brake
Muzzle Compensator
A threaded barrel designed to accommodate attachments to the barrel.
What about these features makes the firearm they are on any more deadly than and other firearm without them?
edmeyer_able December 14th, 2014 at 13:15
Rather than debate the merits of this or any other law perhaps you would like to state your opposition to a law that the majority of the public is in favor of passing?
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 13:17
I think I have rather clearly stated my position and reasoning for opposing this law but you have still yet to answer the questions I have asked. I also know for a fact that an act passed behind closed doors in the middle of the night had no such support. I have a great deal of family upstate to verify this.
edmeyer_able December 14th, 2014 at 13:20
Your position on this is duly noted but why are you against the will of the people when they wish to AMEND an existing law through voting?
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 13:22
Because it is not the will of the people as should be clear by all those in NY who oppose it along with the 22 states that are presently filing suit against the act. Aside from that, we do not vote to suppress rights. If we did then it would be just the same to vote that all gays be banned or all Wiccans be banned from exercising their religious freedom and so forth.
edmeyer_able December 14th, 2014 at 13:25
If the people of NY wish for the law to be repealed it can be done, but right now it is law and I will go along with this or any other laws they pass. If there comes a time that I feel my rights are being violated I will move to a state or country that agrees with them. That’s how a democracy works.
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 13:27
Well I can say that I respect your willingness and right to follow the existing law. I will not oppose that. I do however hope that if/when a time comes that you feel your rights are being violated that you don’t tuck tale and run but stand your ground for what you know is right. We do not live in a democracy and for good reason. We live in a Constitutional Republic with a democratic election process. Democracy is mob rule and trust me, that is not what any of us want. If all else fails though, Vermont is welcoming to firearms and their owners.
edmeyer_able December 14th, 2014 at 13:30
Well I can honestly tell you that the gun laws of certain “red” states are keeping me from ever traveling to them until they are changed and I don’t see that happening any time soon.
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 13:32
Likewise, the laws of many blue states keep me from traveling in them. NY being one of them. I don’t do a lot of red state travel either if it can be avoided.
StoneyCurtisll December 14th, 2014 at 14:15
If the New York state laws offend you to the point of not going there..
Why are you bent out of shape over the laws in that state?
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 15:30
Mainly because I have a majority of my family who have lived upstate since migrating there from Vermont after the revolutionary war. They are all effected by this law and secondly, because I have to cut an entire state out of my travel and work due to an unconstitutional law.
Carla Akins December 14th, 2014 at 14:21
The problem with the will of the people is that the majority of people also opposed inter-racial marriage, they were wrong too. As a matter of law, we do not live in a democracy, but a republic. Majority does not rule. Responsible gun owners should welcome more stringent and expanded background checks. Otherwise, it certainly appears they have something to hide.
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 15:28
You just said exactly what I said and then you add in nonsense about responsible gun owners welcoming expanded background checks and then it comes to this question. What exactly does expanded background check mean to you. I support background checks and we have had them for a long time now. What is presently being advocated is a firearms registry which is forbidden by federal law for obvious reasons.
Carla Akins December 14th, 2014 at 15:41
Uh, exactly where did you address background checks, and responsible gun owners when I made this post?
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 15:47
You said “The problem with the will of the people is that the majority of people also opposed inter-racial marriage, they were wrong too. As a matter of law, we do not live in a democracy, but a republic. Majority does not rule.”
I said “we do not vote to suppress rights. If we did then it would be just the same to vote that all gays be banned or all Wiccans be banned from exercising their religious freedom and so forth.” and “We do not live in a democracy and for good reason. We live in a Constitutional Republic with a democratic election process. Democracy is mob rule and trust me, that is not what any of us want”
I will admit that you said it far better than I had. As for background checks which was not the topic until you brought it up in which I replied “you add in nonsense about responsible gun owners welcoming expanded background checks and then it comes to this question. What exactly does expanded background check mean to you. I support background checks and we have had them for a long time now. What is presently being advocated is a firearms registry which is forbidden by federal law for obvious reasons.”
Carla Akins December 14th, 2014 at 16:12
I responded to the comment in question, I had not read down to read the democracy note. Although background checks specifically had not been mentioned, they are still part of the conversation. One of my greatest wishes is to see fewer children die by firearm – so I could care less about suppressors, length of a gun or how many bullets you can have attached to a firearm. If this means restrictions requires forced firearm education, passing a proficiency test and restricting ownership to those that can and will comply – so be it. We are the only country in the world with such a ridiculous amendment, we’re also the only country with such outrageous firearm deaths.
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 16:41
I noticed that after I initially replied. I also share the goal of fewer children harmed or killed with firearms or any weapon for that matter. I’m just not so sure we are going at the problem from the right direction. All of the restrictions on suppressors, length and et cetera are what are being debated as they have absolutely nothing to do with the safety of anyone. They are being used as tools to offer up to those who just don’t know any better so they feel like they are doing something while no real progress is made and it looks like that real progress isn’t even actually desired by those pushing this nonsense. I entirely support pushing firearm education. While we do have a high rate of firearm related deaths in this country, the majority of them stem from high gun control areas while low or non existent gun control areas are nearly free from the same issues. I do not personally believe that this means more guns is the answer but it does paint a rather clear image of what the issue is not. When we look at our violent crime and death in comparison to the rest of the world there is not a considerable difference. The tools differ but that is about the extent of it.
Carla Akins December 14th, 2014 at 17:12
Then explain why there are hardly any gun deaths in countries with very restrictive gun laws?
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 17:17
You miss the point. In those countries with limited access to firearms there is obviously going to be less gun related deaths but overall, the violent crime and death rates remain the same or even increase in many cases. The tools change.
Carla Akins December 14th, 2014 at 19:39
Wrong. You should do better and more research.
Bob Smiton December 15th, 2014 at 05:45
Sorry but it does not appear to be me who needs to do more research. Look at Australia for instance. Banned guns, increased brutal rapes and murders all while gun deaths did drop but at what cost? Now they are wishing they kept their guns as they have gangs building their own guns, terrorists holding hostages and people burned alive in their own homes. Europe, similar scenario. Then here in the states, look at the three safest states to live in. Vermont is #3 with no gun restrictions period, average 70% gun ownership and 2 gun related deaths per year.
Carla Akins December 15th, 2014 at 05:55
I said nothing about banning guns but regulating them. You need to
update your research. You’ll notice my supporting evidence comes from legitimate sources.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/gun-ownership-gun-deaths-study
http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/
StoneyCurtisll December 14th, 2014 at 14:12
Simple question..
Why do you need a muzzle brake/compensator, flash suppressor, threaded barrel or a bayonet attachment for “sporting” purposes?..
The Muzzel brake/compensator are only effective when firing in full-automatic mode..
A flash suppressor is only designed to attempt to deny the location of the shooter, (do you expect a deer or other game to shoot back?)
And what is it that you want to screw onto the barrel of your rifel that would enhance your hunting experience? (a silencer perhapes, so the game you are hunting cant hear you shooting at them?)
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 15:38
If you knew what any of those items where then you likely would not need to ask such a question so I will assume that you do not.
A muzzle brake/compensator/flash suppressor. Those aid in stabilizing the muzzle from recoil, lighten the felt recoil, and direct muzzle flash away from the firearm. A threaded barrel. That is how many of those items are attached to the barrel. Not sure where you get the idea that they are only effective when firing full auto but that is dead wrong. Their effect is on every round fired. Also not sure what gives you the impression that a flash suppressor denies the location of a shooter as they actually make the muzzle flash pattern far larger than it would have been without it. It only directs the flash away from the shooter and depending on the particular flash suppressor, they can direct the flash in such a way that the shooter can acquire a target again without having to readjust their vision.
As for screwing a sound suppressor on the firearm. That is of course another purpose for a threaded barrel though not the only way to attach a sound suppressor. In my state they are presently prohibited. That is likely to change within the next year or so as has been the case in many states. A common misconception is that they make the firearm silent because too many people believe everything they see on the boob tube. They do not. There is still considerable noise only the decibel level is lower so less damaging to your hearing. Not that I would ever want to hunt with them but you could of course use subsonic rounds which would be quieter but even still not silent and heard for a considerable distance.
StoneyCurtisll December 14th, 2014 at 14:31
What is it that you hunt with 7.62×39 rounds Bob?
That you couldn’t take down with a .223 or 5.56 Ruger 14 or 30?
Deer, elk, bear, moose, big cats?
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 15:26
I hunt deer and bear with the 7.62. I only hunt what I eat. I could use a .223/5.56 but the round is not legal to hunt large game is some states though in my state it is allowed. Despite it being allowed the small wound left by the .223 is less likely to allow for a lot of external bleeding to track the animal. I’m not one to have any appreciation for shooting an animal and not finding it. That would be rather cruel in my opinion. Close range shots would probably be fine but just the same I also choose the 7.62 for price and availability. I could just as well use a Mini 14 or AR15 but again, same issues with the NY Safe act as with my comparison with the 7.62 AR variant and Mini 39 I mentioned previously.
tracey marie December 14th, 2014 at 16:46
lol, threats online are hilarious
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 16:49
That was not a threat. It was a simple statement that has roots in history. First they come for this and it didn’t effect you so you did not speak, then they came for the next and again no effect on you so you did not speak and then when there was only you left and they came for you no one was there to stand by you because you had long since forsaken them.
tracey marie December 14th, 2014 at 16:51
threats online make you look foolish
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 17:16
Again, that was not a threat but I can see you are just trolling so I’ll leave you to your ignorance while the rest of us continue with respectful debate. Thanks for playing and have a great day.
William December 14th, 2014 at 18:24
So who is…”they”?
Bob Smiton December 15th, 2014 at 05:47
That you are asking such a question makes it clear you are just here to waste our time. They is whoever is in position to suppress you or otherwise interfere with your freedom. They have happened numerous times in history and still you must ask who is they? Come on now. Pick up a history book sometime.
William December 15th, 2014 at 07:37
” They is whoever is in position to suppress you or otherwise interfere with your freedom”.
That’s your answer? really? whoever?
A. I was a History major.
B. I’m retired. 20 years In the military, and 16 years as a cop.
C. I have a pretty good gun collection of my own
So, your condescending act isn’t impressing me.
What I DID notice is that you won’t/cannot answer the question.
Specifically who is they?
Your answer IE “whoever” is analogous to what you might get from an 11 year old who is angry and frustrated with a history test.
Generally I get the classic “Obama” answer, then I simply ask what anti gun efforts (specifically) this administration has signed into law.
The answer and expression I receive is usually the expression you receive from a cocker spaniel after you show it a card trick.
In summary you cannot answer the question but will continue to draw your courage from a holster as you fight the invisible anti-gun boogie man with answers such as “whoever”
Pick up a book sometime
Bob Smiton December 15th, 2014 at 16:04
Then maybe you should have paid a little more attention in class and your military or civil law enforcement status is entirely irrelevant. They could be a local political group, they could be a dictator, they could be a King or Queen. They could be anyone in such position of power that “they” could suppress your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The condescension came from your having asked such a ridiculous question when you should already know the answer and no I do not think Captain Zero is coming for our guns. Presently where I live, the they would be a group of about 30 politicians.
William December 15th, 2014 at 16:21
Yet once again you fail to identify who “they” are. You are simply another troll whose only talent is posting bumper stickers.
You have failed.
BTW police officer don’t enforce civil law.
Pick up a book sometime
Jones December 14th, 2014 at 15:10
What do you enjoy most about killing animals?
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 15:18
Eating them.
edmeyer_able December 14th, 2014 at 15:21
I’m going to answer that if I may, it’s not about killing an animal for the sake of killing as it is about taking responsibility for providing your own meat, if in fact you’re a meat eater. Personally I have supplied 95% of the meat I’ve consumed for the last 12 years.
This year I may be forced to buy meat from a grocer who is supplied by a factory farm that in my opinion treats their animals in cruelly while adding to the pollution of the country.
Jones December 14th, 2014 at 15:27
I see your point. I believe what’s left of wildlife should be left alone… and that factory farms should be regulated to prevent pollution and cruelty.
edmeyer_able December 14th, 2014 at 15:32
The deer population on the farm I hunt on do an extraordinary amount of crop damage and the number of deer killed by cars rivals the numbers taken by hunters at least in NY.
edmeyer_able December 14th, 2014 at 15:50
Hey it worked……
Jones December 14th, 2014 at 15:54
I see your point. Counter point…farms and highways continue to encroach on wildlife habitats.
edmeyer_able December 14th, 2014 at 16:01
I don’t have a source for this number but see if you can find the number of deer presently in the US compared to what it was when Columbus landed. I think you’ll be shocked.
And yes hunters decimated some populations of animals (bison &passenger pigeon) but know that they were what’s called “market hunters”.
And remember highways, farms, industry and residential homes are the culprit here not the sportsman whose tax dollars go to supporting the wildlife you want to protect.
edmeyer_able December 14th, 2014 at 16:09
Also take this for what it’s worth
http://www.deerhunter.com/pages/deer-hunter/deer-info/history-of-the-whitetail-deer
Whitetail deer are now overpopulated to the point of being dangerous, not only to humans but to themselves. The number one killer animal in America is the Whtietail Deer, simply due to car crashes and such caused by too many deer. CWD is spreading due to deer being overpopulated. The DNR in WI was basically sending out death squads trying to take down the ugly large population of whitetails. Hunter shown wearing Lost Camo.
Jones December 14th, 2014 at 16:28
Interesting link.
Overpopulation resulting in animals starving is a good reason to thin the herd. If their natural predators had not been decimated this would not be a problem.
I can see how population control can be necessary at times, it’s difficult for me to accept the act of killing a wild animal as a pleasurable sport…or as a justification for firearms.
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 16:45
We have to maintain a balance and that is most often the purpose of hunting seasons. As a hunter it is also difficult for me to accept the killing of wild animals as a pleasurable sport. I don’t do it for the pleasure and hunting is not a justification for the 2nd amendment or firearms. Being able to hunt with firearms is a bi-product of the 2nd amendment which has an entirely different purpose.
edmeyer_able December 14th, 2014 at 16:53
So you would be fine with wolves running thru the suburbs of Cayuga Heights a suburb of Ithaca NY? Check out their overpopulation and decimation of their precious shrubs. All the while banning hunting.No I’m afraid using “natural predators” for a wildlife problem wont work unless you want to move all humans into a gated community, While at the same time raising animals for human consumption along w/the crops necessary for their consumption to a “high fence ” farm.
Jones December 14th, 2014 at 17:25
In Norse and Japanese mythology, wolves were portrayed as near deities: in Japan, grain farmers worshiped wolves at shrines and left food offerings near their dens, beseeching them to protect their crops from wild boars and deer,[198] while the wolf Fenrir of Norse mythology was depicted as the son of Loki. Other cultures portrayed wolves as part of their foundation myths: in the mythology of the Turks,[199] Mongols and Ainu, wolves were believed to be the ancestors of their people,[200] while the Dena’ina believed wolves were once men, and viewed them as brothers.[201] Wolves were linked to the sun in some Eurasian cultures: the Ancient Greeks and Romans associated wolves with the sun god Apollo,[201] while the wolf Sköll in Norse mythology was depicted pursuing the setting sun.[202] In Roman mythology, the Capitoline Wolf nurses Romulus and Remus, the future founders of Rome. According to the Pawnee creation myth, the wolf was the first animal to experience death.[203]
tracey marie December 14th, 2014 at 16:44
why are your guns more important then children?
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 16:47
Considering the fact that my guns are used to protect my children I would say they are quite important. The question is why is one firearm that is identical in function to another firearm banned when the identically functioning firearm is not.
tracey marie December 14th, 2014 at 16:52
sure, untill they or you have an “accident”
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 17:15
With proper training there is no such thing as an accident. There is negligence.
AnOski December 24th, 2014 at 20:45
Of course, with ~a third of this country owning guns, occurrences of negligence are widespread and unavoidable. Especially with ~unregulated ownership.
Bob Smiton December 25th, 2014 at 11:13
I live in a state with 70-75% gun ownership and zero regulation and yet we maintain within the top 3 status for least violent and gun related crime. Out of 630’000 people, 2 per year die by the use of a firearm. It is not about regulation either. It is more about education and the value of life.
AnOski December 25th, 2014 at 23:23
Vermont? Oh, please. A place where owning long arms is actually warranted, and handguns and other assault weapons are just as useless as ever.
The “value of life” statement is BS; the people in Vermont have the same morals as everyone else. But they do, by and large, have more practical training in firearms due to the nature of their surroundings.
There’s just one problem, Bob. That’s different for the rest of the US, and it’s not going to change any time soon.
So, good job in pointing out that you live in a special place. If the whole US were like that, restrictions on gun ownership wouldn’t be necessary. But it isn’t, and they are.
Bob Smiton December 26th, 2014 at 13:18
Yes owning a long gun is warranted in Vermont and so are handguns and your alleged assault weapons. What you consider an assault weapon is nothing more than a normal long gun. In fact they are what I and many others use to hunt. The value of life statement is not BS. It applies everywhere and I did not insinuate that it was exclusive to Vermont. It is just one of the important factors. Firearm education is a big thing in Vermont and that is of great importance but Vermont is nowhere near alone in this. There are a number of other states that are similar and that number is growing whether you like it or not.
AnOski December 29th, 2014 at 03:30
>Yes owning a long gun is warranted in Vermont and so are handguns and your alleged assault weapons.
Oh, right. For when you need to shoot a deer 20 times at 10 yards (assault weapon). Or from ten feet away (handgun).
>What you consider an assault weapon is nothing more than a normal long gun.
And a square is a rectangle. A special kind of rectangle, with particular characteristics that make it different from other rectangles.
Semantics are semantics.
>In fact they are what I and many others use to hunt.
Yes, you *can* hunt with them. You could also hunt with grenades or mines. Assault weapons are completely unnecessary for hunting, though; they don’t make it any easier than a carbine, as you don’t have any reason to shoot a deer 20 times.
>The value of life statement is not BS. It applies everywhere and I did not insinuate that it was exclusive to Vermont. It is just one of the important factors.
Important factors? I’d like to see the study showing that residents of Vermont value human life more than the inhabitants of any other state.
Think about what you’re saying. It’s unjustifiable.
>Firearm education is a big thing in Vermont and that is of great importance but Vermont is nowhere near alone in this. There are a number of other states that are similar and that number is growing whether you like it or not.
Ah, a political opinion/assertion that you’re using to support/justify your beliefs.
Trouble is: it’s a half truth […Not that you have anything to support your claim, so it seems likely to be an entirely false claim.]
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?pagewanted=all
More education? Maybe. Maybe not. But that’s not the important statistic. Gun ownership is in steady decline. Good luck with that.
Bob Smiton December 29th, 2014 at 13:52
Who said anything about shooting a deer 20 times at 10 yards? Oh thats right, you, someone who clearly has no clue. 4 rounds in the long gun and generally only one shot needed and that would be at around 100 yards.
A square is a rectangle? Seriously that is your argument? Those particular characteristics are things such a hand grip, a shoulder thing that goes up and a stock, all of which are standard on all firearms. Oh and don’t forget the black color and if you are scared of the color then I am sorry to inform you but you have far bigger issues to concern yourself with.
You can not hunt with grenades or mines, now you are just being entirely asinine as that would be entirely illegal and wasteful. Do yourself a favor and turn off your boob tube, maybe try reading a book.
A carbine is more concealable than a long gun, less accurate and not often used for hunting though they can be. You are really showing that you have no idea what you are talking about as many carbines can accept a 100 round drum or a 30 round super capacity assault clip as you all like to call them.
You would like to see the study showing that residents of Vermont value human life more than the inhabitants of any other state? You just copied what I said and still you did not comprehend it? Let me reiterate for you. “It applies everywhere and I did not insinuate that it was exclusive to Vermont” and yes it is a very important factor as you must hold value for life and if you don’t then there is a serious problem. Clearly in Vermont there must be a considerable value for life as there are an average of 2 firearm deaths per year and upwards of 10 total homicides.
Firearm education being a big thing in Vermont is not a political opinion or any form of opinion. It is a fact. There are typically about 100’000 hunters each year for deer season alone. Each of those hunters has taken firearm safety training before being able to get their licenses and many of those hunters and sport shooters also attend regular classes.
Gun ownership in decline? 70% of Vermont’s population own firearms and on the national level the numbers have been climbing for at least 2 years now. The only thing that has gone down is the number of homes “reporting” that they have firearms and in the past few years it is clear why they would deny owning firearms.
AnOski December 30th, 2014 at 01:41
>Who said anything about shooting a deer 20 times at 10 yards? Oh thats right, you, someone who clearly has no clue. 4 rounds in the long gun and generally only one shot needed and that would be at around 100 yards.
Right. Which is why my comment clearly pointed out the frivolity of handguns and assault weapons in hunting. Not long arms.
“Oh, right. For when you need to shoot a deer 20 times at 10 yards (assault weapon). Or from ten feet away (handgun).”
Both of those situations are indeed preposterous.
You defended assault weapons and handguns by saying that they were useful in hunting. I have no problem with licensed / permitted long arms. They are useful tools when used appropriately and the proper precautions are implemented.
But, it is so easy to obtain guns of all types that this is not possible.
>A square is a rectangle? Seriously that is your argument?
Your argument was that all guns are the same.
A gun is a tool used to kill something. They are generally similar, but certainly not equal. Just as you wouldn’t use a handgun to kill a deer, there is no logical reason to choose, say, a M2 Browning .50 caliber machine gun.
>Those particular characteristics are things such a hand grip, a shoulder thing that goes up and a stock, all of which are standard on all firearms. Oh and don’t forget the black color and if you are scared of the color then I am sorry to inform you but you have far bigger issues to concern yourself with.
Not at all. I’m worried about the risk of this kind of crap:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States
When there is simply no reason to not prohibit the weapons that make these kinds of atrocities possible.
Australia implemented a sensible policy; people who lived in rural areas, and who could generally show that they had a use for long arms — could keep them.
>You can not hunt with grenades or mines, now you are just being entirely asinine as that would be entirely illegal and wasteful.
Possible to do? Yes. Wasteful? Not particularly. The materials used are cheap and readily available. Illegal? Restrict handguns and assault weapons, and they won’t be legal either. An appeal to legality is stupid. Laws change, and rightly so. Or do you believe the Bill of Rights is overrated? Which Amendments should be struck from the Constitution? All of them, no?
>Do yourself a favor and turn off your boob tube, maybe try reading a book.
I read more than you do and don’t have a TV. Honestly, I think that even a television would help you with your perspective. Anything to show you what the world is like when you’re not out camping in the backwoods.
>A carbine is more concealable than a long gun, less accurate and not often used for hunting though they can be. You are really showing that you have no idea what you are talking about as many carbines can accept a 100 round drum or a 30 round super capacity assault clip as you all like to call them.
Which are banned in this state, etc. It’s not very easy for people to manufacture such things; if they’re not legal / readily available, people won’t generally be able to get them.
We can see as much from the Eurozone and guns. Unrestricted travel, etc., and criminals just *can’t* get ahold of guns. Great Britain’s gun homicide rate is 1/30 that of the US,’ per capita. Overall homicide rate is 1/3. Take the gun-related homicides out of the US’ total number and the rates are nearly equal when you compare data from any year since 1990.
>You would like to see the study showing that residents of Vermont value human life more than the inhabitants of any other state? You just copied what I said and still you did not comprehend it?
Comprehend it? I understand the words you said. They are, however, a cute, unsubstantiated, personal belief. They are folly.
>Let me reiterate for you. “It applies everywhere and I did not insinuate that it was exclusive to Vermont” and yes it is a very important factor as you must hold value for life and if you don’t then there is a serious problem. Clearly in Vermont there must be a considerable value for life as there are an average of 2 firearm deaths per year and upwards of 10 total homicides.
You’re talking out of your bum. The people in Vermont are no different from the people anywhere else. The public school curricula are no different. Religiously, the people are no different, and they have the same values. These are facts.
>Firearm education being a big thing in Vermont is not a political opinion or any form of opinion. It is a fact.
I agree. This comes with living in a place where guns are practical. The average inhabitant of, say, New York (the city) has no practical reason to own a gun, though.
>There are typically about 100’000 hunters each year for deer season alone. Each of those hunters has taken firearm safety training before being able to get their licenses and many of those hunters and sport shooters also attend regular classes.
Right. I live in a state on the West Coast. I own a rifle, because my job takes me to very out-of-the way places. Last week, I was thirty miles by road from the nearest permanent residence. Around fifteen miles as the crow flies, but the country is impenetrable.
After several years, I’ve still never needed to take the gun out of its case. But, if my vehicle broke down, and I was beyond cell contact, etc., I might need it.
>Gun ownership in decline? 70% of Vermont’s population own firearms and on the national level the numbers have been climbing for at least 2 years now.
Half true. You could have said the same thing in 1981-2:
http://www.people-press.org/files/2013/03/3-12-13-13.png
But since then, ownership rates have declined by 7% nationally. The trend is clearly downwards.
You’re not a climate change denier by any chance, are you?
>The only thing that has gone down is the number of homes “reporting” that they have firearms and in the past few years it is clear why they would deny owning firearms.
No, we’re talking about estimates of actual ownership rates derived from anonymous surveys. If you’re going to ignore real data in favor of an unsubstantiated opinion (again), I don’t know what to say. That would mean that I’m speaking with someone who ignores facts in favor of his own opinions. What would be the point of that?
Bob Smiton December 30th, 2014 at 08:52
Just because one tool can be more accurate does not make it the be all end all. Personally I use a carbine with pistol grip to act as three for one instead of three separate guns. I use it for hunting, target shooting and home defense which would otherwise take 2 to 3 firearms. Literally your logic is like telling people they should not buy Corvette because Kia is fine by you. Guess what, no one asked for your opinion.
I myself would not likely use an M2 Browning for hunting though my shoulder is destroyed and couldn’t take it but it could be done. The M2HB is select fire and many hunt with a .50 caliber muzzle loader so it would be much the same.
I agree, it is indeed easy to obtain firearms and honestly, no law will ever change that. Unfortunately more strict laws will actually make it easier and the firearms that will be available wont have serial numbers or any way to trace them.
My argument was actually that all guns have the same basic features. A hand grip, trigger, receiver, barrel…
Prohibiting things does not make them unavailable nor does it take away the ability of bad people to do bad things. They will continue to do bad things meanwhile what you have done is limited the ability of those who wont break laws, to defend themselves adequately against those nuts.
Australia violent crime has increased since their ban and they still have shootings and gun violence. There was nothing sensible about limiting their people’s ability to defend themselves and their families.
Bombing deer was an ignorant statement on your part as it is already illegal and is wasteful as there would be nothing left which entirely defeats the purpose. There is no comparison to bombing a damn deer and shooting one with an SKS or AK47 or 9mm handgun. Many people carry a handgun with them while hunting to deliver the final shot to quickly dispatch the animal. They also carry them while hunting for self defense against other animals. Clearly I am not the one who believes the Bill of Rights is overrated.
You read more than I do? Right… Like you have any way of knowing such a thing and I live in a city.
You think it isn’t easy for people to manufacture such things as a carbine which you previously suggested using. Do you not see that you have flip flopped all over the place with complete nonsense? You can build your own shotgun with $20 worth of material from Home Depot and a 9mm machine gun for about $200. You can find that even teenagers are able to do this in their parents basements if you take a venture over to youtube. Aside from banning materials, creativity and books, you will not be putting any end to that and even then it is still not going to stop anyone.
Again, clearly you did not comprehend what I said again as I stated “It applies everywhere and I did not insinuate that it was exclusive to Vermont”
Read that very carefully before insisting that I said anything about people valuing life being limited to Vermont. You are being entirely obtuse.
As I previously stated, those gun ownership stats are flawed as the change is just as likely to be people deciding to no longer answer yes because it is none of anyones’ business to know.
Climate change denier? No, climate changes all the time. In Vermont we often witness four seasons in a day.
Again, as previously stated. Those stats are flawed and unsubstantiated. At the last meeting I went to with some 400 people, not one answered yes to such a poll nor did anyone take such a poll and there was such a poll taken in my state. It turns out that those who were polled are imports to our state. They were college students.
AnOski December 31st, 2014 at 23:12
>Just because one tool can be more accurate does not make it the be all end all. Personally I use a carbine with pistol grip to act as three for one instead of three separate guns. I use it for hunting, target shooting and home defense which would otherwise take 2 to 3 firearms. Literally your logic is like telling people they should not buy Corvette because Kia is fine by you. Guess what, no one asked for your opinion.
Since a Corvette isn’t that dissimilar from a Kia, your point is a red herring. It’s true: you can speed in either car; per existing laws, both cars are required to drive safely and obey the speed limit. And a Corvette is better at speeding. But…
The government *has* implemented speed inhibitor chips for supercars and is either looking into or has already passed legislation for heavy trucks.
http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2014/05/01/248279.htm
And special licenses are required for trucks.
In other words, you’re falsely comparing the difference between a Corvette and a Kia to the difference between a Kia and a 24 tonne truck. You might as well say that the government shouldn’t outlaw Smith and Wesson carbines, but, rather, Winchester carbines. The biggest difference is the brand name.
I can’t tell if you’re intentionally trying to confuse the issue or if you’re just reaching for analogies to support your point.
>I myself would not likely use an M2 Browning for hunting though my shoulder is destroyed and couldn’t take it but it could be done. The M2HB is select fire and many hunt with a .50 caliber muzzle loader so it would be much the same.
For those tricky situations when you need to blow a 3″ hole in a moose from a quarter mile away? You’re really not proving your point….
>I agree, it is indeed easy to obtain firearms and honestly, no law will ever change that.
Such laws have worked throughout Europe, and in Australia.
>Unfortunately more strict laws will actually make it easier and the firearms that will be available wont have serial numbers or any way to trace them.
Again, it has worked in Europe and Australia. You have nothing to support your claim that such bans wouldn’t work here. They had a similar ‘outback’ / ‘wild west’ culture in Australia, to boot, and gun advocates claimed that illegal guns from Indonesia would flood the criminal market.
They haven’t.
>My argument was actually that all guns have the same basic features. A hand grip, trigger, receiver, barrel…
Sure. Just as all cars and trucks have an engine, wheels, and axle, etc. But you still need a special license to drive different sizes of trucks. And while a train isn’t so different from a car (same components), you need a different skill set again to drive one of those. This is another false analogy.
>Prohibiting things does not make them unavailable nor does it take away the ability of bad people to do bad things.
Worked in various European countries despite a lack of a blanket ban in the EU, and worked in Australia, which had a similar ‘gun culture.’
Australia can’t keep out illegal immigrants, either. It’s funny how gun laws there are still so darn effective.
>They will continue to do bad things meanwhile what you have done is limited the ability of those who wont break laws, to defend themselves adequately against those nuts.
Every bit of evidence from previous laws passed by other nations says you’re wrong.
>Australia violent crime has increased since their ban and they still have shootings and gun violence. There was nothing sensible about limiting their people’s ability to defend themselves and their families.
You’re making some very large assumptions about the data.
http://www.secasa.com.au/assets/Statstics/trends-in-violent-crime.pdf
Actual experts believe that the increase is due to differences in reporting frequencies. Which kind of makes sense. There’s no reason a gun ban would result in a higher number of domestic abuse instances.
Unless what you’re really saying is that the lack of guns means that there are more victims of domestic abuse still alive to make the calls, when they would otherwise have been shot dead / unable to report the abuse. After all, once a gun is involved, you won’t be charged with “abuse” of any kind; we’re talking about “attempted murder with a deadly weapon.”
>Bombing deer was an ignorant statement on your part as it is already illegal and is wasteful as there would be nothing left which entirely defeats the purpose.
Again, speaking to what is “already illegal” is pointless, unless you believe that existing laws represent perfect morality and justice.
>There is no comparison to bombing a damn deer and shooting one with an SKS or AK47 or 9mm handgun.
Or using a grenade on a deer, etc. And, yes, there is. You’re still *choosing* to use a gun to kill the deer that doesn’t make any sense. You might as well argue that an M2 Browning or a bazooka shouldn’t be regulated because it *could* be used to kill a deer just like any other gun.
And that’s a true statement. You keep mentioning “waste” without justifying the term.
>Many people carry a handgun with them while hunting to deliver the final shot to quickly dispatch the animal.
Which could just as easily be done with a rifle, etc. If you want to talk about “waste,” how about “completely superfluous firearms and ammunition.”
>They also carry them while hunting for self defense against other animals.
In the strange situation where a bear is in such close quarters that a rifle wouldn’t suffice, sure. You’d have to be a pretty neglectful hunter to work yourself into a position where you’d need a handgun to protect yourself. To say nothing of the fact that your precious 9mm probably wouldn’t do much against such an animal.
>Clearly I am not the one who believes the Bill of Rights is overrated.
You are if you’re appealing to the argument of “existing laws shouldn’t be changed because I like them.”
>You read more than I do? Right… Like you have any way of knowing such a thing and I live in a city.
You live in Vermont. The best you could possibly muster is a podunk town of 42,000 people. And everything you’re saying suggests that you are incapable of vetting the merit of the items you read. Either you do not read much, or…I’ll leave it at that.
>You think it isn’t easy for people to manufacture such things as a carbine which you previously suggested using.
It isn’t. You need serious machinery and/or skill with metalworking to make a barrel that will withstand more than one or two discharges. It’s not something your average criminal could or would do. And it’s too difficult for criminals in places with gun bans to figure out. As the UK/Eurozone and Australia show us. It’s not like homemade or otherwise illicitly, domestically manufactured guns are turning up. The few guns that are being found were either legally purchased and stolen or misused, or came from abroad.
Don’t get me wrong; a few guns do make it into these places. But the grand total / average of 70 gun-related deaths in the UK per year in the past several years (~1/30 of the rate we see in the US, adjusted for population) should be enough to *prove* to you that the guns that make their way into such places are either extremely rare, or they aren’t used against people.
Either way, gun bans work. That isn’t debatable. The facts are very clear.
>Do you not see that you have flip flopped all over the place with complete nonsense? You can build your own shotgun with $20 worth of material from Home Depot and a 9mm machine gun for about $200. You can find that even teenagers are able to do this in their parents basements if you take a venture over to youtube.
You don’t see these kinds of weapons popping up in Australia, or in the UK/EU.
Either the criminals there can’t do this or they choose not to. That is a fact.
>Aside from banning materials, creativity and books, you will not be putting any end to that and even then it is still not going to stop anyone.
Except, it does. In every Western nation that has banned guns in some capacity, it does work. You’re simply lying.
>Again, clearly you did not comprehend what I said again as I stated “It applies everywhere and I did not insinuate that it was exclusive to Vermont”
People value life more everywhere? You’ll have to forgive me for not understanding your nonsensical “logic.”
>As I previously stated, those gun ownership stats are flawed as the change is just as likely to be people deciding to no longer answer yes because it is none of anyones’ business to know.
And, as I’m going to have to repeat: if you’re going to assume that such polls are incorrect, you are going to have to throw out all statistics re. reported crimes, because reporting frequencies of different crimes change over periods of more than a few years. You’re also going to have to ignore pretty much all statistical evidence ever collected re. guns because you would have no way of knowing which demographic was interviewed and how they might respond differently to such a question.
Ultimately, only one conclusion makes sense. Few reports of forearms being owned *probably* means that fewer houses own firearms. Or, you know, everyone’s lying for all of those polls.
You do realize that you’re sounding like a conspiracy theorist, right?
>Climate change denier? No, climate changes all the time. In Vermont we often witness four seasons in a day.
Cute. I’ll take that as a yes.
>Again, as previously stated. Those stats are flawed and unsubstantiated.
Those stats are stats. Unless you can point out an actual flaw with that study (as opposed to your uninformed opinion of “some people may lie when asked if they own a gun”), it’s better evidence than *anything* you have.
The only actual evidence you brought to the table to support your claim of increasing gun ownership in the US was…nothing….so you’ll have to forgive me if I believe *actual* statistics.
— Which you apparently believe when the information supports your opinion. Lol.
>At the last meeting I went to with some 400 people, not one answered yes to such a poll nor did anyone take such a poll and there was such a poll taken in my state. It turns out that those who were polled are imports to our state. They were college students.
Riiight. Great unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence there. Much better than a national survey.
You have one hell of a double standard when it comes to “evidence.”
Bob Smiton January 7th, 2015 at 16:13
Speed inhibitor chips don’t work so hot in a 1971 big block 427 dropped into a 69 chevelle built in my own garage as there would not be one in there or it would be removed if there were. The similarities between the vehicles I offered in my argument are that they are both capable of driving with user interaction. There is absolutely no speed comparison. One is capable of speeds upwards of 150 without modification. A Kia on the other hand would fall apart at that speed if it were actually possible to achieve it. If you want a car that can’t achieve such speed then a Kia is probably more your style but I’ll stick with the Corvette and my own choice to speed if I want to or not. I am capable of making my own decisions and I’ll not have anyone making them for me.
As for the law requiring speed limits and such, likewise there are laws that require that firearms aren’t discharged in city limits. Those are restrictions on actions not privately owned property. All in all, you can keep pushing your gun control but at the end of the day I’ll be keeping whatever firearm(s) I choose and you all have the option to give it a rest or do something about it though you can guarantee it is going to require a lot of guns for your cause to progress and I use the word progress loosely as your agenda is regressive.
AnOski January 8th, 2015 at 22:27
>Speed inhibitor chips don’t work so hot in a 1971 big block 427 dropped into a 69 chevelle built in my own garage as there would not be one in there or it would be removed if there were.
…As though a 69 Chevelle could reach the same speed / maneuverability as a modern supercar. You either know less about cars than you know about guns, or you’re just trying to troll.
And most of the people who would take the time to build such a car wouldn’t do this to it:
http://www.wreckedexotics.com/special/enzo/ferrari_enzo_crash_004.jpg
Because it’s a lot easier for a wealthy person do drop a few hundred thou on a supercar, and they’re more likely to drive it like an idiot.
You know, crap like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-8l9GnKbAc
This goes back to your argument re. people manufacturing their own guns. It’s so much more difficult to do so, and requires so much more skill and effort, that criminals simply don’t wind up doing it. The kind of person who would make a gun [or a cool car] probably isn’t the kind of person who would throw it away.
>The similarities between the vehicles I offered in my argument are that they are both capable of driving with user interaction. There is absolutely no speed comparison. One is capable of speeds upwards of 150 without modification. A Kia on the other hand would fall apart at that speed if it were actually possible to achieve it. If you want a car that can’t achieve such speed then a Kia is probably more your style but I’ll stick with the Corvette and my own choice to speed if I want to or not. I am capable of making my own decisions and I’ll not have anyone making them for me.
Sure, but you’re pretty much saying “screw my argument, I want to drive what I want and I don’t care how people misuse them.”
And you’re ignoring the issue of why special licenses are needed for trucks when they’re also ~the same thing.
>As for the law requiring speed limits and such, likewise there are laws that require that firearms aren’t discharged in city limits. Those are restrictions on actions not privately owned property.
I thought we were talking about speed inhibitors / tools necessary to enforce some semblance of safety. We’re not talking about forcing people to act safely. We’re talking about using limiters to minimize potential collateral damage.
>All in all, you can keep pushing your gun control but at the end of the day I’ll be keeping whatever firearm(s) I choose
Lol. Give it a few years. We’ll see about that legislation.
>and you all have the option to give it a rest or do something about it though you can guarantee it is going to require a lot of guns for your cause to progress and I use the word progress loosely as your agenda is regressive.
Enjoy your pea shooters while you can. But don’t call me regressive. You’re the one with the crackpot analogies and indefensible position. I’m not the one who feels the need to carry a weapon around because I’m afraid of the world around me. That’s you.
Bob Smiton January 8th, 2015 at 23:38
First of all you totally missed the point. The speed of 150mph I referred to was that of the Corvette not thee Chevelle or other Chevelles in it’s class but you seem to have an comprehension issue. Just the same, being that you question the Chevelles ability to achieve 150mph you may want to consider the fact that the top speed of a 69 Dodge Charger tops at 193mph which is actually a lower top speed than other Chevelle class vehicles. Sure, the Chevelle corners poorly but that really has little to do with the statement now does it. Oh and yes I do know much less about cars than guns as cars are not my thing but everything I have said is fact just the same.
AnOski January 13th, 2015 at 20:38
>The speed of 150mph I referred to was that of the Corvette not thee Chevelle or other Chevelles in it’s class but you seem to have a comprehension issue. Just the same, being that you question the Chevelles ability to achieve 150mph you may want to consider the fact that the top speed of a 69 Dodge Charger tops at 193mph which is actually a lower top speed than other Chevelle class vehicles. Sure, the Chevelle corners poorly but that really has little to do with the statement now does it.
It has everything to do with the statement. People don’t buy Chevelles as toys to do 150 on the street. They do that with supercars. They drive them very differently. To practically mitigate risk and injury, it makes sense to put inhibitor chips in some cars, but not others: top speed is just one criteria that factors into the decision.
Missed the point, yourself. And you’re still ignoring trucks, etc. I’ll keep bringing them up. Why do you need a special license and training for operating what is, in concept, the same thing? The drive on the same roads, after all.
>Oh and yes I do know much less about cars than guns as cars are not my thing but everything I have said is fact just the same.
Quasi-irrelevant facts that only tell part of the story, but sure.
>As for people manufacturing their own firearms being difficult. Though I wish it were not true, you are sadly mistaken. High School kids do such things with ease in their parents basements rather often.
Evidence? Oh, that’s right. Nope.
When we look for actual facts:
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/06/16/australian-police-10-firearms-seized-homemade/
10%.
Even in a place like Australia where guns are heavily restricted. A very small minority are making their own. You’re simply lying with this statement.
And it’s patently misleading. If it became very difficult to obtain professionally manufactured guns, a higher percentage of guns would be home-made. Which isn’t to say that gun restrictions wouldn’t be working. Fewer guns, but a higher proportion of homemade guns would still mean that restrictions were successful.
>For the most part as it stands right now, you are right that most people who would make one would not throw it away but then again need drives such things.
It doesn’t contribute more than 10% in Europe, Australia, etc. Despite your claim that it is apparently easy to make guns, they still go to great lengths to import guns manufactured elsewhere, by legitimate gun manufacturers. 90+% of the time.
>It isn’t that I don’t care how people use guns or cars, it is that I refuse to punish everyone for the actions of the few. I would rather punish the few who deserve it.
You’re not punishing everyone. You’re decreasing the chance of *everyone* being shot in cold blood by a criminal. You’re increasing *everyone’s* access to a full life and punishing…no one. Most people don’t need guns, and restricting their ownership to practical firearms as needed by people in particular situations is logical. And it is not a punishment for anyone.
You punish a child by taking a toy away. It’s not “punishing” a child if you take a knife out of his or her hands. Even if they like playing with it. Especially if there are other children around.
>I do not carry a firearm because I fear the world around me. I carry a firearm because I know the world around me is not always kind and sometimes people need to be defended against those who seek to harm them.
Funny. Millions of gun-owners would say the same, and yet…
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/wife-accidentally-shoots-husband-trying-to-bring-her-breakfast-in-bed-9970800.html
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&q=child%20shoots%20mother%20handbag
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kentucky-cop-shoots-finger-loaded-gun-store
…It doesn’t seem to matter how well trained you are. They have a tendency to do more harm than good.
>I pray that it never happens but in the off chance that it does, I have been and will remain prepared.
Oddly enough, you’re more likely to hurt yourself with it than successfully use it to defend yourself. But maybe you’re right. Maybe you’re better at handling a gun, statistically, than the average American. The evidence isn’t in your favor, though. And that’s what it comes down to, really. Gun ownership only makes sense from a “protection” standpoint if you personally believe that you’re safer, better trained, and less prone to suffer an accident than other gun owners.
Those three people above sure knew how to handle a gun, though. Veteran cop and two adults who knew their way around a weapon. Funny what happens when you put tools designed to kill people in the hands of millions of responsible people. And some irresponsible ones. With children and other people around.
Bob Smiton January 14th, 2015 at 01:30
>>It has everything to do with the statement. People don’t buy Chevelles as toys to do 150 on the street. They do that with supercars. They drive them very differently. To practically mitigate risk and injury, it makes sense to put inhibitor chips in some cars, but not others: top speed is just one criteria that factors into the decision.
People buy Chevelles or whatever car they wish because “they” want to and have their own set of reasons. Your opinion in the matter is entirely irrelevant.
>>Missed the point, yourself. And you’re still ignoring trucks, etc. I’ll keep bringing them up. Why do you need a special license and training for operating what is, in concept, the same thing? The drive on the same roads, after all.
Not that I am ignoring trucks but the point you are trying to make again is meaningless. You do not need a license, registration or anything to drive any form of automobile. Those requirements are put in place for operating them on public roadways which still has little to do with anything as driving is a privilege while owning firearms is a specifically enumerated right.
>As for people manufacturing their own firearms being difficult. Though I wish it were not true, you are sadly mistaken. High School kids do such things with ease in their parents basements rather often.
>>Evidence? Oh, that’s right. Nope.
Evidence… Are you that inept with the internet? Pop over to youtube. That is spelled youtube.com. In the search box type in “homemade firearms” and press the little magnifying glass icon. You will see a number of results. Start clicking and watching them. I am sure you must be capable of expanding your search from there.
>>Even in a place like Australia where guns are heavily restricted. A very small minority are making their own. You’re simply lying with this statement.
Am I now? Not according to this past years news anyway and it isn’t limited to Australia either. Malaysia has seen increases in homemade firearms as with various other countries. The problem with the 10% stat you cite is that is only “recovered” homemade firearms. There are certainly many more out there.
>>And it’s patently misleading. If it became very difficult to obtain professionally manufactured guns, a higher percentage of guns would be home-made. Which isn’t to say that gun restrictions wouldn’t be working. Fewer guns, but a higher proportion of homemade guns would still mean that restrictions were successful.
More restrictions clearly does not mean less guns or gun violence. It simply means it is harder for the law abiding to get what they need or want as criminals can, do and will continue to acquire firearms through any means necessary, including but not limited to home manufacture.
>It isn’t that I don’t care how people use guns or cars, it is that I refuse to punish everyone for the actions of the few. I would rather punish the few who deserve it.
>>You’re not punishing everyone. You’re decreasing the chance of *everyone* being shot in cold blood by a criminal. You’re increasing *everyone’s* access to a full life and punishing…no one. Most people don’t need guns, and restricting their ownership to practical firearms as needed by people in particular situations is logical. And it is not a punishment for anyone.
Removing or inhibiting the law abiding’s ability to adequately protect themselves is punishing everyone, period and as has been repeatedly shown across the board, restrictions do not decrease death tolls. The means may change but violence continues to happen. The key is to target the cause of the violence, not how it “could” be carried out.
>>You punish a child by taking a toy away. It’s not “punishing” a child if you take a knife out of his or her hands. Even if they like playing with it. Especially if there are other children around.
You just made your whole position very clear. You believe that the law abiding citizen is like a child that needs to be told what they can and cannot do. I am sorry that you don’t trust yourself enough to make your own decisions but I am a capable adult and I will continue to make my own decisions.
>I do not carry a firearm because I fear the world around me. I carry a firearm because I know the world around me is not always kind and sometimes people need to be defended against those who seek to harm them.
>>Funny. Millions of gun-owners would say the same, and yet…
…
…It doesn’t seem to matter how well trained you are. They have a tendency to do more harm than good.
Cherry picking stories does you no justice. Out of hundreds of millions of citizen owned firearms and an estimated 100 million owners of them, there are millions of defensive gun uses each year of which a very small portion result in death.
>I pray that it never happens but in the off chance that it does, I have been and will remain prepared.
>>Oddly enough, you’re more likely to hurt yourself with it than successfully use it to defend yourself. But maybe you’re right. Maybe you’re better at handling a gun, statistically, than the average American. The evidence isn’t in your favor, though. And that’s what it comes down to, really. Gun ownership only makes sense from a “protection” standpoint if you personally believe that you’re safer, better trained, and less prone to suffer an accident than other gun owners.
Oddly enough I have carried a firearm for 3 decades and not been injured once however I have used my firearm twice to defend my own and my child’s life. I wont argue about the possibility of my better handling a firearm as it has always been something I take very seriously. For the most part, I do not believe in accidents. There is negligence. The only accidents I do believe happen all in all are still a result of negligence but more often than not it is the negligence of someone who should have taught their children at least they very basics of gun safety, even if they can’t stand guns and would never own one because you simply cannot guarantee your child will never come into contact with one outside of your presence. I do know that the state I live in while having one of if not thee most lax set of gun laws, we still take gun safety very seriously and it is reflected in the statistics. 75% gun ownership in the state and a yearly average of 2 firearm deaths.
>>Those three people above sure knew how to handle a gun, though. Veteran cop and two adults who knew their way around a weapon. Funny what happens when you put tools designed to kill people in the hands of millions of responsible people. And some irresponsible ones. With children and other people around.
Honestly, I don’t put a lot of stock in cops having adequate training. I have seen so many cops injured or injuring someone else by negligent handling. It has been suggested a number of times that many cops only complete the required training and then never touch their firearms whereas most gun owning citizens are out at the range as much as possible.
AnOski January 14th, 2015 at 20:26
>People buy Chevelles or whatever car they wish because “they” want to and have their own set of reasons. Your opinion in the matter is entirely irrelevant.
Oh, please. “To practically mitigate risk and injury, it makes sense to put inhibitor chips in some cars, but not others: top speed is just one criteria that factors into the decision.”
That’s not an opinion. That’s a fact.
>Not that I am ignoring trucks but the point you are trying to make again is meaningless. You do not need a license, registration or anything to drive any form of automobile.
[On private property not used by the public for purposes of vehicular travel or parking.]
>Those requirements are put in place for operating them on public roadways which still has little to do with anything as driving is a privilege while owning firearms is a specifically enumerated right.
Completely backwards. Cars are necessary to daily life. If the government took peoples’ “right” to drive cars away tomorrow, the country would come to a screeching halt.
Guns? 8,000 fewer people would die next year in the US. And if you’re referring to the right of a well-regulated militia to bear arms, I don’t think most people qualify, sorry. Not even close. To say nothing of the fact that the document was written when the US army consisted of such militias, and they needed to be armed. We have a standing army and national guard; the militias of the Second Amendment are antiquated and no longer exist.
Per your public vs. private argument, I should be able to manufacture bombs and other incendiary devices so long as I make them explicitly for use on my own property. And I should be able to do anything deemed illegal on my own private land, right? That makes sense.
>Evidence… Are you that inept with the internet? Pop over to youtube. That is spelled youtube.com. In the search box type in “homemade firearms” and press the little magnifying glass icon. You will see a number of results. Start clicking and watching them. I am sure you must be capable of expanding your search from there.
Yep. A few videos of people who made guns. I thought we were talking about widespread trends, of criminals manufacturing these things by the thousands to counteract the sweeping bans of Australia, Europe, etc. Do you think a few videos of people doing it proves your point? Lol.
We all know it’s *possible* to make a gun. That doesn’t mean that criminals in, say, the UK, are doing it, despite very strict gun ownership restrictions in place.
And, with 70 gun deaths per year in the entire UK,you have your answer. Even if 100% of those were caused by homemade guns, their gun-related homicide rate is 1/30 that of the US’. Their overall homicide rate is 1/3 that of the US.’
Something’s working. Perhaps it’s the restrictions on gun ownership. Keeping people from getting shot. How logical would that be?
>Am I now? Not according to this past years news anyway and it isn’t limited to Australia either. Malaysia has seen increases in homemade firearms as with various other countries. The problem with the 10% stat you cite is that is only “recovered” homemade firearms. There are certainly many more out there.
You don’t seem to understand statistics. They recovered __ guns from criminal arrests and searches. 10% of __ guns were homemade guns. In other words, even amongst criminals, in a country where guns have been outlawed for nearly two decades, 90% of the guns were professionally manufactured. Of course there are more guns out there. But what it shows is that your claim of “people just make guns” isn’t true ~90% of the time. Since we’re speaking in broad truths, “it’s not true.”
So stop repeating it.
>>And it’s patently misleading. If it became very difficult to obtain professionally manufactured guns, a higher percentage of guns would be home-made. Which isn’t to say that gun restrictions wouldn’t be working. Fewer guns, but a higher proportion of homemade guns would still mean that restrictions were successful.
>More restrictions clearly does not mean less guns or gun violence. It simply means it is harder for the law abiding to get what they need or want as criminals can,
*Not true, per what we observe in Great Britain/Europe at large and Australia, where criminals cannot easily obtain and do not manufacture guns in any quantity.
>do and will continue to acquire firearms through any means necessary, including but not limited to home manufacture.
Except they don’t. This isn’t true. You live in a world where criminals somehow get guns by any means necessary, even when they’re not legally obtainable. In the real world, where they’re banned, a small number of criminals do manage to obtain — and a much smaller number manage to make their own — firearms. But it’s not a widespread phenomenon.
There’s a reason the US’ homicide rate is three times that of any other civilized Western nation. When you take gun-related homicides out of the total number of homicides in the US, the difference drops to ~0. You don’t seem to be very familiar with the stats. Just your feeling about how things are based upon…falsehoods.
>Removing or inhibiting the law abiding’s ability to adequately protect themselves is punishing everyone,
Adequately protect yourself from what?
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full
Living a full life? You have some serious misconceptions about how guns statistically “help people to protect themselves.” You are literally more likely to kill yourself with that gun than you are to save your life with it.
>period and as has been repeatedly shown across the board, restrictions do not decrease death tolls.
Half truth, and a red herring. There is a very strong correlation with gun ownership rates and homicide rates amongst nearly every nation. In Australia, gun-related homicides are ~60% lower than they were in 1995 and the previous few years. There was a slight increase in homicides shortly after the ban, but the downward trend has increased in the ensuing decade.
In other words, your scenario of “criminals will get guns and use them to intimidate law-abiding citizens” is rubbish.
This hasn’t happened anywhere where guns have been banned.
>The means may change but violence continues to happen. The key is to target the cause of the violence, not how it “could” be carried out.
By, what? Making crime illegal? Come on, man. Restrict access to the tools criminals use to kill people and fewer people will die. It’s not rocket science.
>>You punish a child by taking a toy away. It’s not “punishing” a child if you take a knife out of his or her hands. Even if they like playing with it. Especially if there are other children around.
>You just made your whole position very clear. You believe that the law abiding citizen is like a child that needs to be told what they can and cannot do.
Yes. That’s what an analogy is. And guns are the same as cars, right?
If you don’t have a good argument to bring to the table, don’t pull this kind of crap. It’s trolling.
>I am sorry that you don’t trust yourself enough to make your own decisions but I am a capable adult and I will continue to make my own decisions.
And increase your odds of dying via firearm to protect yourself with a firearm. Glad to see you’re making informed “big boy” decisions for yourself, now.
>Cherry picking stories does you no justice.
…Says the fellow who just directed me to a youtube search of cherry picked stories? Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t realize hypocrisy was on the menu. My mistake.
>Out of hundreds of millions of citizen owned firearms and an estimated 100 million owners of them, there are millions of defensive gun uses each year of which a very small portion result in death.
Researchers at Harvard say that’s a myth. And why.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/
Your claim is commonly touted by gun advocates. A personal anecdote doesn’t prove the point, but illustrates one of theirs I was mugged once, at knifepoint. As it was, he took my (empty) wallet, I found a friendly door / canceled my cards a few minutes later, and found them in the street the next day, along with my pilfered wallet.
I could have used a gun to “defend” myself, had I had one. I wouldn’t have wound up better off if I had. I couldn’t have. I lost nothing. But a gun owner would tout this as an instance of self defense, had they pulled a gun on the criminal.
Repeated studies have shown that escalating a situation like that increases the odds of injury and death to both parties involved. In other words, you’re not protecting yourself with a gun. You’re increasing your own odds of being hurt or killed.
There’s more to the Harvard study; the fact remains that you are sorely misled.
>Oddly enough I have carried a firearm for 3 decades and not been injured once however I have used my firearm twice to defend my own and my child’s life.
The statistical evidence speaks for itself. Your anecdotes are just that.
>I wont argue about the possibility of my better handling a firearm as it has always been something I take very seriously. For the most part, I do not believe in accidents.
Then you are a fool.
>There is negligence. The only accidents I do believe happen all in all are still a result of negligence but more often than not it is the negligence of someone who should have taught their children at least they very basics of gun safety, even if they can’t stand guns and would never own one because you simply cannot guarantee your child will never come into contact with one outside of your presence.
“More often than not, accidents are the result of negligence.”
Negligence? You mean these are tools that can be misused, and their misuse results in peoples’ deaths? That doesn’t serve any practical use for the majority of owners. That sounds almost like something that people probably shouldn’t be allowed to use, unless they can demonstrate a need for using one. Especially if children are capable of using them to kill people.
On the other hand, I could ~guarantee that if they were outlawed.
>I do know that the state I live in while having one of if not thee most lax set of gun laws, we still take gun safety very seriously and it is reflected in the statistics. 75% gun ownership in the state and a yearly average of 2 firearm deaths.
Switzerland’s a similar exception. The only trouble is that you’re pointing out an exception: not what happens in most of the rest of the country /world.
We’ve gone over why your region is unusual, and is destined to remain so in the US. Weeks ago. Come on.
And I thought you said you had a problem with cherry-picking examples.
>Honestly, I don’t put a lot of stock in cops having adequate training. I have seen so many cops injured or injuring someone else by negligent handling.
Right. Even if you’re trained (and they are), if you’re around guns all of the time, it’s very hard to constantly maintain the kinds of standards necessary to remove any possibility of an accident.
>It has been suggested a number of times that many cops only complete the required training and then never touch their firearms
Really? Suggested by whom? Whoever said that sounds like an idiot who makes outlandish claims.
>whereas most gun owning citizens are out at the range as much as possible.
Again with the unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence. I’ve seen plenty of cops at the ranges around here. Do you have any numbers to back up that unlikely statement? It’s almost like you have double standards.
Bob Smiton January 14th, 2015 at 21:58
Driving is a privilege, period. Your opinion on the matter is again, irrelivant. It is what it is whether you like it or not.
The 2nd amendment states that there is a need for a well regulated militia and the right to bear arms is not dependant on having that militia. The right to bear arms is rather a requirement to allow for a militia if need be. The Vermont Constitution spells the purpose out rather plainly and it revolves mainly around standing armies that you seem to welcome.
“Article 16th. Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State – and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.”
As for who qualifies for the unorganized militia. All able bodied men ages 17 to 45 which is expanded to include women as they have equal rights. See 10 U.S. Code § 311 to confirm this. Standing armies are a threat to liberty and our National Guard otherwise known as the organized militia, has been busy in violation of the law as they are serving on foreign soil in opposition to their purpose.
Regarding manufacture of bombs on your own property. Look up tannerite or stump removal. Weapons laws are commonly based on intent.
There are widespread trends of people making their own firearms. There was a recent news story about rebels who make their living off of home manufactured arms that are supplied to extremists. I am sure you can find it if you actually look and the thousands of results that showed up for that search I already gave you shows how simple it is. So simple that teenage kids are doing it with scrap or a visit to home depot.
Some more searches for you.
“Chechen rebels using homemade rifles built from scrap”
“Syrian Rebels Produce Homemade Anti-Materiel Rifles”
“Homemade Weapons of Libya’s Rebel Forces”
“Chief weapons used by the Maoists are not big machine-guns but homemade guns”
“Papuan militant group displays homemade rifles”
“Delhi – 40 million illegally manufactured homemade small arms in circulation”
“The cheap availability of homemade guns has rendered India’s gun law, which prohibits anyone below 21 or with a conviction to possess a gun, all but irrelevant.”
“Philippines Deadlier Than U.S. as Farmers Copy Guns at Home”
>Restrict access to the tools criminals use to kill people and fewer people will die. It’s not rocket science.
Okay so then we must ban guns, knives, knitting needles, bats, rebar, cars, medications… shall I continue?
My personal experiences are a matter of public record so they are very relevant and I am not the one who escalated the situations. In both incidents I deescelated the situation. One by scaring the guy with a gun off and the other by forcing him to the ground until police arrived.
As for Harvard studies, they have repeatedly been shown to be biased.
In a nutshell, get a clue and stop being willfully ignorant. I am done going round in circles with you as it is obvious that in your mind, your opinion trumps reality.
AnOski January 15th, 2015 at 21:14
>Driving is a privilege, period. Your opinion on the matter is “again, irrelivant. It is what it is whether you like it or not.
My opinion of your silly semantic argument is no less relevant than the argument itself.
http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=80827
“Right” given by whom? In this case, you’re simply blurring the definitions of the words. More below.
>The 2nd amendment states that there is a need for a well regulated militia and the right to bear arms is not dependant on having that militia.
Have you even read the Second Amendment?
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
In response to this, you say: “the right to bear arms is not dependant on having that militia.”
The Second Amendment clearly specifies that the guns are necessary for the formation of a well-regulated militia. It’s not even vague.
>The right to bear arms is rather a requirement to allow for a militia if need be. The Vermont Constitution spells the purpose out rather plainly and it revolves mainly around standing armies that you seem to welcome.
Right. But, unlike in 1776, the US now has a standing army. Back then, armed militias were our country’s only defense against foreign invasion. Now, we have a standing army / air force / navy / etc. With more firepower than any other country’s combined military might.
What do you think a bunch of people with basic firearms could do against any national army with a navy, air force, etc.? Oh, that’s right. Nothing. It’s a joke. The notion that you would consider yourself or any other civilian gun owner as being on the same level as a colonial-era militiaman is laughable.
>The Vermont Constitution spells the purpose out rather plainly and it revolves mainly around standing armies that you seem to welcome. “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State – and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.”
Let’s break it down.
“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State – ”
Of course, in 1776, there were actual physical threats to the average citizenry of the colonies, national defense aside. Hostile Native Americans, wild animals, etc. might as well have been in every valley. It was a wild frontier. That’s not the case now, for the vast majority of Americans.
And, of course, with nearly all gun regulations in Australia and elsewhere, people who could demonstrate any practical cause for owning one was permitted to keep it. E.g., if you live in Vermont, owning a long arm would probably be ~just as easy.
I deal with the bit re. the defense of the country above; you are sorely misguided if you believe that arming the citizenry will do anything to protect this country in a time of strife or war. If anything, it is more likely to contribute to the dissolution of the United States.
“and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; ”
Wait a second. Are you saying we should disband the American military? In order to try to shore up your beliefs re. private gun ownership, you have to draw upon a document so radical that it suggests that our country shouldn’t have an air force? An army? A navy?
Come on, man.
“and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.”
…The army shouldn’t exist, but it’s actions should reflect the will of the people. Sure. Ok.
>As for who qualifies for the unorganized militia. All able bodied men ages 17 to 45 which is expanded to include women as they have equal rights.
“Unorganized?” I believe the Second Amendment starts off with “A well regulated militia.” Since when does “well-regulated” mean “unorganized”?
It sounds as though you don’t even care about what the Second Amendment says. You’re saying things that contradict it.
>See 10 U.S. Code § 311 to confirm this.
To confirm what? Your right to an “unorganized” militia per the Second Amendment? Lol.
>Standing armies are a threat to liberty and our National Guard otherwise known as the organized militia, has been busy in violation of the law as they are serving on foreign soil in opposition to their purpose.
For someone who knows how to find a video on youtube, your googling skills are surprisingly bad. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903
You’re either disregarding obvious facts to prove your point or are ignorant of this topic.
>Regarding manufacture of bombs on your own property. Look up tannerite or stump removal.
In incorporated areas, using explosive methods to perform these kinds of tasks *is* most certainly illegal. And since 192 million people in our country live in incorporated regions, your comment applies to, at best, a minority in this country.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0029.pdf
And, this depends upon the specifications of what is being made. Even if you want to remove a stump — or hundreds of them — manufacturing and stockpiling pipe bombs isn’t going to be permitted, no matter where you live.
>Weapons laws are commonly based on intent.
Most weapons laws are not based upon intent. This is an outright lie, no matter where you live in the US.
>There are widespread trends of people making their own firearms.
This is a meaningless statement with nothing backing it up.
Aside from being factually incorrect, the reasoning behind it is flawed.
Of course: where guns are completely banned, more people will attempt to make their own guns. You would expect to see an increasing proportion of home made guns over time, especially if the gun ban were working.
But, as we see in Australia, even after two decades of stringent gun restrictions, only 10% of confiscated guns are homemade.
In other words, a successful / more stringent regulation of conventional firearms would take 90% of illicit firearms out of criminals’ hands.
Homemade guns are not an issue relative to manufactured ones. You don’t seem to understand this. The actual facts disagree with what you’re saying.
>There was a recent news story about rebels who make their living off of home manufactured arms that are supplied to extremists.
Anecdotal evidence / may or may not be at all true / where is this supposedly occurring? Even if this claim were confirmed, one case does not make “a trend.” And there are no actual statistics to confirm your “trend,” nor is it mentioned in the media as something that actually exists.
What a shame.
It’s almost as though you have a fear of people making homemade guns in the event of manufactured guns getting banned, but there’s no real evidence in today’s world that would actually substantiate this fear.
Go figure.
>I am sure you can find it if you actually look and the thousands of results that showed up for that search I already gave you shows how simple it is.
So simple. If you have precision metal working tools. And what criminal doesn’t have a set of those? Or the time and expertise to make a gun that works (reliably)?
Lol. Your argument in this case is literally insane.
“If criminals can’t buy guns, they’ll make them. Despite the evidence from other countries, which shows that they don’t.”
You don’t even address the facts; you just ignore them. It would be laughable if it weren’t so darn sad.
>So simple that teenage kids are doing it with scrap or a visit to home depot.
Yeah, this is what those youtube videos show. Teenagers and criminals across the country snapping together homemade guns with ease. Lol.
>Some more searches for you.”Chechen rebels using homemade rifles built from scrap””Syrian Rebels Produce Homemade Anti-Materiel Rifles””Homemade Weapons of Libya’s Rebel Forces””Chief weapons used by the Maoists are not big machine-guns but homemade guns””Papuan militant group displays homemade rifles””Delhi – 40 million illegally manufactured homemade small arms in circulation””The cheap availability of homemade guns has rendered India’s gun law, which prohibits anyone below 21 or with a conviction to possess a gun, all but irrelevant.””Philippines Deadlier Than U.S. as Farmers Copy Guns at Home”
1) five or ten instances of home made guns scattered around the globe has no bearing on criminal trends in the US, etc. Especially in light of the actual statistical data from Australia.
2) Chechnya, Syria, Libya, Papua New Guinea, India?
Places with disproportionally high rates of violence, high rates of murder (by gun), and extremely high demand for guns — but which are chronically short on conventional/manufactured supply.
Yeah, that sounds like the US. [sarcasm]
The closest country would be India, and, as you may have picked up in your extensive life experiences, laws aren’t enforced there as they are here. It’s a different society. Crimes like rape and the extreme exploitation of children simply go unpunished the vast majority of the time.
>>Restrict access to the tools criminals use to kill people and fewer people will die. It’s not rocket science.
>Okay so then we must ban guns, knives, knitting needles, bats, rebar, cars, medications… shall I continue?
Knives serve many purposes in my life. Most peoples’, really. Knitting needles serve a rather singular, nonviolent purpose. As do baseball bats and everything else you mentioned.
As I have said before in less detail…most tools that might be regarded as dangerous or potentially life threatening if misused serve useful purposes in daily life. Remove cars from society and our lives would come to a screeching halt. Most people in the US would not be able to get to work. Society would have to change on many fundamental levels. The demographics of our nation would have to change. Rebar…well, people in California would die in huge numbers in every earthquake, and buildings everywhere would be limited to 2-3 stories in height. Etc., etc.
What would happen if you were to outlaw guns? No such negative effects.
Your argument is a facetious one at best.
>My personal experiences are a matter of public record so they are very relevant and I am not the one who escalated the situations. In both incidents I deescelated the situation. One by scaring the guy with a gun off and the other by forcing him to the ground until police arrived.
Right. And what would have happened if you hadn’t done that in both cases? Who knows. Even if you would have died had you not had a gun, it’s one case of anecdotal evidence against the 8,000 gun deaths in the US last year. Every year.
>As for Harvard studies, they have repeatedly been shown to be biased.
Oh, I see. Any scientific, peer-reviewed evidence that contradicts your bias is biased. Any statistic that does so is irrelevant, or can be explained away with your anecdotal evidence.
Sounds like I really am wasting my time.
>In a nutshell, get a clue and stop being willfully ignorant.
Willfully ignorant? I’m not the one discounting Harvard studies with no evidence whatsoever. I’m not the one throwing out nationwide crime statistics on homemade gun manufacturing for a country like Australia — because I can find a news story about Syrian rebels making their own guns.
Your standards for evidence are abysmal. I have brought actual facts, peer-reviewed studies, and statistical data to the table.
You have none of that to shore up your beliefs, and still believe that your perspective is somehow defensible.
>I am done going round in circles with you as it is obvious that in your mind, your opinion trumps reality.
My opinion is based upon peer-reviewed academic studies, statistics taken from multiple nations, etc., etc. Learn to use critical reasoning and reexamine the issue on your own time.
Bob Smiton January 16th, 2015 at 21:39
I am not even going to offer much more for a comment here as you are being rather circular while avoiding all evidence, proof and reasoning that has been shown to you. I will however address a few things.
The need for a well equipped militia pivots on the people having previous access to and training with arms. Look up justification clause and operative clause. It may broaden your understanding a bit.
“What do you think a bunch of people with basic firearms could do against any national army with a navy, air force, etc.? Oh, that’s right. Nothing. It’s a joke. The notion that you would consider yourself or any other civilian gun owner as being on the same level as a colonial-era militiaman is laughable.”
The people in the revolutionary war would beg to differ although you insist on making this about citizens fighting our entire government and as I have previously stated repeatedly, that is not likely to ever happen. Smaller factions on the other hand is certainly a possibility but even that is still unlikely. Tyranny however is not necessarily in the form of a government but rather any individual or group who actively seeks to oppress any person or group of people would be considered a tyrant or tyranny and yes, even today, one or more armed citizens can absolutely defend against such a thing. As a matter of fact that happens somewhere around 2.5 million times per year. Look up Defensive Gun Use.
The storage of bombs. That is in fact a crime but you specifically said and I quote “I should be able to manufacture bombs and other incendiary devices so long as I make them explicitly for use on my own property.”
Manufacture, yes. You can legally manufacture but once manufactured they can not be moved or stored. They must be used to perform the task such as stump removal.
All weapons laws in the state I live in are intent based. You can go on school property with a firearm unless you have ill intent. You can carry a firearm openly or concealed unless you have ill intent and so forth. I wont speak for each state as I am certainly not as well versed in other states laws but here, that is exactly how our laws are written.
As for the widespread trends of people making their own firearms… I offered you numerous examples and still you say it is meaningless. Yes maybe meaningless to you but to those of us who are not living in a fantasy bubble, it is very real and meaningful.
AnOski January 24th, 2015 at 02:29
>I am not even going to offer much more for a comment here as you are being rather circular while avoiding all evidence, proof and reasoning that has been shown to you. I will however address a few things.
I’m the only one who brought actual evidence and sources to the table. Willful ignorance.
http://www.lohud.com/article/20130219/OPINION/103120003/Editorial-Ending-willful-ignorance-gun-violence
A nice excerpt: “since Congress began to muzzle research into firearm injury prevention in 1997, at least 427,000 people have died of gunshot wounds, including 165,000 by homicide.”
Who were you planning to protect with widespread gun ownership? The ~half a million corpses that “ideal” has directly caused over the last one and a half decades?
>The need for a well equipped militia pivots on the people having previous access to and training with arms.
Well equipped, but “unorganized,” right? You can’t just arm the people and ignore the rest of the amendment. Well, you can, I suppose. That’s all you been doing. Repeatedly. Go figure.
>>”What do you think a bunch of people with basic firearms could do against any national army with a navy, air force, etc.? Oh, that’s right. Nothing. It’s a joke. The notion that you would consider yourself or any other civilian gun owner as being on the same level as a colonial-era militiaman is laughable.”
>The people in the revolutionary war would beg to differ
Yes, and they would have been right, 240 years ago. When militias had ~the same arms as armies. When militias *were* armies. Literally. The only line of defense between the might of the British Empire were the fledgling nation’s state militias.
Things have changed. You really don’t seem to understand that. The world of today = / = the world of 1776. The US had *only* militias then to defend itself. That was it.
That’s not the case today. The population of this country doesn’t need to be armed. It doesn’t do us any good, and kills 8,000 Americans per year. With just under half a million American casualties since 1997….at some point, you’ve got to agree that the proven, observed cost outweighs even the potential benefit.
>although you insist on making this about citizens fighting our entire government and as I have previously stated repeatedly, that is not likely to ever happen. Smaller factions on the other hand is certainly a possibility but even that is still unlikely.
Texas is going to revolt, is it? And the federal government / army / navy / air force is going to stand idly by while this happens, I suppose?
In what kind of an cockeyed view of the world does one expect the military of the US to not get involved if some kind of a revolt is underway. Oh. I see.
>Tyranny however is not necessarily in the form of a government but rather any individual or group who actively seeks to oppress any person or group of people would be considered a tyrant or tyranny and yes, even today, one or more armed citizens can absolutely defend against such a thing. As a matter of fact that happens somewhere around 2.5 million times per year. Look up Defensive Gun Use.
Already gone over this, bro. You’re not going to get away with NRA-funded research here.
https://stat.duke.edu/~dalene/chance/chanceweb/103.myth0.pdf
>The storage of bombs. That is in fact a crime but you specifically said and I quote “I should be able to manufacture bombs and other incendiary devices so long as I make them explicitly for use on my own property.” Manufacture, yes. You can legally manufacture but once manufactured they can not be moved or stored. They must be used to perform the task such as stump removal.
Again, this is not true for the *vast majority* of the US. See my previous post for the actual breakdown.
>All weapons laws in the state I live in are intent based. You can go on school property with a firearm unless you have ill intent. You can carry a firearm openly or concealed unless you have ill intent and so forth.
Good thing intent’s so easy to prove, and guns are so hard for people with ill-intent to get. Oh, that’s right. You have to wait until the children are lying in pools of their own blood to prove the intent.
http://img.pandawhale.com/post-28652-thats-a-bold-strategy-cotton-g-g2uB.gif
>I wont speak for each state as I am certainly not as well versed in other states laws but here, that is exactly how our laws are written.
And? What does that have to do with the 8,000 homicides caused by ill-intent with guns in the US last year, or the 430,000 total deaths since 1997?
>As for the widespread trends of people making their own firearms… I offered you numerous examples
A few examples of home-made guns in war-torn parts of the world doesn’t refute the *observed fact* that home-made guns aren’t replacing manufactured guns at comparable rates of ownership in countries that have restricted guns to the point that they are hard to own.
You’re willfully ignoring large-scale statistical facts with the aid of what amounts to anecdotal evidence.
This is willful ignorance.
>and still you say it is meaningless. Yes maybe meaningless to you but to those of us who are not living in a fantasy bubble, it is very real and meaningful.
It is meaningless because you’re pointing your finger at a few instances of homemade guns, when we have long-term data for entire countries that says, “no, your claim is unequivocally erroneous.”
The statistics *prove* that homemade guns don’t make up more than a small fraction of the guns in circulation, even in countries with restrictive gun laws. Pointing out a few instances of homemade guns across the world says *nothing* about how widespread it is in first world nations where guns have been banned.
I brought those stats to the table, and they say you’re wrong. You’re wrong. Fess up.
Bob Smiton January 24th, 2015 at 09:16
No you did not. I guess it isn’t willful ignorance. It is just outright ignorance.
“The population of this country doesn’t need to be armed. It doesn’t do us any good, and kills 8,000 Americans per year. With just under half a million American casualties since 1997….at some point, you’ve got to agree that the proven, observed cost outweighs even the potential benefit.”
Sorry but again you are just wrong. 2.5 million dgus per year weighed against 8000? deaths. You can’t argue that the observed cost outweighs the potential benefit when in comparison the loss is barely a calculable fraction. Oh and that was not NRA funded. It was funded by your very own anti human rights lobbyists.
“Texas is going to revolt, is it? And the federal government / army / navy / air force is going to stand idly by while this happens, I suppose?
In what kind of an cockeyed view of the world does one expect the military of the US to not get involved if some kind of a revolt is underway. Oh. I see.”
In what cockeyed view do you fail to read the damn words that were written? Not once did I mention Texas and I specifically stated that such an event was rather unlikely.
“Good thing intent’s so easy to prove, and guns are so hard for people with ill-intent to get. Oh, that’s right. You have to wait until the children are lying in pools of their own blood to prove the intent.”
I see you are a fan of guilty until proven innocent so how about this. I accuse you of murder. I have no proof but I’ll leave that to you to prove while you rot in jail. In reality here we are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around and it is unfortunate that you must be living in terrible fear of your neighbors and friends. Do you fantasize that they are plotting to kill you as well?
I pointed my finger at a whole list of widespread homemade manufacture and it is on the incline. Your insistence on ignoring the facts is astonishing. Obviously with manufacture of firearms being legal there would be less homemade guns. When the legality of manufacture is reverted you begin to see increases as has been demonstrated. You have brought nothing but absolute horse$hit to the table and I am done. Go back to your lollipops and unicorns.
edmeyer_able December 14th, 2014 at 13:34
As much as the nra is to blame for this so is the voter for electing officials that ignore our wishes. NY passed what’s called “The Safe Act” which is facing push back from ‘sportsman’ who feel it somehow inhibits their “rights”.
I hunt and own several guns and am glad that it is still law. Seems like voting and education will be our only defense against the nra and the lawmakers they contribute to.
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 13:38
So you believe that my choice in firearms that I use to hunt should be restricted because my guns don’t look like your guns?
edmeyer_able December 14th, 2014 at 13:40
Sure……lol
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 13:41
That will be remembered when they decide to come after your high powered sniper rifle.
edmeyer_able December 14th, 2014 at 13:42
Who exactly is going to do that Bobbie?
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 13:43
The very same people that have advocated to restrict firearms based solely on appearances. For instance, I hunt with a 7.62×39 AR variant with a pistol grip. It keeps the recoil off my damaged shoulder and keeps me hunting. Is my firearm somehow more deadly than say a Ruger Mini30 Ranch Rifle?
edmeyer_able December 14th, 2014 at 13:47
It’s not based on appearance so your argument is moot.
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 13:54
Really? Mind explaining how it is not? Seriously. Look at the list of banned firearms and explain how they differ from any other and we will be off to a start anyway. What do you hunt with? .308, 30-06?
edmeyer_able December 14th, 2014 at 13:58
It’s abundantly clear to me that you will not accept any explanation that is offered so have a nice day.
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 14:00
And yet you have offered no explanation whatsoever. You are avoiding the facts because your firearms are not presently under fire.
According to the NY Safe Act this is what makes an assault weapon.
Folding or Telescoping Stock
Protruding Pistol Grip
Thumbhole Stock
Flash Suppressor
Muzzle Brake
Muzzle Compensator
A threaded barrel designed to accommodate attachments to the barrel.
What about these features makes the firearm they are on any more deadly than and other firearm without them?
edmeyer_able December 14th, 2014 at 14:15
Rather than debate the merits of this or any other law perhaps you would like to state your opposition to a law that the majority of the public is in favor of passing?
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 14:17
I think I have rather clearly stated my position and reasoning for opposing this law but you have still yet to answer the questions I have asked. I also know for a fact that an act passed behind closed doors in the middle of the night had no such support. I have a great deal of family upstate to verify this.
edmeyer_able December 14th, 2014 at 14:20
Your position on this is duly noted but why are you against the will of the people when they wish to AMEND an existing law through voting?
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 14:22
Because it is not the will of the people as should be clear by all those in NY who oppose it along with the 22 states that are presently filing suit against the act. Aside from that, we do not vote to suppress rights. If we did then it would be just the same to vote that all gays be banned or all Wiccans be banned from exercising their religious freedom and so forth.
edmeyer_able December 14th, 2014 at 14:25
If the people of NY wish for the law to be repealed it can be done, but right now it is law and I will go along with this or any other laws they pass. If there comes a time that I feel my rights are being violated I will move to a state or country that agrees with them. That’s how a democracy works.
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 14:27
Well I can say that I respect your willingness and right to follow the existing law. I will not oppose that. I do however hope that if/when a time comes that you feel your rights are being violated that you don’t tuck tale and run but stand your ground for what you know is right. We do not live in a democracy and for good reason. We live in a Constitutional Republic with a democratic election process. Democracy is mob rule and trust me, that is not what any of us want. If all else fails though, Vermont is welcoming to firearms and their owners.
edmeyer_able December 14th, 2014 at 14:30
Well I can honestly tell you that the gun laws of certain “red” states are keeping me from ever traveling to them until they are changed and I don’t see that happening any time soon.
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 14:32
Likewise, the laws of many blue states keep me from traveling in them. NY being one of them. I don’t do a lot of red state travel either if it can be avoided.
StoneyCurtisll December 14th, 2014 at 15:15
If the New York state laws offend you to the point of not going there..
Why are you bent out of shape over the laws in that state?
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 16:30
Mainly because I have a majority of my family who have lived upstate since migrating there from Vermont after the revolutionary war. They are all effected by this law and secondly, because I have to cut an entire state out of my travel and work due to an unconstitutional law.
Carla Akins December 14th, 2014 at 15:21
The problem with the will of the people is that the majority of people also opposed inter-racial marriage, they were wrong too. As a matter of law, we do not live in a democracy, but a republic. Majority does not rule. Responsible gun owners should welcome more stringent and expanded background checks. Otherwise, it certainly appears they have something to hide.
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 16:28
You just said exactly what I said and then you add in nonsense about responsible gun owners welcoming expanded background checks and then it comes to this question. What exactly does expanded background check mean to you. I support background checks and we have had them for a long time now. What is presently being advocated is a firearms registry which is forbidden by federal law for obvious reasons.
Carla Akins December 14th, 2014 at 16:41
Uh, exactly where did you address background checks, and responsible gun owners when I made this post?
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 16:47
You said “The problem with the will of the people is that the majority of people also opposed inter-racial marriage, they were wrong too. As a matter of law, we do not live in a democracy, but a republic. Majority does not rule.”
I said “we do not vote to suppress rights. If we did then it would be just the same to vote that all gays be banned or all Wiccans be banned from exercising their religious freedom and so forth.” and “We do not live in a democracy and for good reason. We live in a Constitutional Republic with a democratic election process. Democracy is mob rule and trust me, that is not what any of us want”
I will admit that you said it far better than I had. As for background checks which was not the topic until you brought it up, I replied “you add in nonsense about responsible gun owners welcoming expanded background checks and then it comes to this question. What exactly does expanded background check mean to you. I support background checks and we have had them for a long time now. What is presently being advocated is a firearms registry which is forbidden by federal law for obvious reasons.”
Carla Akins December 14th, 2014 at 17:12
I responded to the comment in question, I had not read down to read the democracy note. Although background checks specifically had not been mentioned, they are still part of the conversation. One of my greatest wishes is to see fewer children die by firearm – so I could care less about suppressors, length of a gun or how many bullets you can have attached to a firearm. If this means restrictions requires forced firearm education, passing a proficiency test and restricting ownership to those that can and will comply – so be it. We are the only country in the world with such a ridiculous amendment, we’re also the only country with such outrageous firearm deaths.
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 17:41
I noticed that after I initially replied. I also share the goal of fewer children harmed or killed with firearms or any weapon for that matter. I’m just not so sure we are going at the problem from the right direction. All of the restrictions on suppressors, length and et cetera are what are being debated as they have absolutely nothing to do with the safety of anyone. They are being used as tools to offer up to those who just don’t know any better so they feel like they are doing something while no real progress is made and it looks like that real progress isn’t even actually desired by those pushing this nonsense. I entirely support pushing firearm education. While we do have a high rate of firearm related deaths in this country, the majority of them stem from high gun control areas while low or non existent gun control areas are nearly free from the same issues. I do not personally believe that this means more guns is the answer but it does paint a rather clear image of what the issue is not. When we look at our violent crime and death in comparison to the rest of the world there is not a considerable difference. The tools differ but that is about the extent of it.
Carla Akins December 14th, 2014 at 18:12
Then explain why there are hardly any gun deaths in countries with very restrictive gun laws?
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 18:17
You miss the point. In those countries with limited access to firearms there is obviously going to be less gun related deaths but overall, the violent crime and death rates remain the same or even increase in many cases. The tools change.
Carla Akins December 14th, 2014 at 20:39
Wrong. You should do better and more research.
Bob Smiton December 15th, 2014 at 06:45
Sorry but it does not appear to be me who needs to do more research. Look at Australia for instance. Banned guns, increased brutal rapes and murders all while gun deaths did drop but at what cost? Now they are wishing they kept their guns as they have gangs building their own guns, terrorists holding hostages and people burned alive in their own homes. Europe, similar scenario. Then here in the states, look at the three safest states to live in. Vermont is #3 with no gun restrictions period, average 70% gun ownership and 2 gun related deaths per year.
Carla Akins December 15th, 2014 at 06:55
I said nothing about banning guns but regulating them. You need to
update your research. You’ll notice my supporting evidence comes from legitimate sources.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/gun-ownership-gun-deaths-study
http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/
StoneyCurtisll December 14th, 2014 at 15:12
Simple question..
Why do you need a muzzle brake/compensator, flash suppressor, threaded barrel or a bayonet attachment for “sporting” purposes?..
The Muzzel brake/compensator are only effective when firing in full-automatic mode..
A flash suppressor is only designed to attempt to deny the location of the shooter, (do you expect a deer or other game to shoot back?)
And what is it that you want to screw onto the barrel of your rifel that would enhance your hunting experience? (a silencer perhapes, so the game you are hunting cant hear you shooting at them?)
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 16:38
If you knew what any of those items where then you likely would not need to ask such a question so I will assume that you do not.
A muzzle brake/compensator/flash suppressor. Those aid in stabilizing the muzzle from recoil, lighten the felt recoil, and direct muzzle flash away from the firearm. A threaded barrel. That is how many of those items are attached to the barrel. Not sure where you get the idea that they are only effective when firing full auto but that is dead wrong. Their effect is on every round fired. Also not sure what gives you the impression that a flash suppressor denies the location of a shooter as they actually make the muzzle flash pattern far larger than it would have been without it. It only directs the flash away from the shooter and depending on the particular flash suppressor, they can direct the flash in such a way that the shooter can acquire a target again without having to readjust their vision.
As for screwing a sound suppressor on the firearm. That is of course another purpose for a threaded barrel though not the only way to attach a sound suppressor. In my state they are presently prohibited. That is likely to change within the next year or so as has been the case in many states. A common misconception is that they make the firearm silent because too many people believe everything they see on the boob tube. They do not. There is still considerable noise only the decibel level is lower so less damaging to your hearing. Not that I would ever want to hunt with them but you could of course use subsonic rounds which would be quieter but even still not silent and heard for a considerable distance.
StoneyCurtisll December 14th, 2014 at 15:31
What is it that you hunt with 7.62×39 rounds Bob?
That you couldn’t take down with a .223 or 5.56 Ruger 14 or 30?
Deer, elk, bear, moose, big cats?
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 16:26
I hunt deer and bear with the 7.62. I only hunt what I eat. I could use a .223/5.56 but the round is not legal to hunt large game in some states though in my state it is allowed. Despite it being allowed the small wound left by the .223 is less likely to allow for a lot of external bleeding to track the animal. I’m not one to have any appreciation for shooting an animal and not finding it. That would be rather cruel in my opinion. Close range shots would probably be fine but just the same I also choose the 7.62 for price and availability. I could just as well use a Mini 14 or AR15 but again, same issues with the NY Safe act as with my comparison with the 7.62 AR variant and Mini 30 I mentioned previously.
tracey marie December 14th, 2014 at 17:46
lol, threats online are hilarious
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 17:49
That was not a threat. It was a simple statement that has roots in history. First they come for this and it didn’t effect you so you did not speak, then they came for the next and again no effect on you so you did not speak and then when there was only you left and they came for you no one was there to stand by you because you had long since forsaken them.
tracey marie December 14th, 2014 at 17:51
threats online make you look foolish
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 18:16
Again, that was not a threat but I can see you are just trolling so I’ll leave you to your ignorance while the rest of us continue with respectful debate. Thanks for playing and have a great day.
William December 14th, 2014 at 19:24
So who is…”they”?
Bob Smiton December 15th, 2014 at 06:47
That you are asking such a question makes it clear you are just here to waste our time. They is whoever is in position to suppress you or otherwise interfere with your freedom. They have happened numerous times in history and still you must ask who is they? Come on now. Pick up a history book sometime.
William December 15th, 2014 at 08:37
” They is whoever is in position to suppress you or otherwise interfere with your freedom”.
That’s your answer? really? whoever?
A. I was a History major.
B. I’m retired. 20 years In the military, and 16 years as a cop.
C. I have a pretty good gun collection of my own
So, your condescending act isn’t impressing me.
What I DID notice is that you won’t/cannot answer the question.
Specifically who is they?
Your answer IE “whoever” is analogous to what you might get from an 11 year old who is angry and frustrated with a history test.
Generally I get the classic “Obama” answer, then I simply ask what anti gun efforts (specifically) this administration has signed into law.
The answer and expression I receive is usually the expression you receive from a cocker spaniel after you show it a card trick.
In summary you cannot answer the question but will continue to draw your courage from a holster as you fight the invisible anti-gun boogie man with answers such as “whoever”
Pick up a book sometime
Bob Smiton December 15th, 2014 at 17:04
Then maybe you should have paid a little more attention in class and your military or civil law enforcement status is entirely irrelevant. They could be a local political group, they could be a dictator, they could be a King or Queen. They could be anyone in such position of power that “they” could suppress your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The condescension came from your having asked such a ridiculous question when you should already know the answer and no I do not think Captain Zero is coming for our guns. Presently where I live, the they would be a group of about 30 politicians.
William December 15th, 2014 at 17:21
Yet once again you fail to identify who “they” are. You are simply another troll whose only talent is posting bumper stickers.
You have failed.
BTW police officer don’t enforce civil law.
Pick up a book sometime
Jones December 14th, 2014 at 16:10
What do you enjoy most about killing animals? Stalking them or watching the life drain from their bodies?
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 16:18
Eating them. Watching them die is not something that I look forward to and I end their life as swiftly as possible.
edmeyer_able December 14th, 2014 at 16:21
I’m going to answer that if I may, it’s not about killing an animal for the sake of killing as it is about taking responsibility for providing your own meat, if in fact you’re a meat eater. Personally I have supplied 95% of the meat I’ve consumed for the last 12 years.
This year I may be forced to buy meat from a grocer who is supplied by a factory farm that in my opinion treats their animals cruelly while adding to the pollution of the country.
Jones December 14th, 2014 at 16:27
I see your point. I believe what’s left of wildlife should be left alone… and that factory farms should be regulated to prevent pollution and cruelty.
edmeyer_able December 14th, 2014 at 16:32
The deer population on the farm I hunt on do an extraordinary amount of crop damage and the number of deer killed by cars rivals the numbers taken by hunters at least in NY.
edmeyer_able December 14th, 2014 at 16:50
Hey it worked……
Jones December 14th, 2014 at 16:54
I see your point. Counter point…farms and highways continue to encroach on wildlife habitats.
edmeyer_able December 14th, 2014 at 17:01
I don’t have a source for this but see if you can find the number of deer presently in the US compared to what it was when Columbus landed. I think you’ll be shocked.
And yes hunters decimated some populations of animals (bison &passenger pigeon) but know that they were what’s called “market hunters”.
And remember highways, farms, industry and residential homes are the culprit here not the sportsman whose tax dollars go to supporting the wildlife you want to protect.
edmeyer_able December 14th, 2014 at 17:09
Also take this for what it’s worth
http://www.deerhunter.com/pages/deer-hunter/deer-info/history-of-the-whitetail-deer
Whitetail deer are now overpopulated to the point of being dangerous, not only to humans but to themselves. The number one killer animal in America is the Whtietail Deer, simply due to car crashes and such caused by too many deer. CWD is spreading due to deer being overpopulated. The DNR in WI was basically sending out death squads trying to take down the ugly large population of whitetails. Hunter shown wearing Lost Camo.
Jones December 14th, 2014 at 17:28
Interesting link.
Overpopulation resulting in animals starving is a good reason to thin the herd. If their natural predators had not been decimated this would not be a problem.
I can see how population control can be necessary at times, it’s difficult for me to accept the act of killing a wild animal as a pleasurable sport…or as a justification for firearms.
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 17:45
We have to maintain a balance and that is most often the purpose of hunting seasons. As a hunter it is also difficult for me to accept the killing of wild animals as a pleasurable sport. I don’t do it for the pleasure and hunting is not a justification for the 2nd amendment or firearms. Being able to hunt with firearms is a bi-product of the 2nd amendment which has an entirely different purpose.
edmeyer_able December 14th, 2014 at 17:53
So you would be fine with wolves running thru the suburbs of Cayuga Heights a suburb of Ithaca NY? Check out their overpopulation and decimation of their precious shrubs. All the while banning hunting.No I’m afraid using “natural predators” for a wildlife problem wont work unless you want to move all humans into a gated community, While at the same time raising animals for human consumption along w/the crops necessary for their consumption to a “high fence ” farm.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/01/ny-town-spends-2984-per-deer-in-sterilization-program/
NY Town spends $2,984 per deer in sterilization program
Jones December 14th, 2014 at 18:25
In Norse and Japanese mythology, wolves were portrayed as near deities: in Japan, grain farmers worshiped wolves at shrines and left food offerings near their dens, beseeching them to protect their crops from wild boars and deer,[198] while the wolf Fenrir of Norse mythology was depicted as the son of Loki. Other cultures portrayed wolves as part of their foundation myths: in the mythology of the Turks,[199] Mongols and Ainu, wolves were believed to be the ancestors of their people,[200] while the Dena’ina believed wolves were once men, and viewed them as brothers.[201] Wolves were linked to the sun in some Eurasian cultures: the Ancient Greeks and Romans associated wolves with the sun god Apollo,[201] while the wolf Sköll in Norse mythology was depicted pursuing the setting sun.[202] In Roman mythology, the Capitoline Wolf nurses Romulus and Remus, the future founders of Rome. According to the Pawnee creation myth, the wolf was the first animal to experience death.[203]
tracey marie December 14th, 2014 at 17:44
why are your guns more important then children?
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 17:47
Considering the fact that my guns are used to protect my children I would say they are quite important. The question is why is one firearm that is identical in function to another firearm banned when the identically functioning firearm is not.
tracey marie December 14th, 2014 at 17:52
sure, untill they or you have an “accident”
Bob Smiton December 14th, 2014 at 18:15
With proper training there is no such thing as an accident. There is only negligence.
AnOski December 24th, 2014 at 21:45
Of course, with ~a third of this country owning guns, occurrences of negligence are widespread and unavoidable. Especially with ~unregulated ownership.
Bob Smiton December 25th, 2014 at 12:13
I live in a state with 70-75% gun ownership and zero regulation and yet we maintain within the top 3 status for least violent and gun related crime. Out of 630’000 people, 2 per year die by the use of a firearm. It is not about regulation either. It is more about education and the value of life.
AnOski December 26th, 2014 at 00:23
Vermont? Oh, please. A place where owning long arms is actually warranted, and handguns and other assault weapons are just as useless as ever.
The “value of life” statement is BS; the people in Vermont have the same morals as everyone else. But they do, by and large, have more practical training in firearms due to the nature of their surroundings.
There’s just one problem, Bob. That’s different for the rest of the US, and it’s not going to change any time soon.
So, good job in pointing out that you live in a special place. If the whole US were like that, restrictions on gun ownership wouldn’t be necessary. But it isn’t, and they are.
Bob Smiton December 26th, 2014 at 14:18
Yes owning a long gun is warranted in Vermont and so are handguns and your alleged assault weapons. What you consider an assault weapon is nothing more than a normal long gun. In fact they are what I and many others use to hunt. The value of life statement is not BS. It applies everywhere and I did not insinuate that it was exclusive to Vermont. It is just one of the important factors. Firearm education is a big thing in Vermont and that is of great importance but Vermont is nowhere near alone in this. There are a number of other states that are similar and that number is growing whether you like it or not.
AnOski December 29th, 2014 at 04:30
>Yes owning a long gun is warranted in Vermont and so are handguns and your alleged assault weapons.
Oh, right. For when you need to shoot a deer 20 times at 10 yards (assault weapon). Or from ten feet away (handgun).
>What you consider an assault weapon is nothing more than a normal long gun.
And a square is a rectangle. A special kind of rectangle, with particular characteristics that make it different from other rectangles.
Semantics are semantics.
>In fact they are what I and many others use to hunt.
Yes, you *can* hunt with them. You could also hunt with grenades or mines. Assault weapons are completely unnecessary for hunting, though; they don’t make it any easier than a carbine, as you don’t have any reason to shoot a deer 20 times.
>The value of life statement is not BS. It applies everywhere and I did not insinuate that it was exclusive to Vermont. It is just one of the important factors.
Important factors? I’d like to see the study showing that residents of Vermont value human life more than the inhabitants of any other state.
Think about what you’re saying. It’s unjustifiable.
>Firearm education is a big thing in Vermont and that is of great importance but Vermont is nowhere near alone in this. There are a number of other states that are similar and that number is growing whether you like it or not.
Ah, a political opinion/assertion that you’re using to support/justify your beliefs.
Trouble is: it’s a half truth […Not that you have anything to support your claim, so it seems likely to be an entirely false claim.]
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?pagewanted=all
More education? Maybe. Maybe not. But that’s not the important statistic. Gun ownership is in steady decline. Good luck with that.
Bob Smiton December 29th, 2014 at 14:52
Who said anything about shooting a deer 20 times at 10 yards? Oh thats right, you, someone who clearly has no clue. 4 rounds in the long gun and generally only one shot needed and that would be at around 100 yards.
A square is a rectangle? Seriously that is your argument? Those particular characteristics are things such a hand grip, a shoulder thing that goes up and a stock, all of which are standard on all firearms. Oh and don’t forget the black color and if you are scared of the color then I am sorry to inform you but you have far bigger issues to concern yourself with.
You can not hunt with grenades or mines, now you are just being entirely asinine as that would be entirely illegal and wasteful. Do yourself a favor and turn off your boob tube, maybe try reading a book.
A carbine is more concealable than a long gun, less accurate and not often used for hunting though they can be. You are really showing that you have no idea what you are talking about as many carbines can accept a 100 round drum or a 30 round super capacity assault clip as you all like to call them.
You would like to see the study showing that residents of Vermont value human life more than the inhabitants of any other state? You just copied what I said and still you did not comprehend it? Let me reiterate for you. “It applies everywhere and I did not insinuate that it was exclusive to Vermont” and yes it is a very important factor as you must hold value for life and if you don’t then there is a serious problem. Clearly in Vermont there must be a considerable value for life as there are an average of 2 firearm deaths per year and upwards of 10 total homicides.
Firearm education being a big thing in Vermont is not a political opinion or any form of opinion. It is a fact. There are typically about 100’000 hunters each year for deer season alone. Each of those hunters has taken firearm safety training before being able to get their licenses and many of those hunters and sport shooters also attend regular classes.
Gun ownership in decline? 70% of Vermont’s population own firearms and on the national level the numbers have been climbing for at least 2 years now. The only thing that has gone down is the number of homes “reporting” that they have firearms and in the past few years it is clear why they would deny owning firearms.
AnOski December 30th, 2014 at 02:41
>Who said anything about shooting a deer 20 times at 10 yards? Oh thats right, you, someone who clearly has no clue. 4 rounds in the long gun and generally only one shot needed and that would be at around 100 yards.
Right. Which is why my comment clearly pointed out the frivolity of handguns and assault weapons in hunting. Not long arms.
“Oh, right. For when you need to shoot a deer 20 times at 10 yards (assault weapon). Or from ten feet away (handgun).”
Both of those situations are indeed preposterous.
You defended assault weapons and handguns by saying that they were useful in hunting. I have no problem with licensed / permitted long arms. They are useful tools when used appropriately and the proper precautions are implemented.
But, it is so easy to obtain guns of all types that this is not possible.
>A square is a rectangle? Seriously that is your argument?
Your argument was that all guns are the same.
A gun is a tool used to kill something. They are generally similar, but certainly not equal. Just as you wouldn’t use a handgun to kill a deer, there is no logical reason to choose, say, a M2 Browning .50 caliber machine gun.
>Those particular characteristics are things such a hand grip, a shoulder thing that goes up and a stock, all of which are standard on all firearms. Oh and don’t forget the black color and if you are scared of the color then I am sorry to inform you but you have far bigger issues to concern yourself with.
Not at all. I’m worried about the risk of this kind of crap:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States
When there is simply no reason to not prohibit the weapons that make these kinds of atrocities possible.
Australia implemented a sensible policy; people who lived in rural areas, and who could generally show that they had a use for long arms — could keep them.
>You can not hunt with grenades or mines, now you are just being entirely asinine as that would be entirely illegal and wasteful.
Possible to do? Yes. Wasteful? Not particularly. The materials used are cheap and readily available. Illegal? Restrict handguns and assault weapons, and they won’t be legal either. An appeal to legality is stupid. Laws change, and rightly so. Or do you believe the Bill of Rights is overrated? Which Amendments should be struck from the Constitution? All of them, no?
>Do yourself a favor and turn off your boob tube, maybe try reading a book.
I read more than you do and don’t have a TV. Honestly, I think that even a television would help you with your perspective. Anything to show you what the world is like when you’re not out camping in the backwoods.
>A carbine is more concealable than a long gun, less accurate and not often used for hunting though they can be. You are really showing that you have no idea what you are talking about as many carbines can accept a 100 round drum or a 30 round super capacity assault clip as you all like to call them.
Which are banned in this state, etc. It’s not very easy for people to manufacture such things; if they’re not legal / readily available, people won’t generally be able to get them.
We can see as much from the Eurozone and guns. Unrestricted travel, etc., and criminals just *can’t* get ahold of guns. Great Britain’s gun homicide rate is 1/30 that of the US,’ per capita. Overall homicide rate is 1/3. Take the gun-related homicides out of the US’ total number and the rates are nearly equal when you compare data from any year since 1990.
>You would like to see the study showing that residents of Vermont value human life more than the inhabitants of any other state? You just copied what I said and still you did not comprehend it?
Comprehend it? I understand the words you said. They are, however, a cute, unsubstantiated, personal belief. They are folly.
>Let me reiterate for you. “It applies everywhere and I did not insinuate that it was exclusive to Vermont” and yes it is a very important factor as you must hold value for life and if you don’t then there is a serious problem. Clearly in Vermont there must be a considerable value for life as there are an average of 2 firearm deaths per year and upwards of 10 total homicides.
You’re talking out of your bum. The people in Vermont are no different from the people anywhere else. The public school curricula are no different. Religiously, the people are no different, and they have the same values. These are facts.
>Firearm education being a big thing in Vermont is not a political opinion or any form of opinion. It is a fact.
I agree. This comes with living in a place where guns are practical. The average inhabitant of, say, New York (the city) has no practical reason to own a gun, though.
>There are typically about 100’000 hunters each year for deer season alone. Each of those hunters has taken firearm safety training before being able to get their licenses and many of those hunters and sport shooters also attend regular classes.
Right. I live in a state on the West Coast. I own a rifle, because my job takes me to very out-of-the way places. Last week, I was thirty miles by road from the nearest permanent residence. Around fifteen miles as the crow flies, but the country is impenetrable.
After several years, I’ve still never needed to take the gun out of its case. But, if my vehicle broke down, and I was beyond cell contact, etc., I might need it.
>Gun ownership in decline? 70% of Vermont’s population own firearms and on the national level the numbers have been climbing for at least 2 years now.
Half true. You could have said the same thing in 1981-2:
http://www.people-press.org/files/2013/03/3-12-13-13.png
But since then, ownership rates have declined by 7% nationally. The trend is clearly downwards.
You’re not a climate change denier by any chance, are you?
>The only thing that has gone down is the number of homes “reporting” that they have firearms and in the past few years it is clear why they would deny owning firearms.
No, we’re talking about estimates of actual ownership rates derived from anonymous surveys. If you’re going to ignore real data in favor of an unsubstantiated opinion (again), I don’t know what to say. That would mean that I’m speaking with someone who ignores facts in favor of his own opinions. What would be the point of that?
Bob Smiton December 30th, 2014 at 09:52
Just because one tool can be more accurate does not make it the be all end all. Personally I use a carbine with pistol grip to act as three for one instead of three separate guns. I use it for hunting, target shooting and home defense which would otherwise take 2 to 3 firearms. Literally your logic is like telling people they should not buy Corvette because Kia is fine by you. Guess what, no one asked for your opinion.
I myself would not likely use an M2 Browning for hunting though my shoulder is destroyed and couldn’t take it but it could be done. The M2HB is select fire and many hunt with a .50 caliber muzzle loader so it would be much the same.
I agree, it is indeed easy to obtain firearms and honestly, no law will ever change that. Unfortunately more strict laws will actually make it easier and the firearms that will be available wont have serial numbers or any way to trace them.
My argument was actually that all guns have the same basic features. A hand grip, trigger, receiver, barrel…
Prohibiting things does not make them unavailable nor does it take away the ability of bad people to do bad things. They will continue to do bad things meanwhile what you have done is limited the ability of those who wont break laws, to defend themselves adequately against those nuts.
Australia violent crime has increased since their ban and they still have shootings and gun violence. There was nothing sensible about limiting their people’s ability to defend themselves and their families.
Bombing deer was an ignorant statement on your part as it is already illegal and is wasteful as there would be nothing left which entirely defeats the purpose. There is no comparison to bombing a damn deer and shooting one with an SKS or AK47 or 9mm handgun. Many people carry a handgun with them while hunting to deliver the final shot to quickly dispatch the animal. They also carry them while hunting for self defense against other animals. Clearly I am not the one who believes the Bill of Rights is overrated.
You read more than I do? Right… Like you have any way of knowing such a thing and I live in a city.
You think it isn’t easy for people to manufacture such things as a carbine which you previously suggested using. Do you not see that you have flip flopped all over the place with complete nonsense? You can build your own shotgun with $20 worth of material from Home Depot and a 9mm machine gun for about $200. You can find that even teenagers are able to do this in their parents basements if you take a venture over to youtube. Aside from banning materials, creativity and books, you will not be putting any end to that and even then it is still not going to stop anyone.
Again, clearly you did not comprehend what I said again as I stated “It applies everywhere and I did not insinuate that it was exclusive to Vermont”
Read that very carefully before insisting that I said anything about people valuing life being limited to Vermont. You are being entirely obtuse.
As I previously stated, those gun ownership stats are flawed as the change is just as likely to be people deciding to no longer answer yes because it is none of anyones’ business to know.
Climate change denier? No, climate changes all the time. In Vermont we often witness four seasons in a day.
Again, as previously stated. Those stats are flawed and unsubstantiated. At the last meeting I went to with some 400 people, not one answered yes to such a poll nor did anyone take such a poll and there was such a poll taken in my state. It turns out that those who were polled are imports to our state. They were college students.
AnOski January 1st, 2015 at 00:12
>Just because one tool can be more accurate does not make it the be all end all. Personally I use a carbine with pistol grip to act as three for one instead of three separate guns. I use it for hunting, target shooting and home defense which would otherwise take 2 to 3 firearms. Literally your logic is like telling people they should not buy Corvette because Kia is fine by you. Guess what, no one asked for your opinion.
Since a Corvette isn’t that dissimilar from a Kia, your point is a red herring. It’s true: you can speed in either car; per existing laws, both cars are required to drive safely and obey the speed limit. And a Corvette is better at speeding. But…
The government *has* implemented speed inhibitor chips for supercars and is either looking into or has already passed legislation for heavy trucks.
http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2014/05/01/248279.htm
And special licenses are required for trucks.
In other words, you’re falsely comparing the difference between a Corvette and a Kia to the difference between a Kia and a 24 tonne truck. You might as well say that the government shouldn’t outlaw Smith and Wesson carbines, but, rather, Winchester carbines. The biggest difference is the brand name.
I can’t tell if you’re intentionally trying to confuse the issue or if you’re just reaching for analogies to support your point.
>I myself would not likely use an M2 Browning for hunting though my shoulder is destroyed and couldn’t take it but it could be done. The M2HB is select fire and many hunt with a .50 caliber muzzle loader so it would be much the same.
For those tricky situations when you need to blow a 3″ hole in a moose from a quarter mile away? You’re really not proving your point….
>I agree, it is indeed easy to obtain firearms and honestly, no law will ever change that.
Such laws have worked throughout Europe, and in Australia.
>Unfortunately more strict laws will actually make it easier and the firearms that will be available wont have serial numbers or any way to trace them.
Again, it has worked in Europe and Australia. You have nothing to support your claim that such bans wouldn’t work here. They had a similar ‘outback’ / ‘wild west’ culture in Australia, to boot, and gun advocates claimed that illegal guns from Indonesia would flood the criminal market.
They haven’t.
>My argument was actually that all guns have the same basic features. A hand grip, trigger, receiver, barrel…
Sure. Just as all cars and trucks have an engine, wheels, and axle, etc. But you still need a special license to drive different sizes of trucks. And while a train isn’t so different from a car (same components), you need a different skill set again to drive one of those. This is another false analogy.
>Prohibiting things does not make them unavailable nor does it take away the ability of bad people to do bad things.
Worked in various European countries despite a lack of a blanket ban in the EU, and worked in Australia, which had a similar ‘gun culture.’
Australia can’t keep out illegal immigrants, either. It’s funny how gun laws there are still so darn effective.
>They will continue to do bad things meanwhile what you have done is limited the ability of those who wont break laws, to defend themselves adequately against those nuts.
Every bit of evidence from previous laws passed by other nations says you’re wrong.
>Australia violent crime has increased since their ban and they still have shootings and gun violence. There was nothing sensible about limiting their people’s ability to defend themselves and their families.
You’re making some very large assumptions about the data.
http://www.secasa.com.au/assets/Statstics/trends-in-violent-crime.pdf
Actual experts believe that the increase is due to differences in reporting frequencies. Which kind of makes sense. There’s no reason a gun ban would result in a higher number of domestic abuse instances.
Unless what you’re really saying is that the lack of guns means that there are more victims of domestic abuse still alive to make the calls, when they would otherwise have been shot dead / unable to report the abuse. After all, once a gun is involved, you won’t be charged with “abuse” of any kind; we’re talking about “attempted murder with a deadly weapon.”
>Bombing deer was an ignorant statement on your part as it is already illegal and is wasteful as there would be nothing left which entirely defeats the purpose.
Again, speaking to what is “already illegal” is pointless, unless you believe that existing laws represent perfect morality and justice.
>There is no comparison to bombing a damn deer and shooting one with an SKS or AK47 or 9mm handgun.
Or using a grenade on a deer, etc. And, yes, there is. You’re still *choosing* to use a gun to kill the deer that doesn’t make any sense. You might as well argue that an M2 Browning or a bazooka shouldn’t be regulated because it *could* be used to kill a deer just like any other gun.
And that’s a true statement. You keep mentioning “waste” without justifying the term.
>Many people carry a handgun with them while hunting to deliver the final shot to quickly dispatch the animal.
Which could just as easily be done with a rifle, etc. If you want to talk about “waste,” how about “completely superfluous firearms and ammunition.”
>They also carry them while hunting for self defense against other animals.
In the strange situation where a bear is in such close quarters that a rifle wouldn’t suffice, sure. You’d have to be a pretty neglectful hunter to work yourself into a position where you’d need a handgun to protect yourself. To say nothing of the fact that your precious 9mm probably wouldn’t do much against such an animal.
>Clearly I am not the one who believes the Bill of Rights is overrated.
You are if you’re appealing to the argument of “existing laws shouldn’t be changed because I like them.”
>You read more than I do? Right… Like you have any way of knowing such a thing and I live in a city.
You live in Vermont. The best you could possibly muster is a podunk town of 42,000 people. And everything you’re saying suggests that you are incapable of vetting the merit of the items you read. Either you do not read much, or…I’ll leave it at that.
>You think it isn’t easy for people to manufacture such things as a carbine which you previously suggested using.
It isn’t. You need serious machinery and/or skill with metalworking to make a barrel that will withstand more than one or two discharges. It’s not something your average criminal could or would do. And it’s too difficult for criminals in places with gun bans to figure out. As the UK/Eurozone and Australia show us. It’s not like homemade or otherwise illicitly, domestically manufactured guns are turning up. The few guns that are being found were either legally purchased and stolen or misused, or came from abroad.
Don’t get me wrong; a few guns do make it into these places. But the grand total / average of 70 gun-related deaths in the UK per year in the past several years (~1/30 of the rate we see in the US, adjusted for population) should be enough to *prove* to you that the guns that make their way into such places are either extremely rare, or they aren’t used against people.
Either way, gun bans work. That isn’t debatable. The facts are very clear.
>Do you not see that you have flip flopped all over the place with complete nonsense? You can build your own shotgun with $20 worth of material from Home Depot and a 9mm machine gun for about $200. You can find that even teenagers are able to do this in their parents basements if you take a venture over to youtube.
You don’t see these kinds of weapons popping up in Australia, or in the UK/EU.
Either the criminals there can’t do this or they choose not to. That is a fact.
>Aside from banning materials, creativity and books, you will not be putting any end to that and even then it is still not going to stop anyone.
Except, it does. In every Western nation that has banned guns in some capacity, it does work. You’re simply lying.
>Again, clearly you did not comprehend what I said again as I stated “It applies everywhere and I did not insinuate that it was exclusive to Vermont”
People value life more everywhere? You’ll have to forgive me for not understanding your nonsensical “logic.”
>As I previously stated, those gun ownership stats are flawed as the change is just as likely to be people deciding to no longer answer yes because it is none of anyones’ business to know.
And, as I’m going to have to repeat: if you’re going to assume that such polls are incorrect, you are going to have to throw out all statistics re. reported crimes, because reporting frequencies of different crimes change over periods of more than a few years. You’re also going to have to ignore pretty much all statistical evidence ever collected re. guns because you would have no way of knowing which demographic was interviewed and how they might respond differently to such a question.
Ultimately, only one conclusion makes sense. Few reports of forearms being owned *probably* means that fewer houses own firearms. Or, you know, everyone’s lying for all of those polls.
You do realize that you’re sounding like a conspiracy theorist, right?
>Climate change denier? No, climate changes all the time. In Vermont we often witness four seasons in a day.
Cute. I’ll take that as a yes.
>Again, as previously stated. Those stats are flawed and unsubstantiated.
Those stats are stats. Unless you can point out an actual flaw with that study (as opposed to your uninformed opinion of “some people may lie when asked if they own a gun”), it’s better evidence than *anything* you have.
The only actual evidence you brought to the table to support your claim of increasing gun ownership in the US was…nothing….so you’ll have to forgive me if I believe *actual* statistics.
— Which you apparently believe when the information supports your opinion. Lol.
>At the last meeting I went to with some 400 people, not one answered yes to such a poll nor did anyone take such a poll and there was such a poll taken in my state. It turns out that those who were polled are imports to our state. They were college students.
Riiight. Great unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence there. Much better than a national survey.
You have one hell of a double standard when it comes to “evidence.”
Bob Smiton January 7th, 2015 at 17:13
Speed inhibitor chips don’t work so hot in a 1971 big block 427 dropped into a 69 chevelle built in my own garage as there would not be one in there or it would be removed if there were. The similarities between the vehicles I offered in my argument are that they are both capable of driving with user interaction. There is absolutely no speed comparison. One is capable of speeds upwards of 150 without modification. A Kia on the other hand would fall apart at that speed if it were actually possible to achieve it. If you want a car that can’t achieve such speed then a Kia is probably more your style but I’ll stick with the Corvette and my own choice to speed if I want to or not. I am capable of making my own decisions and I’ll not have anyone making them for me.
As for the law requiring speed limits and such, likewise there are laws that require that firearms aren’t discharged in city limits. Those are restrictions on actions not privately owned property. All in all, you can keep pushing your gun control but at the end of the day I’ll be keeping whatever firearm(s) I choose and you all have the option to give it a rest or do something about it though you can guarantee it is going to require a lot of guns for your cause to progress and I use the word progress loosely as your agenda is regressive.
AnOski January 8th, 2015 at 23:27
>Speed inhibitor chips don’t work so hot in a 1971 big block 427 dropped into a 69 chevelle built in my own garage as there would not be one in there or it would be removed if there were.
…As though a 69 Chevelle could reach the same speed / maneuverability as a modern supercar. You either know less about cars than you know about guns, or you’re just trying to troll.
And most of the people who would take the time to build such a car wouldn’t do this to it:
http://www.wreckedexotics.com/special/enzo/ferrari_enzo_crash_004.jpg
Because it’s a lot easier for a wealthy person do drop a few hundred thou on a supercar, and they’re more likely to drive it like an idiot.
You know, crap like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-8l9GnKbAc
This goes back to your argument re. people manufacturing their own guns. It’s so much more difficult to do so, and requires so much more skill and effort, that criminals simply don’t wind up doing it. The kind of person who would make a gun [or a cool car] probably isn’t the kind of person who would throw it away.
>The similarities between the vehicles I offered in my argument are that they are both capable of driving with user interaction. There is absolutely no speed comparison. One is capable of speeds upwards of 150 without modification. A Kia on the other hand would fall apart at that speed if it were actually possible to achieve it. If you want a car that can’t achieve such speed then a Kia is probably more your style but I’ll stick with the Corvette and my own choice to speed if I want to or not. I am capable of making my own decisions and I’ll not have anyone making them for me.
Sure, but you’re pretty much saying “screw my argument, I want to drive what I want and I don’t care how people misuse them.”
And you’re ignoring the issue of why special licenses are needed for trucks when they’re also ~the same thing.
>As for the law requiring speed limits and such, likewise there are laws that require that firearms aren’t discharged in city limits. Those are restrictions on actions not privately owned property.
I thought we were talking about speed inhibitors / tools necessary to enforce some semblance of safety. We’re not talking about forcing people to act safely. We’re talking about using limiters to minimize potential collateral damage.
>All in all, you can keep pushing your gun control but at the end of the day I’ll be keeping whatever firearm(s) I choose
Lol. Give it a few years. We’ll see about that legislation.
>and you all have the option to give it a rest or do something about it though you can guarantee it is going to require a lot of guns for your cause to progress and I use the word progress loosely as your agenda is regressive.
Enjoy your pea shooters while you can. But don’t call me regressive. You’re the one with the crackpot analogies and indefensible position. I’m not the one who feels the need to carry a weapon around because I’m afraid of the world around me. That’s you.
Bob Smiton January 9th, 2015 at 00:38
First of all you totally missed the point. The speed of 150mph I referred to was that of the Corvette not thee Chevelle or other Chevelles in it’s class but you seem to have a comprehension issue. Just the same, being that you question the Chevelles ability to achieve 150mph you may want to consider the fact that the top speed of a 69 Dodge Charger tops at 193mph which is actually a lower top speed than other Chevelle class vehicles. Sure, the Chevelle corners poorly but that really has little to do with the statement now does it. Oh and yes I do know much less about cars than guns as cars are not my thing but everything I have said is fact just the same.
As for people manufacturing their own firearms being difficult. Though I wish it were not true, you are sadly mistaken. High School kids do such things with ease in their parents basements rather often. For the most part as it stands right now, you are right that most people who would make one would not throw it away but then again need drives such things.
It isn’t that I don’t care how people use guns or cars, it is that I refuse to punish everyone for the actions of the few. I would rather punish the few who deserve it.
I do not carry a firearm because I fear the world around me. I carry a firearm because I know the world around me is not always kind and sometimes people need to be defended against those who seek to harm them. I pray that it never happens but in the off chance that it does, I have been and will remain prepared.
AnOski January 13th, 2015 at 21:38
>The speed of 150mph I referred to was that of the Corvette not thee Chevelle or other Chevelles in it’s class but you seem to have a comprehension issue. Just the same, being that you question the Chevelles ability to achieve 150mph you may want to consider the fact that the top speed of a 69 Dodge Charger tops at 193mph which is actually a lower top speed than other Chevelle class vehicles. Sure, the Chevelle corners poorly but that really has little to do with the statement now does it.
It has everything to do with the statement. People don’t buy Chevelles as toys to do 150 on the street. They do that with supercars. They drive them very differently. To practically mitigate risk and injury, it makes sense to put inhibitor chips in some cars, but not others: top speed is just one criteria that factors into the decision.
Missed the point, yourself. And you’re still ignoring trucks, etc. I’ll keep bringing them up. Why do you need a special license and training for operating what is, in concept, the same thing? The drive on the same roads, after all.
>Oh and yes I do know much less about cars than guns as cars are not my thing but everything I have said is fact just the same.
Quasi-irrelevant facts that only tell part of the story, but sure.
>As for people manufacturing their own firearms being difficult. Though I wish it were not true, you are sadly mistaken. High School kids do such things with ease in their parents basements rather often.
Evidence? Oh, that’s right. Nope.
When we look for actual facts:
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/06/16/australian-police-10-firearms-seized-homemade/
10%.
Even in a place like Australia where guns are heavily restricted. A very small minority are making their own. You’re simply lying with this statement.
And it’s patently misleading. If it became very difficult to obtain professionally manufactured guns, a higher percentage of guns would be home-made. Which isn’t to say that gun restrictions wouldn’t be working. Fewer guns, but a higher proportion of homemade guns would still mean that restrictions were successful.
>For the most part as it stands right now, you are right that most people who would make one would not throw it away but then again need drives such things.
It doesn’t contribute more than 10% in Europe, Australia, etc. Despite your claim that it is apparently easy to make guns, they still go to great lengths to import guns manufactured elsewhere, by legitimate gun manufacturers. 90+% of the time.
>It isn’t that I don’t care how people use guns or cars, it is that I refuse to punish everyone for the actions of the few. I would rather punish the few who deserve it.
You’re not punishing everyone. You’re decreasing the chance of *everyone* being shot in cold blood by a criminal. You’re increasing *everyone’s* access to a full life and punishing…no one. Most people don’t need guns, and restricting their ownership to practical firearms as needed by people in particular situations is logical. And it is not a punishment for anyone.
You punish a child by taking a toy away. It’s not “punishing” a child if you take a knife out of his or her hands. Even if they like playing with it. Especially if there are other children around.
>I do not carry a firearm because I fear the world around me. I carry a firearm because I know the world around me is not always kind and sometimes people need to be defended against those who seek to harm them.
Funny. Millions of gun-owners would say the same, and yet…
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/wife-accidentally-shoots-husband-trying-to-bring-her-breakfast-in-bed-9970800.html
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&es_th=1&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&q=child%20shoots%20mother%20handbag
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kentucky-cop-shoots-finger-loaded-gun-store
…It doesn’t seem to matter how well trained you are. They have a tendency to do more harm than good.
>I pray that it never happens but in the off chance that it does, I have been and will remain prepared.
Oddly enough, you’re more likely to hurt yourself with it than successfully use it to defend yourself. But maybe you’re right. Maybe you’re better at handling a gun, statistically, than the average American. The evidence isn’t in your favor, though. And that’s what it comes down to, really. Gun ownership only makes sense from a “protection” standpoint if you personally believe that you’re safer, better trained, and less prone to suffer an accident than other gun owners.
Those three people above sure knew how to handle a gun, though. Veteran cop and two adults who knew their way around a weapon. Funny what happens when you put tools designed to kill people in the hands of millions of responsible people. And some irresponsible ones. With children and other people around.
Bob Smiton January 14th, 2015 at 02:30
>>It has everything to do with the statement. People don’t buy Chevelles as toys to do 150 on the street. They do that with supercars. They drive them very differently. To practically mitigate risk and injury, it makes sense to put inhibitor chips in some cars, but not others: top speed is just one criteria that factors into the decision.
People buy Chevelles or whatever car they wish because “they” want to and have their own set of reasons. Your opinion in the matter is entirely irrelevant.
>>Missed the point, yourself. And you’re still ignoring trucks, etc. I’ll keep bringing them up. Why do you need a special license and training for operating what is, in concept, the same thing? The drive on the same roads, after all.
Not that I am ignoring trucks but the point you are trying to make again is meaningless. You do not need a license, registration or anything to drive any form of automobile. Those requirements are put in place for operating them on public roadways which still has little to do with anything as driving is a privilege while owning firearms is a specifically enumerated right.
>As for people manufacturing their own firearms being difficult. Though I wish it were not true, you are sadly mistaken. High School kids do such things with ease in their parents basements rather often.
>>Evidence? Oh, that’s right. Nope.
Evidence… Are you that inept with the internet? Pop over to youtube. That is spelled youtube.com. In the search box type in “homemade firearms” and press the little magnifying glass icon. You will see a number of results. Start clicking and watching them. I am sure you must be capable of expanding your search from there.
>>Even in a place like Australia where guns are heavily restricted. A very small minority are making their own. You’re simply lying with this statement.
Am I now? Not according to this past years news anyway and it isn’t limited to Australia either. Malaysia has seen increases in homemade firearms as with various other countries. The problem with the 10% stat you cite is that is only “recovered” homemade firearms. There are certainly many more out there.
>>And it’s patently misleading. If it became very difficult to obtain professionally manufactured guns, a higher percentage of guns would be home-made. Which isn’t to say that gun restrictions wouldn’t be working. Fewer guns, but a higher proportion of homemade guns would still mean that restrictions were successful.
More restrictions clearly does not mean less guns or gun violence. It simply means it is harder for the law abiding to get what they need or want as criminals can, do and will continue to acquire firearms through any means necessary, including but not limited to home manufacture.
>It isn’t that I don’t care how people use guns or cars, it is that I refuse to punish everyone for the actions of the few. I would rather punish the few who deserve it.
>>You’re not punishing everyone. You’re decreasing the chance of *everyone* being shot in cold blood by a criminal. You’re increasing *everyone’s* access to a full life and punishing…no one. Most people don’t need guns, and restricting their ownership to practical firearms as needed by people in particular situations is logical. And it is not a punishment for anyone.
Removing or inhibiting the law abiding’s ability to adequately protect themselves is punishing everyone, period and as has been repeatedly shown across the board, restrictions do not decrease death tolls. The means may change but violence continues to happen. The key is to target the cause of the violence, not how it “could” be carried out.
>>You punish a child by taking a toy away. It’s not “punishing” a child if you take a knife out of his or her hands. Even if they like playing with it. Especially if there are other children around.
You just made your whole position very clear. You believe that the law abiding citizen is like a child that needs to be told what they can and cannot do. I am sorry that you don’t trust yourself enough to make your own decisions but I am a capable adult and I will continue to make my own decisions.
>I do not carry a firearm because I fear the world around me. I carry a firearm because I know the world around me is not always kind and sometimes people need to be defended against those who seek to harm them.
>>Funny. Millions of gun-owners would say the same, and yet…
…
…It doesn’t seem to matter how well trained you are. They have a tendency to do more harm than good.
Cherry picking stories does you no justice. Out of hundreds of millions of citizen owned firearms and an estimated 100 million owners of them, there are millions of defensive gun uses each year of which a very small portion result in death.
>I pray that it never happens but in the off chance that it does, I have been and will remain prepared.
>>Oddly enough, you’re more likely to hurt yourself with it than successfully use it to defend yourself. But maybe you’re right. Maybe you’re better at handling a gun, statistically, than the average American. The evidence isn’t in your favor, though. And that’s what it comes down to, really. Gun ownership only makes sense from a “protection” standpoint if you personally believe that you’re safer, better trained, and less prone to suffer an accident than other gun owners.
Oddly enough I have carried a firearm for 3 decades and not been injured once however I have used my firearm twice to defend my own and my child’s life. I wont argue about the possibility of my better handling a firearm as it has always been something I take very seriously. For the most part, I do not believe in accidents. There is negligence. The only accidents I do believe happen all in all are still a result of negligence but more often than not it is the negligence of someone who should have taught their children at least they very basics of gun safety, even if they can’t stand guns and would never own one because you simply cannot guarantee your child will never come into contact with one outside of your presence. I do know that the state I live in while having one of if not thee most lax set of gun laws, we still take gun safety very seriously and it is reflected in the statistics. 75% gun ownership in the state and a yearly average of 2 firearm deaths.
>>Those three people above sure knew how to handle a gun, though. Veteran cop and two adults who knew their way around a weapon. Funny what happens when you put tools designed to kill people in the hands of millions of responsible people. And some irresponsible ones. With children and other people around.
Honestly, I don’t put a lot of stock in cops having adequate training. I have seen so many cops injured or injuring someone else by negligent handling. It has been suggested a number of times that many cops only complete the required training and then never touch their firearms whereas most gun owning citizens are out at the range as much as possible.
AnOski January 14th, 2015 at 21:26
>People buy Chevelles or whatever car they wish because “they” want to and have their own set of reasons. Your opinion in the matter is entirely irrelevant.
Oh, please. “To practically mitigate risk and injury, it makes sense to put inhibitor chips in some cars, but not others: top speed is just one criteria that factors into the decision.”
That’s not an opinion. That’s a fact.
>Not that I am ignoring trucks but the point you are trying to make again is meaningless. You do not need a license, registration or anything to drive any form of automobile.
[On private property not used by the public for purposes of vehicular travel or parking.]
>Those requirements are put in place for operating them on public roadways which still has little to do with anything as driving is a privilege while owning firearms is a specifically enumerated right.
Completely backwards. Cars are necessary to daily life. If the government took peoples’ “right” to drive cars away tomorrow, the country would come to a screeching halt.
Guns? 8,000 fewer people would die next year in the US. And if you’re referring to the right of a well-regulated militia to bear arms, I don’t think most people qualify, sorry. Not even close. To say nothing of the fact that the document was written when the US army consisted of such militias, and they needed to be armed. We have a standing army and national guard; the militias of the Second Amendment are antiquated and no longer exist.
Per your public vs. private argument, I should be able to manufacture bombs and other incendiary devices so long as I make them explicitly for use on my own property. And I should be able to do anything deemed illegal on my own private land, right? That makes sense.
>Evidence… Are you that inept with the internet? Pop over to youtube. That is spelled youtube.com. In the search box type in “homemade firearms” and press the little magnifying glass icon. You will see a number of results. Start clicking and watching them. I am sure you must be capable of expanding your search from there.
Yep. A few videos of people who made guns. I thought we were talking about widespread trends, of criminals manufacturing these things by the thousands to counteract the sweeping bans of Australia, Europe, etc. Do you think a few videos of people doing it proves your point? Lol.
We all know it’s *possible* to make a gun. That doesn’t mean that criminals in, say, the UK, are doing it, despite very strict gun ownership restrictions in place.
And, with 70 gun deaths per year in the entire UK,you have your answer. Even if 100% of those were caused by homemade guns, their gun-related homicide rate is 1/30 that of the US’. Their overall homicide rate is 1/3 that of the US.’
Something’s working. Perhaps it’s the restrictions on gun ownership. Keeping people from getting shot. How logical would that be?
>Am I now? Not according to this past years news anyway and it isn’t limited to Australia either. Malaysia has seen increases in homemade firearms as with various other countries. The problem with the 10% stat you cite is that is only “recovered” homemade firearms. There are certainly many more out there.
You don’t seem to understand statistics. They recovered __ guns from criminal arrests and searches. 10% of __ guns were homemade guns. In other words, even amongst criminals, in a country where guns have been outlawed for nearly two decades, 90% of the guns were professionally manufactured. Of course there are more guns out there. But what it shows is that your claim of “people just make guns” isn’t true ~90% of the time. Since we’re speaking in broad truths, “it’s not true.”
So stop repeating it.
>>And it’s patently misleading. If it became very difficult to obtain professionally manufactured guns, a higher percentage of guns would be home-made. Which isn’t to say that gun restrictions wouldn’t be working. Fewer guns, but a higher proportion of homemade guns would still mean that restrictions were successful.
>More restrictions clearly does not mean less guns or gun violence. It simply means it is harder for the law abiding to get what they need or want as criminals can,
*Not true, per what we observe in Great Britain/Europe at large and Australia, where criminals cannot easily obtain and do not manufacture guns in any quantity.
>do and will continue to acquire firearms through any means necessary, including but not limited to home manufacture.
Except they don’t. This isn’t true. You live in a world where criminals somehow get guns by any means necessary, even when they’re not legally obtainable. In the real world, where they’re banned, a small number of criminals do manage to obtain — and a much smaller number manage to make their own — firearms. But it’s not a widespread phenomenon.
There’s a reason the US’ homicide rate is three times that of any other civilized Western nation. When you take gun-related homicides out of the total number of homicides in the US, the difference drops to ~0. You don’t seem to be very familiar with the stats. Just your feeling about how things are based upon…falsehoods.
>Removing or inhibiting the law abiding’s ability to adequately protect themselves is punishing everyone,
Adequately protect yourself from what?
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full
Living a full life? You have some serious misconceptions about how guns statistically “help people to protect themselves.” You are literally more likely to kill yourself with that gun than you are to save your life with it.
>period and as has been repeatedly shown across the board, restrictions do not decrease death tolls.
Half truth, and a red herring. There is a very strong correlation with gun ownership rates and homicide rates amongst nearly every nation. In Australia, gun-related homicides are ~60% lower than they were in 1995 and the previous few years. There was a slight increase in homicides shortly after the ban, but the downward trend has increased in the ensuing decade.
In other words, your scenario of “criminals will get guns and use them to intimidate law-abiding citizens” is rubbish.
This hasn’t happened anywhere where guns have been banned.
>The means may change but violence continues to happen. The key is to target the cause of the violence, not how it “could” be carried out.
By, what? Making crime illegal? Come on, man. Restrict access to the tools criminals use to kill people and fewer people will die. It’s not rocket science.
>>You punish a child by taking a toy away. It’s not “punishing” a child if you take a knife out of his or her hands. Even if they like playing with it. Especially if there are other children around.
>You just made your whole position very clear. You believe that the law abiding citizen is like a child that needs to be told what they can and cannot do.
Yes. That’s what an analogy is. And guns are the same as cars, right?
If you don’t have a good argument to bring to the table, don’t pull this kind of crap. It’s trolling.
>I am sorry that you don’t trust yourself enough to make your own decisions but I am a capable adult and I will continue to make my own decisions.
And increase your odds of dying via firearm to protect yourself with a firearm. Glad to see you’re making informed “big boy” decisions for yourself, now.
>Cherry picking stories does you no justice.
…Says the fellow who just directed me to a youtube search of cherry picked stories? Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t realize hypocrisy was on the menu. My mistake.
>Out of hundreds of millions of citizen owned firearms and an estimated 100 million owners of them, there are millions of defensive gun uses each year of which a very small portion result in death.
Researchers at Harvard say that’s a myth. And why.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/
Your claim is commonly touted by gun advocates. A personal anecdote doesn’t prove the point, but illustrates one of theirs I was mugged once, at knifepoint. As it was, he took my (empty) wallet, I found a friendly door / canceled my cards a few minutes later, and found them in the street the next day, along with my pilfered wallet.
I could have used a gun to “defend” myself, had I had one. I wouldn’t have wound up better off if I had. I couldn’t have. I lost nothing. But a gun owner would tout this as an instance of self defense, had they pulled a gun on the criminal.
Repeated studies have shown that escalating a situation like that increases the odds of injury and death to both parties involved. In other words, you’re not protecting yourself with a gun. You’re increasing your own odds of being hurt or killed.
There’s more to the Harvard study; the fact remains that you are sorely misled.
>Oddly enough I have carried a firearm for 3 decades and not been injured once however I have used my firearm twice to defend my own and my child’s life.
The statistical evidence speaks for itself. Your anecdotes are just that.
>I wont argue about the possibility of my better handling a firearm as it has always been something I take very seriously. For the most part, I do not believe in accidents.
Then you are a fool.
>There is negligence. The only accidents I do believe happen all in all are still a result of negligence but more often than not it is the negligence of someone who should have taught their children at least they very basics of gun safety, even if they can’t stand guns and would never own one because you simply cannot guarantee your child will never come into contact with one outside of your presence.
“More often than not, accidents are the result of negligence.”
Negligence? You mean these are tools that can be misused, and their misuse results in peoples’ deaths? That doesn’t serve any practical use for the majority of owners. That sounds almost like something that people probably shouldn’t be allowed to use, unless they can demonstrate a need for using one. Especially if children are capable of using them to kill people.
On the other hand, I could ~guarantee that if they were outlawed.
>I do know that the state I live in while having one of if not thee most lax set of gun laws, we still take gun safety very seriously and it is reflected in the statistics. 75% gun ownership in the state and a yearly average of 2 firearm deaths.
Switzerland’s a similar exception. The only trouble is that you’re pointing out an exception: not what happens in most of the rest of the country /world.
We’ve gone over why your region is unusual, and is destined to remain so in the US. Weeks ago. Come on.
And I thought you said you had a problem with cherry-picking examples.
>Honestly, I don’t put a lot of stock in cops having adequate training. I have seen so many cops injured or injuring someone else by negligent handling.
Right. Even if you’re trained (and they are), if you’re around guns all of the time, it’s very hard to constantly maintain the kinds of standards necessary to remove any possibility of an accident.
>It has been suggested a number of times that many cops only complete the required training and then never touch their firearms
Really? Suggested by whom? Whoever said that sounds like an idiot who makes outlandish claims.
>whereas most gun owning citizens are out at the range as much as possible.
Again with the unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence. I’ve seen plenty of cops at the ranges around here. Do you have any numbers to back up that unlikely statement? It’s almost like you have double standards.
Bob Smiton January 14th, 2015 at 22:58
Driving is a privilege, period. Your opinion on the matter is again, irrelivant. It is what it is whether you like it or not.
The 2nd amendment states that there is a need for a well regulated militia and the right to bear arms is not dependant on having that militia. The right to bear arms is rather a requirement to allow for a militia if need be. The Vermont Constitution spells the purpose out rather plainly and it revolves mainly around standing armies that you seem to welcome.
“Article 16th. Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State – and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.”
As for who qualifies for the unorganized militia. All able bodied men ages 17 to 45 which is expanded to include women as they have equal rights. See 10 U.S. Code § 311 to confirm this. Standing armies are a threat to liberty and our National Guard otherwise known as the organized militia, has been busy in violation of the law as they are serving on foreign soil in opposition to their purpose.
Regarding manufacture of bombs on your own property. Look up tannerite or stump removal. Weapons laws are commonly based on intent.
There are widespread trends of people making their own firearms. There was a recent news story about rebels who make their living off of home manufactured arms that are supplied to extremists. I am sure you can find it if you actually look and the thousands of results that showed up for that search I already gave you shows how simple it is. So simple that teenage kids are doing it with scrap or a visit to home depot.
Some more searches for you.
“Chechen rebels using homemade rifles built from scrap”
“Syrian Rebels Produce Homemade Anti-Materiel Rifles”
“Homemade Weapons of Libya’s Rebel Forces”
“Chief weapons used by the Maoists are not big machine-guns but homemade guns”
“Papuan militant group displays homemade rifles”
“Delhi – 40 million illegally manufactured homemade small arms in circulation”
“The cheap availability of homemade guns has rendered India’s gun law, which prohibits anyone below 21 or with a conviction to possess a gun, all but irrelevant.”
“Philippines Deadlier Than U.S. as Farmers Copy Guns at Home”
>Restrict access to the tools criminals use to kill people and fewer people will die. It’s not rocket science.
Okay so then we must ban guns, knives, knitting needles, bats, rebar, cars, medications… shall I continue?
My personal experiences are a matter of public record so they are very relevant and I am not the one who escalated the situations. In both incidents I deescelated the situation. One by scaring the guy with a gun off and the other by forcing him to the ground until police arrived.
As for Harvard studies, they have repeatedly been shown to be biased.
In a nutshell, get a clue and stop being willfully ignorant. I am done going round in circles with you as it is obvious that in your mind, your opinion trumps reality.
AnOski January 15th, 2015 at 22:14
>Driving is a privilege, period. Your opinion on the matter is “again, irrelivant. It is what it is whether you like it or not.
My opinion of your silly semantic argument is no less relevant than the argument itself.
http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=80827
“Right” given by whom? In this case, you’re simply blurring the definitions of the words. More below.
>The 2nd amendment states that there is a need for a well regulated militia and the right to bear arms is not dependant on having that militia.
Have you even read the Second Amendment?
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
In response to this, you say: “the right to bear arms is not dependant on having that militia.”
The Second Amendment clearly specifies that a well-regulated militia is necessary, so the right of the people to bear arms can’t be impinged. “A well regulated militia being necessary….” It’s not even vague. “We need a militia. Therefore we need guns.”
We get to the nuances of the “militia” bit later.
>The right to bear arms is rather a requirement to allow for a militia if need be. The Vermont Constitution spells the purpose out rather plainly and it revolves mainly around standing armies that you seem to welcome.
Right. But, unlike in 1776, the US now has a standing army. Back then, armed militias were our country’s only defense against foreign invasion. Now, we have a standing army / air force / navy / etc. With more firepower than any other country’s combined military might.
What do you think a bunch of people with basic firearms could do against any national army with a navy, air force, etc.? Oh, that’s right. Nothing. It’s a joke. The notion that you would consider yourself or any other civilian gun owner as being on the same level as a colonial-era militiaman is laughable.
>The Vermont Constitution spells the purpose out rather plainly and it revolves mainly around standing armies that you seem to welcome. “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State – and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.”
Let’s break it down.
“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State – ”
Of course, in 1776, there were actual physical threats to the average citizenry of the colonies, national defense aside. Hostile Native Americans, wild animals, etc. might as well have been in every valley. It was a wild frontier. That’s not the case now, for the vast majority of Americans.
And, of course, with nearly all gun regulations in Australia and elsewhere, people who could demonstrate any practical cause for owning a firearm were permitted to keep it. E.g., if you live in Vermont, owning a long arm would probably be ~just as easy. Plenty of rural Australians still have guns.
I deal with the bit re. the defense of the country above; you are sorely misguided if you believe that arming the citizenry will do anything to protect this country in a time of strife or war. If anything, it is more likely to contribute to the dissolution of the United States.
“and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; ”
Wait a second. Are you saying we should disband the American military? In order to try to shore up your beliefs re. private gun ownership, you have to draw upon a document so radical that it suggests that our country shouldn’t have an air force? An army? A navy?
Come on, man.
“and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.”
…The army shouldn’t exist, but its actions should reflect the will of the people. Sure. Ok.
>As for who qualifies for the unorganized militia. All able bodied men ages 17 to 45 which is expanded to include women as they have equal rights.
“Unorganized?” I believe the Second Amendment starts off with “A well regulated militia.” Since when does “well-regulated” mean “unorganized”?
It sounds as though you don’t even care about what the Second Amendment says. You’re saying things that contradict it.
>See 10 U.S. Code § 311 to confirm this.
To confirm what? Your right to an “unorganized” militia per the Second Amendment? Lol.
>Standing armies are a threat to liberty and our National Guard otherwise known as the organized militia, has been busy in violation of the law as they are serving on foreign soil in opposition to their purpose.
For someone who knows how to find a video on youtube, your googling skills are surprisingly bad. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903
You’re either disregarding obvious facts to prove your point or are ignorant of this topic.
>Regarding manufacture of bombs on your own property. Look up tannerite or stump removal.
In incorporated areas, using explosive methods to perform these kinds of tasks *is* most certainly illegal. And since 192 million people in our country live in incorporated regions, your comment applies to, at best, a minority in this country.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0029.pdf
And, this depends upon the specifications of what is being made. Even if you want to remove a stump — or hundreds of them — manufacturing and stockpiling pipe bombs isn’t going to be permitted, no matter where you live.
>Weapons laws are commonly based on intent.
Most weapons laws are not based upon intent. This is an outright lie, no matter where you live in the US.
>There are widespread trends of people making their own firearms.
This is a meaningless statement with nothing backing it up.
Aside from being factually incorrect, the reasoning behind it is flawed.
Of course: where guns are completely banned, more people will attempt to make their own guns. You would expect to see an increasing proportion of home made guns over time, especially if the gun ban were working.
But, as we see in Australia, even after two decades of stringent gun restrictions, only 10% of confiscated guns are homemade.
Homemade guns are not an issue relative to manufactured ones, even in places where gun ownership is restricted, and has been restricted for decades.
You don’t seem to understand this. The actual facts disagree with what you’re saying. Homemade gun production does not offset gun bans in places where guns have been banned.
>There was a recent news story about rebels who make their living off of home manufactured arms that are supplied to extremists.
Anecdotal evidence / may or may not be at all true / where is this supposedly occurring? Even if this claim were confirmed, one case does not make “a trend.” And there are no actual statistics to confirm your “trend,” nor is it mentioned in the media as something that actually exists.
What a shame.
It’s almost as though you have a fear of people making homemade guns in the event of manufactured guns getting banned, but there’s no real evidence in today’s world that would actually substantiate this fear.
Go figure.
>I am sure you can find it if you actually look and the thousands of results that showed up for that search I already gave you shows how simple it is.
So simple. If you have precision metal working tools. And what criminal doesn’t have a set of those? Or the time and expertise to make a gun that works (reliably)?
Lol. Your argument in this case is literally insane.
“If criminals can’t buy guns, they’ll make them. Despite the evidence from other countries, which shows that they don’t.”
You don’t even address the facts; you just ignore them. It would be laughable if it weren’t so darn sad.
>So simple that teenage kids are doing it with scrap or a visit to home depot.
Yeah, this is what those youtube videos show. Teenagers and criminals across the country snapping together homemade guns with ease. Lol.
>Some more searches for you.”Chechen rebels using homemade rifles built from scrap””Syrian Rebels Produce Homemade Anti-Materiel Rifles””Homemade Weapons of Libya’s Rebel Forces””Chief weapons used by the Maoists are not big machine-guns but homemade guns””Papuan militant group displays homemade rifles””Delhi – 40 million illegally manufactured homemade small arms in circulation””The cheap availability of homemade guns has rendered India’s gun law, which prohibits anyone below 21 or with a conviction to possess a gun, all but irrelevant.””Philippines Deadlier Than U.S. as Farmers Copy Guns at Home”
1) five or ten instances of home made guns scattered around the globe has no bearing on criminal trends in the US, etc. Especially in light of the actual statistical data from Australia.
2) Chechnya, Syria, Libya, Papua New Guinea, India?
Places with disproportionally high rates of violence, high rates of murder (by gun), and extremely high demand for guns — but which are chronically short on conventional/manufactured supply.
Yeah, that sounds like the US. [sarcasm]
The closest country would be India, and, as you may have picked up in your extensive life experiences, laws aren’t enforced there as they are here. It’s a different society. Crimes like rape and the extreme exploitation of children simply go unpunished the vast majority of the time. And the vast majority of the population couldn’t afford a manufactured gun at 90% off MSRP.
You can’t just go around comparing India, Syria, and Chechnya to the US. There’s a reason my statistics compare first-world “Western” nations to the US.
>>Restrict access to the tools criminals use to kill people and fewer people will die. It’s not rocket science.
>Okay so then we must ban guns, knives, knitting needles, bats, rebar, cars, medications… shall I continue?
Knives serve many practical purposes in my life. Most peoples’, in fact. Knitting needles serve a rather singular, nonviolent purpose. As do baseball bats and everything else you mentioned.
As I have said before, in less detail…most tools that might be regarded as dangerous or potentially life threatening if misused serve useful purposes in daily life. Remove cars from society and our lives would come to a screeching halt. Most people in the US would not be able to get to work. Society would have to change on many fundamental levels. The demographics of our nation would have to change. Rebar…well, people in California would die in huge numbers in every earthquake, and buildings everywhere would be limited to 2-3 stories in height. Etc., etc.
What would happen if you were to outlaw guns? No such negative effects. I suppose you could make the same argument about knitting needles, but they don’t kill 8,000 people per year. Nor do knives.
Your argument is a facetious one at best.
>My personal experiences are a matter of public record so they are very relevant and I am not the one who escalated the situations. In both incidents I deescelated the situation. One by scaring the guy with a gun off and the other by forcing him to the ground until police arrived.
Right. And what would have happened if you hadn’t done that in both cases? Who knows. Even if you would have died had you not had a gun, it’s one case of anecdotal evidence against the 8,000 gun deaths in the US last year. Every year.
>As for Harvard studies, they have repeatedly been shown to be biased.
Oh, I see. Any scientific, peer-reviewed evidence that contradicts your bias is biased, and you don’t even have to look at it or explain why. Any statistic that disagrees with you is irrelevant, or can be explained away with your anecdotal evidence.
Sounds like I really am wasting my time.
>In a nutshell, get a clue and stop being willfully ignorant.
Willfully ignorant? I’m not the one discounting Harvard studies with no evidence whatsoever. I’m not the one throwing out nationwide crime statistics on homemade gun manufacturing for a country like Australia — because I can find a news story about Syrian rebels making their own guns.
Your standards for evidence are abysmal. I have brought actual facts, peer-reviewed studies, and statistical data to the table.
You have none of that to shore up your beliefs, and still believe that your perspective is somehow defensible.
>I am done going round in circles with you as it is obvious that in your mind, your opinion trumps reality.
My opinion is based upon peer-reviewed academic studies, statistics taken from multiple nations, etc., etc. Learn to use critical reasoning and reexamine the issue on your own time.
Bob Smiton January 16th, 2015 at 22:39
I am not even going to offer much more for a comment here as you are being rather circular while avoiding all evidence, proof and reasoning that has been shown to you. I will however address a few things.
The need for a well equipped militia pivots on the people having previous access to and training with arms. Look up justification clause and operative clause. It may broaden your understanding a bit.
“What do you think a bunch of people with basic firearms could do against any national army with a navy, air force, etc.? Oh, that’s right. Nothing. It’s a joke. The notion that you would consider yourself or any other civilian gun owner as being on the same level as a colonial-era militiaman is laughable.”
The people in the revolutionary war would beg to differ although you insist on making this about citizens fighting our entire government and as I have previously stated repeatedly, that is not likely to ever happen. Smaller factions on the other hand is certainly a possibility but even that is still unlikely. Tyranny however is not necessarily in the form of a government but rather any individual or group who actively seeks to oppress any person or group of people would be considered a tyrant or tyranny and yes, even today, one or more armed citizens can absolutely defend against such a thing. As a matter of fact that happens somewhere around 2.5 million times per year. Look up Defensive Gun Use.
The storage of bombs. That is in fact a crime but you specifically said and I quote “I should be able to manufacture bombs and other incendiary devices so long as I make them explicitly for use on my own property.”
Manufacture, yes. You can legally manufacture but once manufactured they can not be moved or stored. They must be used to perform the task such as stump removal.
All weapons laws in the state I live in are intent based. You can go on school property with a firearm unless you have ill intent. You can carry a firearm openly or concealed unless you have ill intent and so forth. I wont speak for each state as I am certainly not as well versed in other states laws but here, that is exactly how our laws are written.
As for the widespread trends of people making their own firearms… I offered you numerous examples and still you say it is meaningless. Yes maybe meaningless to you but to those of us who are not living in a fantasy bubble, it is very real and meaningful.
AnOski January 24th, 2015 at 03:29
>I am not even going to offer much more for a comment here as you are being rather circular while avoiding all evidence, proof and reasoning that has been shown to you. I will however address a few things.
I’m the only one who brought actual evidence and sources to the table. Willful ignorance.
http://www.lohud.com/article/20130219/OPINION/103120003/Editorial-Ending-willful-ignorance-gun-violence
A nice excerpt: “since Congress began to muzzle research into firearm injury prevention in 1997, at least 427,000 people have died of gunshot wounds, including 165,000 by homicide.”
Who were you planning to protect with widespread gun ownership? The ~half a million corpses that “ideal” has directly caused over the last one and a half decades?
>The need for a well equipped militia pivots on the people having previous access to and training with arms.
Well equipped, but “unorganized,” right? You can’t just arm the people and ignore the rest of the amendment. Well, you can, I suppose. That’s all you been doing. Repeatedly. Go figure.
>>”What do you think a bunch of people with basic firearms could do against any national army with a navy, air force, etc.? Oh, that’s right. Nothing. It’s a joke. The notion that you would consider yourself or any other civilian gun owner as being on the same level as a colonial-era militiaman is laughable.”
>The people in the revolutionary war would beg to differ
Yes, and they would have been right, 240 years ago. When militias had ~the same arms as armies. When militias *were* armies. Literally. The only line of defense between the might of the British Empire were the fledgling nation’s state militias.
Things have changed. You really don’t seem to understand that. The world of today = / = the world of 1776. The US had *only* militias then to defend itself. That was it.
That’s not the case today. The population of this country doesn’t need to be armed. It doesn’t do us any good, and kills 8,000 Americans per year. With just under half a million American casualties since 1997….at some point, you’ve got to agree that the proven, observed cost outweighs even the potential benefit.
>although you insist on making this about citizens fighting our entire government and as I have previously stated repeatedly, that is not likely to ever happen. Smaller factions on the other hand is certainly a possibility but even that is still unlikely.
Texas is going to revolt, is it? And the federal government / army / navy / air force is going to stand idly by while this happens, I suppose?
In what kind of an cockeyed view of the world does one expect the military of the US to not get involved if some kind of a revolt is underway. Oh. I see.
>Tyranny however is not necessarily in the form of a government but rather any individual or group who actively seeks to oppress any person or group of people would be considered a tyrant or tyranny and yes, even today, one or more armed citizens can absolutely defend against such a thing. As a matter of fact that happens somewhere around 2.5 million times per year. Look up Defensive Gun Use.
Already gone over this, bro. You’re not going to get away with NRA-funded research here.
https://stat.duke.edu/~dalene/chance/chanceweb/103.myth0.pdf
>The storage of bombs. That is in fact a crime but you specifically said and I quote “I should be able to manufacture bombs and other incendiary devices so long as I make them explicitly for use on my own property.” Manufacture, yes. You can legally manufacture but once manufactured they can not be moved or stored. They must be used to perform the task such as stump removal.
Again, this is not true for the *vast majority* of the US. See my previous post for the actual breakdown.
>All weapons laws in the state I live in are intent based. You can go on school property with a firearm unless you have ill intent. You can carry a firearm openly or concealed unless you have ill intent and so forth.
Good thing intent’s so easy to prove, and guns are so hard for people with ill-intent to get. Oh, that’s right. You have to wait until the children are lying in pools of their own blood to prove the intent.
http://img.pandawhale.com/post-28652-thats-a-bold-strategy-cotton-g-g2uB.gif
>I wont speak for each state as I am certainly not as well versed in other states laws but here, that is exactly how our laws are written.
And? What does that have to do with the 8,000 homicides caused by ill-intent with guns in the US last year, or the 430,000 total deaths since 1997?
>As for the widespread trends of people making their own firearms… I offered you numerous examples
A few examples of home-made guns in war-torn parts of the world doesn’t refute the *observed fact* that home-made guns aren’t replacing manufactured guns at comparable rates of ownership in countries that have restricted guns to the point that they are hard to own.
You’re willfully ignoring large-scale statistical facts with the aid of what amounts to anecdotal evidence.
This is willful ignorance.
>and still you say it is meaningless. Yes maybe meaningless to you but to those of us who are not living in a fantasy bubble, it is very real and meaningful.
It is meaningless because you’re pointing your finger at a few instances of homemade guns, when we have long-term data for entire countries that says, “no, your claim is unequivocally erroneous.”
The statistics *prove* that homemade guns don’t make up more than a small fraction of the guns in circulation, even in countries with restrictive gun laws. Pointing out a few instances of homemade guns across the world says *nothing* about how widespread it is in first world nations where guns have been banned.
I brought those stats to the table, and they say you’re wrong. You’re wrong. Fess up.
Bob Smiton January 24th, 2015 at 10:16
No you did not. I guess it isn’t willful ignorance. It is just outright ignorance.
“The population of this country doesn’t need to be armed. It doesn’t do us any good, and kills 8,000 Americans per year. With just under half a million American casualties since 1997….at some point, you’ve got to agree that the proven, observed cost outweighs even the potential benefit.”
Sorry but again you are just wrong. 2.5 million dgus per year weighed against 8000? deaths. You can’t argue that the observed cost outweighs the potential benefit when in comparison the loss is barely a calculable fraction. Oh and that was not NRA funded. It was funded by your very own anti human rights lobbyists.
“Texas is going to revolt, is it? And the federal government / army / navy / air force is going to stand idly by while this happens, I suppose?
In what kind of an cockeyed view of the world does one expect the military of the US to not get involved if some kind of a revolt is underway. Oh. I see.”
In what cockeyed view do you fail to read the damn words that were written? Not once did I mention Texas and I specifically stated that such an event was rather unlikely.
“Good thing intent’s so easy to prove, and guns are so hard for people with ill-intent to get. Oh, that’s right. You have to wait until the children are lying in pools of their own blood to prove the intent.”
I see you are a fan of guilty until proven innocent so how about this. I accuse you of murder. I have no proof but I’ll leave that to you to prove while you rot in jail. In reality here we are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around and it is unfortunate that you must be living in terrible fear of your neighbors and friends. Do you fantasize that they are plotting to kill you as well?
I pointed my finger at a whole list of widespread homemade manufacture and it is on the incline. Your insistence on ignoring the facts is astonishing. Obviously with manufacture of firearms being legal there would be less homemade guns. When the legality of manufacture is reverted you begin to see increases as has been demonstrated. You have brought nothing but absolute horse$hit to the table and I am done. Go back to your lollipops and unicorns.
AnOski February 12th, 2016 at 01:46
Just stumbled across this. One more time.
>No you did not. I guess it isn’t willful ignorance. It is just outright ignorance.
I’ll let you do the talking on that point.
>>”The population of this country doesn’t need to be armed. It doesn’t do us any good, and kills 8,000 Americans per year. With just under half a million American casualties since 1997….at some point, you’ve got to agree that the proven, observed cost outweighs even the potential benefit.”
>Sorry but again you are just wrong. 2.5 million dgus per year weighed against 8000? deaths. You can’t argue that the observed cost outweighs the potential benefit when in comparison the loss is barely a calculable fraction. Oh and that was not NRA funded. It was funded by your very own anti human rights lobbyists.
Incorrect. You’ll have to forgive me for calling you on the fact that NRA-funded studies are rubbish.
Let’s look at the best study around.
14,000 personal contact crimes surveyed, and does defensive gun use help?
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743515001188
No. It results in slightly higher property loss rates and you’re ~as safe as if you run away and call the police. Which kind of makes sense. If faced with a robber, abuser, etc., removing yourself from the situation and calling trained professionals in to help you is the smart thing to do. Escalating the situation by pulling out a gun…means that the situation just became life or death. You went from “possibly robbed or injured” to “possibly dead” just like that.
>>”Texas is going to revolt, is it? And the federal government / army / navy / air force is going to stand idly by while this happens, I suppose?
>In what kind of an cockeyed view of the world does one expect the military of the US to not get involved if some kind of a revolt is underway. Oh. I see.”
One word: Oregon.
You’d fit right in. Shame you don’t have the same felony charges and restriction from owning a firearm now. Real shame.
>In what cockeyed view do you fail to read the damn words that were written? Not once did I mention Texas and I specifically stated that such an event was rather unlikely.
Which state is more likely to lead the charge? Lol. Take your pick, it doesn’t matter. Don’t throw straw-men around like that. It serves no purpose.
>>”Good thing intent’s so easy to prove, and guns are so hard for people with ill-intent to get. Oh, that’s right. You have to wait until the children are lying in pools of their own blood to prove the intent.”
>I see you are a fan of guilty until proven innocent so how about this.
We’re talking about the *fact* that 40,000 Americans died from guns last year, and have died from guns every year since ~1970. The numbers fluctuate a little, and increase over time, but that’s a fact. Guns are responsible for enabling those deaths. It’s not debatable, and there’s no innocence or guilt to be proven.
>I accuse you of murder. I have no proof but I’ll leave that to you to prove while you rot in jail. In reality here we are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around and it is unfortunate that you must be living in terrible fear of your neighbors and friends. Do you fantasize that they are plotting to kill you as well?
Rubbish straw man. Guns aren’t guilty of a crime. They’re simply tools designed to kill people that make the act of murder (and suicide) easier.
>I pointed my finger at a whole list of widespread homemade manufacture and it is on the incline.
You don’t seem to understand the numbers. Let’s go to two extremes:
1) Commercially manufactured guns are readily available to criminals.
2) Commercially manufactured guns are not available to criminals.
In 1) you would expect homemade guns to be ~nonexistent. Why would anyone go through the trouble of making their own (unreliable) firearm if they could simply purchase a nice gun? They’d just go out and buy one.
In 2), you would expect homemade firearm rates to increase — especially as commercially manufactured guns become harder to obtain.
To be frank, a situation in which 100% of illegal guns were homemade would probably be best, because it would mean that the firearm ban was 100% effective, and criminals were having to go to great lengths to circumvent it. It would generally suggest that guns were harder to obtain than any situation in which commercially manufactured guns were available.
In other words, if homemade firearm rates are increasing, the ban is working. And you’re still ignoring the fact that all guns are much harder to obtain now.
http://www.ibtimes.com.au/cost-illegal-firearms-australia-has-skyrocketed-criminals-now-do-gun-sharing-1378871
http://www.smh.com.au/business/world-business/black-market-guns-triple-in-price-20141013-115f08.html
>Your insistence on ignoring the facts is astonishing.
Riiiiiight.
>Obviously with manufacture of firearms being legal there would be less homemade guns.
Manufacture? Hold up. A tiny percentage of criminals the world over are making or using homemade guns. That’s a straw man, 100%.
But beyond that, if we use that line of reasoning, tightening gun restrictions should reduce the number in illicit circulation. Duh.
Lol. GTFO.
Bob Smiton February 12th, 2016 at 17:53
“Incorrect. You’ll have to forgive me for calling you on the fact that NRA-funded studies are rubbish.”
Sorry but that was NOT an NRA funded study. It was a study by a gun control advocate.
“No. It results in slightly higher property loss rates and you’re ~as safe as if you run away and call the police. Which kind of makes sense. If faced with a robber, abuser, etc., removing yourself from the situation and calling trained professionals in to help you is the smart thing to do. Escalating the situation by pulling out a gun…means that the situation just became life or death. You went from “possibly robbed or injured” to “possibly dead” just like that.”
You are not grasping the reality that you have no idea what will happen or what the results will be until you are in the situation and or make it through. I have personally been in a few situations while armed. One of the situations I was confronted by a junky with a gun and both my daughter and I walked away from the situation unharmed. The other was a robbery while I was in a convenience store. Though I was armed, I decided that pulling my firearm would only escalate the situation so I waited until the guy vacated the store then I went around the opposite side of the building, cut him off and tackled him, pinned him to the ground and waited for police. My having a firearm in either case did not make the situation more dangerous and did not result in any loss of life or injury.
“One word: Oregon.”
That was clearly not a state revolting but a small group of individuals and in response to your claim that I’d fit right in… You would do well to actually have a hint of a clue before making such an asinine claim though I will agree that it must be a real shame to you that I am not a felon. Weird how you all wish there were more violent people around.
>In what cockeyed view do you fail to read the damn words that were written? Not once did I mention Texas and I specifically stated that such an event was rather unlikely.
Which state is more likely to lead the charge? Lol. Take your pick, it doesn’t matter. Don’t throw straw-men around like that. It serves no purpose.
Maybe you are having a comprehension issue. I am not the one who mentioned or brought up Texas. Get this… The quotes around text in my comment(s) mean that the quoted text was what I was responding to.
“We’re talking about the *fact* that 40,000 Americans died from guns last year, and have died from guns every year since ~1970. The numbers fluctuate a little, and increase over time, but that’s a fact. Guns are responsible for enabling those deaths. It’s not debatable, and there’s no innocence or guilt to be proven.”
No, we are talking about around 10’000 Americans who died from the actions of someone with a gun. The other 30’000+- are intentional deaths otherwise known as suicides and there are ways to decrease those numbers but gun control has no ability there. People are responsible for enabling those deaths not guns.
“>I accuse you of murder. I have no proof but I’ll leave that to you to prove while you rot in jail. In reality here we are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around and it is unfortunate that you must be living in terrible fear of your neighbors and friends. Do you fantasize that they are plotting to kill you as well?
Rubbish straw man. Guns aren’t guilty of a crime. They’re simply tools designed to kill people that make the act of murder (and suicide) easier.”
Do you even know what a straw man is? Get a clue fella. I did not suggest that a gun is guilty of a crime. I suggested that here in the states we do not punish the accused until their guilt has been proven. Nothing more and nothing less.
“You don’t seem to understand the numbers. Let’s go to two extremes:
1) Commercially manufactured guns are readily available to criminals.
2) Commercially manufactured guns are not available to criminals.
In 1) you would expect homemade guns to be ~nonexistent. Why would anyone go through the trouble of making their own (unreliable) firearm if they could simply purchase a nice gun? They’d just go out and buy one.
In 2), you would expect homemade firearm rates to increase — especially as commercially manufactured guns become harder to obtain.”
You just made it overly clear that it is not me who does not understand. In scenario 1, people who are intent on doing harm and not getting caught are still quite likely to manufacture their own throwaway as it will not have ties to them though stealing one that is not tied to them is the more obvious choice in a time crunch if they know where one can be found. Number 2 is spot on and based in reality. If 100% of illegal guns were homemade that would not mean the ban was 100% effective. Not unless by effective you mean that it effectively removed all ability to track crime guns while effectively removing the ability of the innocent to defend themselves. As for criminals going to great lengths… Maybe you are not an overly intelligent, creative or capable person but most of us are capable of taking $20 to Home Depot, purchasing two sections of pipe and a nail then putting them together to make a smooth bore firearm. There are no great lengths there or any hoops to jump through. A ban working would mean there would be no commercially manufactured or home manufactured firearms. An increase in either is proof positive of a failure.