"Assault Weapons"

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Barrett is legal for citizens?!
That would be rather retarded, for what purpose would you need one??!

WHY ON EARTH is this the principal argument used by the AWB???

How dare you presume to question my sovereign rights as a citizen of the United States of America! How do you think that YOU can determine for ME what I need and what I do not?

The law determines the limits of what I need and what I don't need. That is no reason to suggest that we should make laws to infringe on my rights just because they don't make sense to you.

The existing laws are fine; I already cannot commit murder with one of my weapons. The basis of the AWB assumes that I will!

So because it was written down let's not think about it - he's got the rights. Let's go and arm ourselves to the teeth. Perhaps plant some claymore mines in the driveway? A tank in the garage? I could keep an assault rifle under the bed - some handguns dotted around the house...maybe some trip flares on the law....and for good measure I'm going to keep a GPMG in the loft.

That would be really sensible and the right thing to do because it was written down a long time ago.

Any argument sounds good with an inconsistent analogy.

In the same way that you are saying there should be a limit to the arms I have the right to own, I am saying that there is a limit to how many arms the government can take away!

The existing limits are QUITE comprehensive! Why do you think that we should enact more laws before you even enforce the old ones like you should?

Banning a gun because it resembles a real military weapon is just as absurd as putting claymores in my driveway.

Collectors is different - if the thing cannot physically operate that's fine.

Yes; my point there was to make sure that I did NOT infringe on a collector's rights just because that's not something I would do myself.

Fair enough.

Thank you, sir.

Military gear most certainly should stay with the military. Personally I think any type of gun that can be banned should be banned - civillians have no real need to own them.

It should and what do you know it is! The AWB does NOT deal with military firearms by any means! They try to pass them off as military weapons though.

The argument we are making is that the AWB-targeted weapons are effectively the same as firearms outside the ban! Therefore, AWB proponents are really interested in banning ALL guns, and they are just doing it in steps because they know that if they went all the way they would be laughed out of town.

Shouldn't we be taking steps to remove them from the streets then? Rather than just shrugging our shoulders and giving up?

We shouldn't take steps to remove guns from streets; we should take steps to remove criminals from streets. THIS IS BEING DONE. THE AWB WILL NOT HELP IT GO ANY BETTER!!! The AWB does not deal with criminals' weapons. Very seldom are AWB-targeted guns used in crime.

That's the thing about AWBers. They assume that if you treat the symptom, the original problem will disappear; that if you take guns away from a bad person, he will become good. WRONG! He will be bad with something else.

Why? How often do people actually have to use these things in self-defence? Or are actually able to use them to defend themselves?

VERY frequently and very effectively. About 20000 crimes are stopped per annum by armed citizens in the US. That number increases as more guns are purchased.

The point with guns is that they are VERY EASY to use in defense compared to other methods!

That's just silly as you'd have no way of knowing that.

Correct; I was making it painfully obvious for you.

Now I will give a scenario that is perfectly reasonable.

If you were a criminal, and you read about a number of crimes in a given community were stopped by firearms, would you set up shop in said community???

Take Israel, for instance. Everybody and their mother is in the militia. PLEASE note that burglary is quite scarce their. Criminals know that the odds are that the house they break into has armed citizens inside. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't risk my life for a couple of bucks.

There's no real need for you to be owning firearms no - how many people are shot every year in your country by firearms?

I've heard about 30,000-50,000 deaths each year.

Ready for this? About half are suicides! Now, a suicidal person, allthough perhaps gripped by depression and thus irrational, is still plenty smart enough to use a knife when guns are not available.

If you don't understand that, let me ask you a question:

Which weighs more: a pound of iron or a pound of feathers?

Also, you are considering gross numbers (although even those confirm my point). You also have to consider percentages.

I love AWB arguments sometimes. Either they say "Oh no! The US has more gun deaths total than Great Britain!!!"

That's silly; anybody could tell you that. The US has higher population. 60,000,000 to 300,000,000 in fact. It will happen.

Or they say, "After banning (such and such) guns, the % of gun crimes in Canada fell!"

Duh. But did overall crime fall? NO; it GOES UP because you have handicapped the citizens from protecting themselves, and now there is only the police. The police can't be everywhere.

Not to mention that; in the Canada example, the fall in gun crimes was easily made up for by the rise in knife and blunt object deaths.

The point is, that as citizens with guns increases, crime decreases!

Now, as for gun accidents. How to fix those? GIVE PEOPLE A DECENT FIREARMS EDUCATION!!! Just like driver's ed, my friend.

Football is not meant to kill anyone.

Yes - most are really quite minor. Again, football is not meant to kill anyone - guns are.

Football is not meant to kill anyone.

Your argument was that guns are bad because they hurt people. Football hurts people.

"Not meant to kill anyone" is a cute little argument, but it said nothing.

If I knock my boss out of a 10-story building by accident, is he still dead?

The intention or purpose of something has no bearing in this case. We are looking at results.

If you don't ban it everywhere you'll only have people moaning that they lost their guns, and other people did not lose theirs.

In that case, the AWB is absurd and inconvenient either way! A law like this for the east coast has no business being in the midwest. Life is different.

He asked what right you had to "arm yourself to the teeth" - not whether you had a extremely limited right to a narrow category of weapons (e.g. handguns) inside your home. The 2nd amendment doesn't create, even after the most recent DC decision, a right to assault weapons. None of the weapons we're talking about here are protected by the second amendment.

The point we are making here is that "assault weapon" is a buzzword for the willfully ignorant. There is little distinction between AWs and other firearms, so you either want to keep guns or you want to ban them.

In fact, if you actually read the link you posted (and it's pretty obvious you didn't) you'll notice that Heller's had essentially no impact in the lower courts. See all those times when it says "upheld"? Those are all cases where the courts have said that gun restrictions are still constitutional.

Gun restrictions are fine; there are already plenty of them. We don't need more.

It can't be more obvious:

If the reason for banning assault weapons (and really I do think that is a cliche that peddles to the emotions) is that they are used in crime, and assault weapons are NOT USED IN CRIME, then there is no reason to ban them!

All you have after that is "well it looks scary," or comparing AWs to military hardware, which is so inaccurate that it undermines your credibility to the extreme.

[magickyleo101]

Funny you should ask. In the US we have what is called the Constitution, within that is this thing called The Bill of Rights. Oddly enough, the second amendment says I have the right to keep and bear arms from the infringement of the Federal Government. Weird, huh? Sounds like he has the right to arm himself.

Wrong.

He asked what right you had to "arm yourself to the teeth" - not whether you had a extremely limited right to a narrow category of weapons (e.g. handguns) inside your home. The 2nd amendment doesn't create, even after the most recent DC decision, a right to assault weapons. None of the weapons we're talking about here are protected by the second amendment.

In fact, if you actually read the link you posted (and it's pretty obvious you didn't) you'll notice that Heller's had essentially no impact in the lower courts. See all those times when it says "upheld"? Those are all cases where the courts have said that gun restrictions are still constitutional.

Also:

There's this little thing called the Right to Bear Arms. Maybe you've heard of it?

Wrong, for reasons noted above.

I have every right to do so. It is recognized by my constitution.

Wrong, for reasons noted above.

[Captain Jin]

Wrong.

He asked what right you had to "arm yourself to the teeth" - not whether you had a extremely limited right to a narrow category of weapons (e.g. handguns) inside your home. The 2nd amendment doesn't create, even after the most recent DC decision, a right to assault weapons. None of the weapons we're talking about here are protected by the second amendment.

By someone else's interpertation.

The 2nd Amendment states

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.

That's odd, restricting me to the types of firearms I can own because someone else thinks it looks scary, or because they think that a barrel shroud (Lol) is dangerous is obvious infringement of my right to bear arms. And no, I didn't read the entire article, I linked him to it so he could read what the second amendment says, not that ongoing argument of how people want to interpet the damn thing. Right there in the quotes is how it's written as plain as day. The whole article goes onto discuss people disputing it or twisting it to fit what they want. Ie, you telling me that the 2nd Amendment doesn't creat a right to assault weapons. The second amendment doesn't categorize and list weapons for a reason, times change and so does technology. So I'm fairly certain had they listed musket and kentucky longrifle we'd all be screwed. Instead they wrote "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" which means the government telling me my barrel shroud isn't appropriate and so my weapon must be banned. That's infringement, no way around it.

And arming myself to the teeth is a fairly broad term, since one person might consider me owning ten hand guns, albeit ones in a very narrow category, as armed to the teeth. So sorry, I'm not wrong.

[magickyleo101]

The point we are making here is that "assault weapon" is a buzzword for the willfully ignorant. There is little distinction between AWs and other firearms, so you either want to keep guns or you want to ban them.

The distinction is fuzzy (like the word "forset" or "heap") in that there are borderline cases, but that doesn't mean that there's no distinction. A single shot musket, for example, is never going to be an assault rifle. A revolver is never going to be an assault rifle. A single shot rifle will never be an assault rifle. (Probably) a weapon with no detachable magazine will never be an assault rifle.

So the assault rifle debate is certainly not an "all guns or no guns" thing.

Gun restrictions are fine; there are already plenty of them. We don't need more.

It can't be more obvious:

If the reason for banning assault weapons (and really I do think that is a cliche that peddles to the emotions) is that they are used in crime, and assault weapons are NOT USED IN CRIME, then there is no reason to ban them!

All you have after that is "well it looks scary," or comparing AWs to military hardware, which is so inaccurate that it undermines your credibility to the extreme.

Again, if there's nothing but a cosmetic difference then there's no harm. My guess is that the reason you're upset is that the difference is more than cosmetic, which itself gives credence to the idea that the law is serving some purpose.

That's odd, restricting me to the types of firearms I can own because someone else thinks it looks scary, or because they think that a barrel shroud (Lol) is dangerous is obvious infringement of my right to bear arms.

You have two problems:

First, the right created by the constitution probably never extended to assault rifles in the first place. Weapons like assault rifles didn't exist at the time, and there's not really a good reason to think that the right should be counter-textually extended to them.

Second, even if the 2nd amendment applied to all weapons, no right created by the bill of rights is absolute. Such rights are always subject to qualifications. For example, I have the right to free speech but that doesn't give me the right to shout through a megaphone at 3 in the morning in the middle of a residential neighborhood. It doesn't give me the right to defame my neighbor. It doesn't give me the right to shout fire in a crowded theater.

There's always a balancing of the literal content of the right against the obvious needs of society.

So even if the 2nd amendment extended to all weapons, things like explosives, machine guns, rocket launchers, and assault rifles would probably be treated like shouting "fire."

By someone else's interpertation.

You mean the Supreme Court's?

[Ariovistus Maximus]

The distinction is fuzzy (like the word "forset" or "heap") in that there are borderline cases, but that doesn't mean that there's no distinction. A single shot musket, for example, is never going to be an assault rifle. A revolver is never going to be an assault rifle. A single shot rifle will never be an assault rifle. (Probably) a weapon with no detachable magazine will never be an assault rifle.

So the assault rifle debate is certainly not an "all guns or no guns" thing.

An assault weapon is any weapon used to inflict bodily harm on another person.

Here it is just a buzzword; the latest fad. Soon people will lose interest and move on to some other fad. It's truly pathetic that politics has degenerated into the thing of the moment. Politics has become gossip and rhetoric.

People are more interested in Obama's dog than N. Korean ICBM's. Both sides are guilty of this.

Yes; not all rifles fit the category. I'm saying that the AWB supporter is in favor of banning guns as a whole.

Again, if there's nothing but a cosmetic difference then there's no harm. My guess is that the reason you're upset is that the difference is more than cosmetic, which itself gives credence to the idea that the law is serving some purpose.

In no universe is that a reason to ban anything; just because the ban doesn't change much. If it doesn't change much it should be dismissed as pointless and inconvenient.

I truly hope that you're not arguing that the ban is valid just because it has little to no bearing in crime one way or the other. This is a very embarrassing position to take.

I will try not to resent the insinuation that, because I want to draw a line at how far the gov't can pry into my affairs, I have criminal intentions.

The point is not the AW themselves; the point is that once they take those, they will take MORE and MORE. So we have to draw a line, and you seem to agree that the AWB includes few practical changes.

Second, even if the 2nd amendment applied to all weapons, no right created by the bill of rights is absolute. Such rights are always subject to qualifications. For example, I have the right to free speech but that doesn't give me the right to shout through a megaphone at 3 in the morning in the middle of a residential neighborhood. It doesn't give me the right to defame my neighbor. It doesn't give me the right to shout fire in a crowded theater.

Yes. So I have no right to shoot people with the guns I buy, unless they display overt hostile intentions.

I think the comparison is consistent so far: you cant scream at 3:00 AM, I can't shoot people.

Your point?

[magickyleo101]

Yes. So I have no right to shoot people with the guns I buy, unless they display overt hostile intentions.

I think the comparison is consistent so far: you cant scream at 3:00 AM, I can't shoot people.

Your point?

Sigh.... I can't tell if you're doing this on purpose...

Here's how the conversation has gone so far:

You say: The 2nd Amend protects my right to an assault rifle.

I say: No, there are exceptions to all rights and assault weapons fall within one of those exceptions and thus aren't protected.

You say: Yea, but killing people also falls in one of the exceptions!!!

Me:

[justicar5]

Funny you should ask. In the US we have what is called the Constitution, within that is this thing called The Bill of Rights. Oddly enough, the second amendment says I have the right to keep and bear arms from the infringement of the Federal Government. Weird, huh? Sounds like he has the right to arm himself.

are you in a well regulated state militia? Because thats what the second amendment refers to.

[Oldgamer]

are you in a well regulated state militia? Because thats what the second amendment refers to.

I don't have to belong to a state militia (and practically every sheriff in the United States is currently in violation of the law, on this matter). The Constitution specifically states that my right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Period.

However, state militias were regarded as an auxiliary to the natural right to bear arms in the defense of one's person, family, or property. The National Guard is not a state militia. Any military force that can be federalized at the will of the national government is not a militia. The states are intended to be sovereign states who surrender a portion of their sovereignty to the Federal government voluntarily. It follows that every state should raise a militia for the defense of its citizens, from any federal or extra-national invader.

An attempt to take weapons from the people is to be regarded, therefore, as an attempt to impose a tyranny, and must be opposed with every means at the state's disposal.

If the state government does not do its duty by its citizens, it then falls to those citizens to raise a militia, with full allegiance to the state and to the Constitution, to do so in its stead.

In the final analysis, the right to bear arms is part of the people's right not to be tyrannized.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

are you in a well regulated state militia? Because thats what the second amendment refers to.

Actually, it refers to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It also talks about a militia, yes. But the right of the people to bear arms can stand alone quite well.

Furthermore, even if your point WERE the case, you would have to demonstrate how it is reasonable and necessary to ban assault weapons (and that IS what this thread is about, btw.)

get the idea to commit murder in churc? Yes actually, just look at the bible, full of murder rape and genocide.

the oklahoma bomb was inspired by a mix of MRA propoganda and bible bashing:

A typical rant. Do you want to give me evidence that the bombing was NRA/Bible inspired? Uh, well, you can't because that would require a considerable amount of mind-reading.

You can blame stuff like that on anything.

Also, that was the Militia Movement, etc., not the NRA. So they have something in common with NRA. And this proves...?

The NRA doesn't support civilian posses running around the country and well you know it.

It's the same as radical environmentalists. You must know that there have been many cases of environmentalists circulating letter bombs etc. But do they necessarily reflect on the rest? No.

I'm sure you can see the difference. Or are against only such terrorist groups as suit your fancy and support your ideology?

[Oldgamer]

The NRA doesn't support civilian posses running around the country and well you know it.

Although it's difficult to make this happen in Illinois, I'm a member of a civilian militia numbering a couple of hundred persons, in my county. When we organized, we went to the county Sheriff, told him what we were doing, and told him exactly what our charter expected of every member. When he digested this material, he told us that he saw nothing illegal and/or wrong with our organization, and would actually like to use us, in addition to posse comitatus, in case of manhunts, disasters, and so on.

My point is telling you about this is that a militia does not have to be organized by the state or by local government. And it doesn't have to be part of the "militia movement". We would take no actions that were not authorized by the Sheriff's office. Though unpaid and unofficial, we have the approval of our Sheriff.

[justicar5]

Actually, it refers to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It also talks about a militia, yes. But the right of the people to bear arms can stand alone quite well.

Furthermore, even if your point WERE the case, you would have to demonstrate how it is reasonable and necessary to ban assault weapons (and that IS what this thread is about, btw.)



A typical rant. Do you want to give me evidence that the bombing was NRA/Bible inspired? Uh, well, you can't because that would require a considerable amount of mind-reading.

You can blame stuff like that on anything.



Also, I would hardly consider your post to be a suitable response to the entire portion of material that you put into quote tags.

The 'assault weapons' ban is badly constructed, having looked at it further, it makes as much sense as the UK sword ban, as in none.

You could construct a much better case for the banning of certain calibres of firearm, specifically high power round that over penetrate and endanger by standers, if used in an urban envireoment. But even then you get ammunition that doesn't do that, the glacer safety slug springs to mind.


I think this is a fundemental culture clash, specifically between the british view on guns, and hte american view. With that I will bow out, because i just don't understand americans

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Yeah....except cars are not designed to kill things.

Except TV isn't meant to kill things.

In that case, cars should be regulated even MORE HEAVILY (according to your rules) because they kill MORE people than criminals with guns do, DESPITE the fact that they're not designed for it!!!

Your example simply proves my point.

No, TV doesn't kill things. It just puts ideas of how to kill things in people's heads. Do you think the Virginia Tech shooter got the idea in church? Please. I recall reading of a case where a teenager walked into a police station and murdered a few cops. Why? He had done it in Grand Theft Auto. He was just acting out his game.

What right do you have to arm yourself to the teeth? Why don't you tell us WHY you need a small arsenal of weaponary?

I have every right to do so. It is recognized by my constitution.

As to why I need it? I will give you a hypothetical example, since this will be me in a few years. I personally am not of legal age to purchase.

I need a Springfield .45XD for conceal and carry.

I need a Colt 38 Special for my bedroom.

My wife needs a 380 Auto for conceal and carry.

I need a 20 guage, 12 guage, and 10 guage for fowl hunting.

I need a .44 Magnum for medium game handgun hunting.

I need .30-06 for deer hunting.

I've heard that the AK-47 is an excellent medium and small game rifle.

This reminds me; one reason that military designed guns are desirable is that they work very well. The AK-47 is famed for reliability; this is also true for civilian versions. I want guns that are reliable. I've heard of a guy who would have been mauled by a bear if he hadn't been carrying an AK. He had tripped and fallen in the mud; any other gun wouldn't have fired, but the AK did.

So I need my AK to hunt boar.

I need a .22 to teach my kids how to handle guns safely. This way, when they grow up, they will not kill people in firearms accidents.

So there you have it; my whole arsenal accounted for. What right do YOU have to suggest that I DON'T need any of it?

Do I have any right to say that your knife collection is wrong? Or car collectors? Or any other collection?

Maybe I want to collect guns. Why should you butt into my business?

No - the ban might in fact help people.

Show me where it has. Show me where a gun ban has helped some people without making just as many or more people vulnerable.

Now, yet ANOTHER point:

You make the case that "assault weapons" are dangerous because they are so different in function from any other rifle.

Well, let's see.

Say I have a replica Mauser K98k, the service rifle of the German Army in WWII. This is perfectly legal.

And say I have a Colt AR-15. This type of gun scares people; it is an assault weapon.

Now, if I was going to use either of these in a crime, it's probably because I want to shoot someone from a distance. Otherwise, I would use something smaller.

OK, my Mauser is a 7x57.

My AR-15 is a .223. Basically a .22 centerfire cartridge with lots of powder.

Which one do I choose to make the shot?

My mauser; definitely. I will inflict WAY more damage with the mauser, and I only need one shot anyway.

So in reality AWB proponents want to ban all guns. This is absurd for a variety of reasons, including the reality that bad guys by definition will not observe the ban.

[justicar5]

In that case, cars should be regulated even MORE HEAVILY (according to your rules) because they kill MORE people than criminals with guns do, DESPITE the fact that they're not designed for it!!!

Your example simply proves my point.

No, TV doesn't kill things. It just puts ideas of how to kill things in people's heads. Do you think the Virginia Tech shooter got the idea in church? Please. I recall reading of a case where a teenager walked into a police station and murdered a few cops. Why? He had done it in Grand Theft Auto. He was just acting out his game.



I have every right to do so. It is recognized by my constitution.

As to why I need it? I will give you a hypothetical example, since this will be me in a few years. I personally am not of legal age to purchase.

I need a Springfield .45XD for conceal and carry.

I need a Colt 38 Special for my bedroom.

My wife needs a 380 Auto for conceal and carry.

I need a 20 guage, 12 guage, and 10 guage for fowl hunting.

I need a .44 Magnum for medium game handgun hunting.

I need .30-06 for deer hunting.

I've heard that the AK-47 is an excellent medium and small game rifle.

This reminds me; one reason that military designed guns are desirable is that they work very well. The AK-47 is famed for reliability; this is also true for civilian versions. I want guns that are reliable. I've heard of a guy who would have been mauled by a bear if he hadn't been carrying an AK. He had tripped and fallen in the mud; any other gun wouldn't have fired, but the AK did.

So I need my AK to hunt boar.

I need a .22 to teach my kids how to handle guns safely. This way, when they grow up, they will not kill people in firearms accidents.

So there you have it; my whole arsenal accounted for. What right do YOU have to suggest that I DON'T need any of it?

Do I have any right to say that your knife collection is wrong? Or car collectors? Or any other collection?

Maybe I want to collect guns. Why should you butt into my business?



Show me where it has. Show me where a gun ban has helped some people without making just as many or more people vulnerable.

Now, yet ANOTHER point:

You make the case that "assault weapons" are dangerous because they are so different in function from any other rifle.

Well, let's see.

Say I have a replica Mauser K98k, the service rifle of the German Army in WWII. This is perfectly legal.

And say I have a Colt AR-15. This type of gun scares people; it is an assault weapon.

Now, if I was going to use either of these in a crime, it's probably because I want to shoot someone from a distance. Otherwise, I would use something smaller.

OK, my Mauser is a 7x57.

My AR-15 is a .223. Basically a .22 centerfire cartridge with lots of powder.

Which one do I choose to make the shot?

My mauser; definitely. I will inflict WAY more damage with the mauser, and I only need one shot anyway.

So in reality AWB proponents want to ban all guns. This is absurd for a variety of reasons, including the reality that bad guys by definition will not observe the ban.

get the idea to commit murder in churc? Yes actually, just look at the bible, full of murder rape and genocide.

the oklahoma bomb was inspired by a mix of MRA propoganda and bible bashing:

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

[no0]

I have to agree with Gin on this one. All the police officers I know despise the AWB and two of them actually own AR-15's. There is no need to own one of these weapons but thats not a good argument to ban them. Some people like to go shooting or just like to collect guns. My neighbor has a fine gun collection which he keeps behind a glass display on his wall and yes he owns an AR-15. All the people I know who own these weapons actively go target shooting with them at a range for fun.

Its no different from someone tricking out their car and making it go way faster then even the highest highway speed limit. There is no need to go that fast and its even against the law to speed. I don't see anyone actively trying to ban fast cars or make it so the cars can't go faster then the highest highway speed limit. Well you might say "that doesn't hurt anyone" or "if you trick out your car your not intending to kill anyone". Well the people I know personally who own these weapons aren't intending to kill anyone with them either and until they start going out into the streets and shooting people up we shall agree to disagree.

[Swordthrower]

Yeah....except cars are not designed to kill things.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...H_GRAPHIC.html

http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/01/Auto...a_death_stats/

In 2004, in the U.S., over 42,000 people were killed by automobiles and just under 30,000 died of gunfire. Ironic that there are far fewer automobiles made, they are not even made with the intent to kill things, and they manage to be used to end more peoples' lives than firearms. (Incidentally over half of firearms deaths are suicides, while far less than half of automobile deaths are.)

[Mangalore]

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/20...H_GRAPHIC.html

http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/01/Auto...a_death_stats/

In 2004, in the U.S., over 42,000 people were killed by automobiles and just under 30,000 died of gunfire. Ironic that there are far fewer automobiles made, they are not even made with the intent to kill things, and they manage to be used to end more peoples' lives than firearms. (Incidentally over half of firearms deaths are suicides, while far less than half of automobile deaths are.)

Compare times of usage vs. accidents instead of production numbers. Or at least a ratio of car owner / accidents vs gun owner / accident.

At least some numbers that would make some sense instead of uncorrelated totals.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Compare times of usage vs. accidents instead of production numbers. Or at least a ratio of car owner / accidents vs gun owner / accident.

At least some numbers that would make some sense instead of uncorrelated totals.

This is a good point, however there is another factor which is rarely considered with the others.

To drive a car by law requires that you at LEAST pass a test, and most people also undergo many hours (don't remember how many ) of classroom instruction.

While firearms safety training is required for a certain age group, once you're 18 or 21 you can go off and buy a gun whether or not you've ever seen one before in your life.

Needless to say, a person who's only firarms training has been hollywood movies is a big accident just waiting to happen. He knows just enough to be dangerous, namely: point the long part at something and push the little lever.

A guy I know who has been in the firearms business for quite a long time said he would rather trust a trained drunk with a gun than an untrained sober person.

Just an analogy, of course, as neither is to be trusted, but you get the idea. Firearms training should have the same requirements as driving. In other words, firearms safety should be a required federal program.

And thus you would eliminate a great percentage of gun accidents.

But I wonder if our legislative bodies aren't interested in such things because they've noticed that people who understand firearms aren't scared of them anymore... and if they're comfortable with them then they won't support a ban...

Not to mention that relatively few federal legislators seem to know which end of the gun to point, themselves.

[Gelgoog]

This is a good point, however there is another factor which is rarely considered with the others.

To drive a car by law requires that you at LEAST pass a test, and most people also undergo many hours (don't remember how many ) of classroom instruction.

While firearms safety training is required for a certain age group, once you're 18 or 21 you can go off and buy a gun whether or not you've ever seen one before in your life.

Needless to say, a person who's only firarms training has been hollywood movies is a big accident just waiting to happen. He knows just enough to be dangerous, namely: point the long part at something and push the little lever.

A guy I know who has been in the firearms business for quite a long time said he would rather trust a trained drunk with a gun than an untrained sober person.

Just an analogy, of course, as neither is to be trusted, but you get the idea. Firearms training should have the same requirements as driving. In other words, firearms safety should be a required federal program.

And thus you would eliminate a great percentage of gun accidents.

But I wonder if our legislative bodies aren't interested in such things because they've noticed that people who understand firearms aren't scared of them anymore... and if they're comfortable with them then they won't support a ban...

Not to mention that relatively few federal legislators seem to know which end of the gun to point, themselves.

well the difference being that one is a right and one is a privilege. You can not require someone to go through a test to exercise a right. Doing that would be considered the same as Jim Crow Laws. Operating a motor vehicle without a license on private roads is perfectly ok, doing so on public roads is not. Having a firearm in your home or firing it on private property(outside of city limits) is ok, having a firearm concealed without a license in public is not ok.

Now do you see the similarities?

to operate in public there are requirements thrust upon you, this goes the same for things like freedom of speech( rallys, marches, protests). however what you do on private land or in your home can not be restricted by the government because that would be putting a restriction on your civil liberties. This is why the D.C. handgun ban was ruled unconstitutional because it did not allow people to possess the weapons in private. D.C. still does not allow handguns on public land and does not issue concealed carry permits.

[Swordthrower]

Compare times of usage vs. accidents instead of production numbers. Or at least a ratio of car owner / accidents vs gun owner / accident.

At least some numbers that would make some sense instead of uncorrelated totals.

Usage isn't what is being legislated, or debated. Ownership is, however. (I would be all in favor of replacing the attention on ownership with usage and even -gasp- safety assisted regulation in the AWB.)

So here are the ownership numbers for 2004 in the U.S.

Automobiles: 240,000,000 (1 automobile related death per 5700 automobiles)
Firearms: 300,000,000 (1 firearm related death per 10000 firearms)

[The spartan]

Wait, was there a large spike in crime WHEN the AWB was in effect?