'The' Gun Thread (Page 20)

I'm generalizing here, but I find the irony in the anti-gun Democrats who mock me (a conservative) for not trusting and believing in "science" and "facts" when it comes to things like global warming, evolution, and such.  However, in the gun arguments all the history, science, statistics, and facts are on my side but I'm the one who is out of touch.  I don't get it.

For the record, I trust in science, I just don't trust scientists. 

This is really the core of the ban and nothing more.

Also it's a friggin magazine not a clip!

Keyboards don't spread misinformation, people with keyboards spread misinformation. Emotionally driven people who don't know what they are talking about spread FAR more misinformation.

-Me

So want to skip for a few comments.

Suggestions for optics for a 10/22 take down.

Don't shoot me...

But this is the sight I put on our 10-22. 

http://www.amazon.com/UTG-4-Inch-Compact-Integral-Picatinny/dp/B005EOUYMQ/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1365175976&sr=8-7&keywords=utg+red+dot

It is cheap, works well, is easy to use and I don't have to worry about who is handling it. If it breaks I can always get another very easily. 

Probably not the best sight for a life depends on it kinda gun or a hunting rifle but it works great for plinking.

I am going to put some Magpul MBUS sights on it so if the red dot goes out the gun will still be usable. 

haha, one of my pet peeves too.  They would make us do pushups if we called it a clip in the Navy.

My wife keeps calling the magazine in her Bodyguard .380 a clip and I correct her every time.  She does it mostly to just annoy me now.  lol

I can't disagree with you more.  (1) The civilian AR15 has about as much in common with the "exact military rifle" (M16 and its military variants) as the street Chevy Monte Carlo has with the Monte Carlo used in NASCAR.  Their similarities are they look the same, after that...the differences take over.  (2) These "exact military rifles" as you call them account for less than 1% of ALL GUN Homicides in the United States. In comparison the homicide rates using "hands and feet" are two times higher than that of ALL Rifle homicides and homicides with knives are seven times higher than that of ALL RIFLE homicides. (This is according to the 2011 FBI Violent Crime Statistics)  (3) This notion of what is "needed" or as you call it "sensible guns for sensible purposes" I find outrageous.  You have abdicated to the government the decision for what is sensible.  THis notion of sensibility is not based upon any rational concerns such as murder rates, or the specific firearms link to increased violence or increased use in criminality.  The statistics consistently show, for the past 10 years that Rifles, and these "exact military rifles" are a sub-set of rifles, account for about 1%-3% of ALL gun homicides! (4) The notion of "need" arises in this debate all the time, pro-gun control people consistently say "Why do you need an 'assault rifle'?" In fact Sen. Feinstein has said that more often than I can count.  This statement and this notion is a total red herring in the debate for several reasons: (a) there is not a 'needs' test for the exercising of a Constitutional Right.  There is no "needs test" in order to exercise your freedom of speech, or freedom of religion, or your right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.  (b)  it isn't for the citizen to justify their possession of such a firearm based upon need or any other criteria such as "sensible for hunters and homeowners"; rather it is up to the government to justify the infringement upon said right based upon some rationality to a compelling governmental interest.  (5) similar to the "need" based test, the "sensible" assertion similarly fails.  (6) additionally the issue of hunting, self defense, is also a red herring.  The constitution does not mandate the right to bear arms for self defense or hunting.  These are criteria that pro-gun control advocates have interjected into the debate as a false requirement in order to then argue that these guns can be regulated or banned because they aren't needed for hunting or self defense.  I.E. the "who needs an AR15 for hunting" or the "Shotgun is the best firearm for self defense so go get a shot gun, you don't need an AR15 for self defense."

As a similar hypothetical to demonstrate the inappropriateness of a "needs" or "sensibility" argument to curtail the right to posses certain types of firearms.  Here it goes....the highest allowable speed in the united states is in Texas where they are toying with allowing a speed limit of 85 mph.  Given that travelling in excess of this speed is both illegal and unsafe, why does someone need a car that travels in excess of 85 mph?  Why does someone "need" a Ferrari?  So, should the government require speed regulators on all cars?  or ban the use or possession of a car that travels in excess of 85 mph?

We as a country will be in trouble when the exercise of our Constitutional Rights are measured in terms of "need" and "reasonableness" and "sensibility".  These requirements would end Free Speech as we know it.

The guy my wife and I took our CWP class from had a huge pet peeve on this. First thing he talked about in the class. Every time he talked about a mag he would slow down and say M-A-G-A-Z-I-N-E!

He also offered to shoot anyone at the range that used the word clip. 

Fun running joke in our house now. 

My client shares our building in downtown DC with a church who is setting up an art exhibit on gun violence in America. I took these pictures a few minutes ago of this, which will be part of the exhibit.

I spoke with the guy overseeing this, and he said that there is approximately one bullet hole in this school bus for each person who has died at the hands of a gun since Newtown.

How good of them to use a shotgun so you get many holes for one round.

Good thing ole Jimmy Biden told me to buy a shotgun.

ETA: Guns don't have hands, makes it hard for them to kill people. How many holes are from suicides? How many holes were because of an "assault rifle"?

Ah, perhaps you misread my post in your fervor to fire back quickly, pardon the pun. It's not my exhibition. Next time, don't be so trigger-happy.

So you are saying just gun violence is up or all violence in general? We need to address the reasons for the violence not just the end result. Say we do want more restrictions and laws how does banning something that only causes under 1% of the "unbridled violence" help the problem?

As a side note while any deaths are too much we actually are down % wise from the past.

Here's a link to the exhibit. DanielG, you live in VA, don't you? You ought to come down. It'd be a hoot.

http://www.firstuccdc.org/2013/03/the-newtown-project/

Again you're wrong.  Sorry. (1) the "unbridled violence" statement is just plan contrary to the facts.  The facts are that homicide rates and gun homicide rates have been steadily DECREASING for a decade.  (2) The government in two separate statements, by to separate agencies, The FBI and DOJ, have said that the previous assault weapons ban had NO DESCERNABLE impact on violent crime rates or homicide rates.  (3)  the gun control measures being addressed account for the banning of an instrumentality that accounts for 1% of 1% of the homicide rate...so "unbridled violence"  hardly.  (4)  The rhetoric equating assault weapons usage with "unbridled violence" and 9-11 is factually inaccurate, and as such the regulation bears absolutely no rational relationship to its stated intended purpose of curtailing gun violence and gun homicides.  (5)  the vast majority of gun violence is committed with un-registered, illegally obtained HANDGUNS.

Now onto your argument about the right to travel, again you're wrong legally. There is a Constitutional  right of travel, but there is no right to a specific means of travel.  In fact there is no right to a car, or to a drivers license.  Those things are Constitutionally and legally privileges' not rights, thus as privileges the government has a much lower burden to regulate a privilege than in regulating or curtailing a right. So you are comparing apples to oranges.

Now onto the "wave" that is coming.  Let me stress this, and I believe it is crucial to the analysis of this issue.  The rights specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights, of which the right to bear arms is one, were specifically included for two, yes TWO, distinct reasons.  The first reason was that the founders and framers feared the abuse of power of those in any form of government.  In order to ensure that the citizens, from whom the power flowed, had certain God Given/inalienable/natural rights specifically protected from government over reaching.  This "fear of the government" rationale has been widely asserted.  But there is a second reason, this reason was to ensure citizens protection from other citizens and the whims of the majority.  That is, to protect ALL citizens from the "Tyranny of the Majority"

These rights, God Given or Natural, once enumerated were protected from the whim and whimsy of an ever changing political landscape.  Their specific enumeration ensures that in spite of whatever transient political or cultural ideology is in power or the majority at any given time, that ideological majority cannot curtail or remove these God Given or Natural Rights.

So, again, I say, and again I add, that I would fear any society in which the prevailing political or ideological whims of the day can prevail over Constitutionally guaranteed rights.  Ultimately, it is that glorious piece of paper, that protects us from tyranny.  If we freely abdicate these God Given/Natural rights based upon the assertion by our government that such abdication is necessary in order to ensure safety, we are not a free society....we are sheep. 

Slow clap for Brock...

Not just down.  WAY down.  From just January to June 2012, murders in metropolitan counties (and I guess towns in VA) are down >18%

Since 1993, murder rates are down more 50% - from 9.5 (0.0095% of Amreicans were murdered in 93 by any means) to 4.7 (0.0047%).  Not only that, in raw numbers, there were about 55 million more Americans in 2011 than in 93, yet 10,000 fewer murders.

If you want to talk just violent crime, that's down about 50% since 92 - from 757.7 (0.7577%) to 386.3 (0.3863%).  Again, raw numbers coincide with much less violence today versus the early 90s - 700,000+ fewer violent crimes happened in 2011 than 92.

Just since 2002, violent crime rate is down almost 22% and murder rate is down almost 17%.

Want even more proof?  Violent crime rate hasn't been as low as it is today since 1970!  Murder rate hasn't been as low as it is today since 1963!

1963!

It's been 50 years since you've been as safe as you are in 2013 America (in the US that is).  It's been 43 years since you've been less likely to get intentionally injured.

Gun violence is ALSO down.  In 2007, 67.9% of murders were committed with a firearm.  In 2011, it was down to 67.7%.  A small decline, but a decline none the less.  In addition, murders committed with rifles (including scary black ones) are down at a much greater rate - in 07 4.4% of murders used a rifle, in 2011, it was 3.7%, a 16% decline.

??? Seriously? Group think land...  Let's see: I disagree with you.  You assert that the pending gun legislation is needed to prevent violence, I point out that the method of effectuating reducing violence is focused on an assault weapons ban which the government says previously was ineffective and which based upon homicide rates accounts for 1% of 1% of gun homicides.  Thus, I am asserting that the government's ban on assault weapons is not rationally related to the stated compelling government interest.  Then I argue in favor of protecting all constitutional rights based upon the notion of protection from those in power and from tyranny of the majority.

Yup..."group think"  So bottom line, if someone disagrees with you, based upon non-personal rational arguments, grounded in legal and Constitutional principles I am guilty of group think....

I wish I could say that I was surprised, but the reality of this gun debate and the pro-gun control lobby has really just been boiled down to that exchange in a microcosmic.   Disagree with those calling for gun legislation and get called names....

So much for a reasoned debate on the issue,

Can't wait to see the exhibit they do to save innocent lives by ending abortion.