Public opinion regarding US Gun laws.

[rootX]

I think it would have been clearer if he had said "the training that police officers get", he didn't mean officers still in training, IMO.

Thanks, you are right.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

What I'm hearing from that quote is that you are living in a society where "the rules" of how to behave are set by the criminals, and you don't seem to have a problem with that.

don't a lot of the restrictions in our lives happen because we are trying to keep ourselves safe?

 

[D H]

You do not need a shotgun for hunting either, so ban those as well.

You've never been hunting, have you?

You do need a shotgun for bird hunting. Most hunters prefer a shotgun over a rifle for small game, and in some states you can't use a rifle for hunting. You have but no choice to use a shotgun.

Besides, hunting is only one reason people own guns. The second amendment isn't there to protect our right to go hunting wabbits.

 

[Pythagorean]

Agreed about shotguns for hunting, but...

I'm not sure the 2nd amendment can really do what it's intended anymore. Citizens arming themselves legally against the US army or well-equipped police would be bringing sticks and stones

Maybe the 2nd amendment would be helpful against militia groups... but they operate under the 2nd amendment, so it's a double-edged sword. You may have heard of Schaeffer Fox?

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/11/23/additional-charges-filed-in-alaska-militia-case/

(yes grenade launchers are legal in Alaska... the regulations are on the ammunition)

But regardless, nobody's taking away any amendment to the US Constitution any time soon.

 

[D H]

I wasn't thinking of armed insurrection. That's wacked out militia stuff. They represent a tiny (but scary) fraction of gun owners.

I was thinking of varmints, some of which walk on four legs, others on two. A lot of people other than those wacked out militia types own guns to protect their property and sometimes their lives. I grew up on a farm. I had to shoot varmints (four legged ones) on occasion when I was a kid. My Dad got a bit perturbed when I didn't get a clean kill on the skunk that had taken up residence under our house. Fortunately the shots were good enough that it did die right at the entry of its burrow.

 

[Pythagorean]

Ah, Yeah, furry vermin can definitely be a problem. Here, it's squirrels; they eat everything, but especially annoying is roof insulation; they've even been known to cause fires in cabins. A friend of mine had a giant, old capacitor in his house when this happened. It was unplugged, but the oil reach flash point and blew the roof half off. Though, I'm sure there's a more clever way to deter them than shooting them (never tried any other method, personally, and no need for it in my urban setting).

I don't remember the statistics being good for defending yourself against people with a gun (like statistically, people are more likely to shoot themselves than an intruder, so the cost/benefit doesn't quite work if you're a statistically averaged being). I wonder how many people that shoot themselves have degrees, though (could be an interesting demographic study).

But then again, I don't exactly go strutting through other people's property in my state, because I know everybody has a gun, and a handful of them are that cranky old guy from stereotypes that shoots at people for being on his property. So maybe there's something to be said about reducing potential pre-meditated burglary. Though that would be hard to quantify.

I keep a pair of nunchukas near my door. HI-YA!

 

[CAC1001]

I've always been an advocate for gun control laws being a bit more serious and effective.

You do not need an AR15 to hunt deer. So ban long guns except for hunting rifles.

The AR15 makes a very excellent hunting rifle. And the majority of gun violence occurs with hand guns:

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/welcome.htm
http://www.vpc.org/studies/unsafe.htm

You do not need a shotgun for hunting either, so ban those as well.

As said, shotguns are a weapon required for certain types of hunting and also make excellent hunting rifles. Also, a right is a right. It isn't about whether one "needs" it.

Defensive handguns are okay in my honest opinion however, extended magazines need to be banned.

What makes a handgun "defensive?" Also, how does one define "extended magazine?" Not all pistols are handguns. There are two-handed pistols as well that can hold larger magazines than a regular handgun.

Agreed about shotguns for hunting, but...

I'm not sure the 2nd amendment can really do what it's intended anymore. Citizens arming themselves legally against the US army or well-equipped police would be bringing sticks and stones

Maybe, maybe not. Look at the fighting in the Middle East in Iraq and Afghanistan. People armed with just rifles, provided they know what they are doing, can give a military a lot of trouble. However, again the Second Amendment is not just about the people being able to overthrow an oppressive government, it is about your right to protect yourself.

 

[CAC1001]

Not an expert on it, but my understanding regarding the whole "right to overthrow the government if it infringes on our rights" thing is that that would only be for a really extreme case. I mean one could argue that the government infringes on somebody's rights, somewhere, every day. Also, provided one overthrew the government, then there's the question of what replaces it? Usually what happens is a tyrannical government that is much worse comes in and replaces it. As such, you would only want to try and literally overthrow the existing government if there was pretty much zero chance that whatever replaced it could be worse.

So even if the existing government was to become what by American standards is really oppressive, you still would not want to try overthrowing it because if you succeeded at this, you'd end up very likely with an even worse government taking over. Now if the government was to somehow get converted into a North American equivalent of the Soviet government under Lenin, then yes you could try overthrowing it by force, because at that point, the worst case scenario is you just end up with another tyrant in charge.

 

[edward]

The bump fire techniques developed during the past few years have changed everything.

Bump fire with an extended magazine.



Now we have the slide stock which supposedly prevents an accidental bump fire. But look what happens with a bit of practice.



At some point a line has to be drawn and politicians won't touch it.

 

[edward]

There are a number of extremist militia groups out there. I can't seem to find an exact number. They are definitely prepared to overthough the government. Ironically they don't all have the same goal or point at which violent action would be taken.

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/september/militia_092211

My son and I were talking and decided all of the pieces are in place for an accidental revolution, or at the very least an accidental attempted revolution.

 

[CAC1001]

The bump fire techniques developed during the past few years have changed everything.

Bump fire with an extended magazine.



Now we have the slide stock which supposedly prevents an accidental bump fire. But look what happens with a bit of practice.



At some point a line has to be drawn and politicians won't touch it.

Well bump firing you can do without any device, it's just more awkward. Bump firing period is not very accurate because the gun jumps around while firing. Generally, I think such devices though are a bad idea public relations-wise for the gun industry. All it takes is one nutcase to use one and then it gets plastered all over as an easy fix to create a "machine gun."

 

[Galteeth]

The question of whether to arm police and whether to arm the populace is separate question, though the two are very much entangled. Certainly, armed police will lead to more shooting deaths by police. National statistics are not recorded in this country.

Here is an article from the New York Times about the trend toward militarization of police-
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/s...e-become-militarized.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[Hyng Dieng]

As Galteeth pointed out in a post above mine, whether to arm police and whether to arm the populace is separate question. Those are two similar but at the same time very different topics, that should be approached differently.

Arming the police is a 'must do' for any country if you ask me. Police is the hand of law and therefore should have means other than just authority of defending that same law. For a policeman to own a gun is not a question of self-defense of the policeman nor is it the question of the willingness of one to engage some serious threats. I personally think it is more of a need in times like these. It's much easier to attack a police officer who doesn't have any guns on him, but a simple baton or a taser than to attack fully armed officer of law. Every criminal, no matter how tough or redneck or whatever the word you may use, will think twice of attacking an armed police officer or rob a store in the vicinity of armed police officers.

Arming the populace on the other hand is a 'must not do' for any country. What is the difference between a common citizen and a police officer in that case? A police badge or the amount of authority? Anyone can flash a badge, but not everyone can wear a gun around his waste. I understand that in the USA lobby of gun owners is very strong. And I don't see their gun regulations to change any time soon. Handguns are to blame for high homicide and suicide rates as the articles posted here suggested. So why then put hunting in front of human life I ask you?

And in the end police force is a government force. And as we all know government (or country, state, constitution whatever word you may use) has a physical monopoly over it's residents or even dare I say minions in order keep everything under law and order. What kind of physical monopoly is there if just every 20th cop on the streets is armed?

 

[Galteeth]

As Galteeth pointed out in a post above mine, whether to arm police and whether to arm the populace is separate question. Those are two similar but at the same time very different topics, that should be approached differently.

Arming the police is a 'must do' for any country if you ask me. Police is the hand of law and therefore should have means other than just authority of defending that same law. For a policeman to own a gun is not a question of self-defense of the policeman nor is it the question of the willingness of one to engage some serious threats. I personally think it is more of a need in times like these. It's much easier to attack a police officer who doesn't have any guns on him, but a simple baton or a taser than to attack fully armed officer of law. Every criminal, no matter how tough or redneck or whatever the word you may use, will think twice of attacking an armed police officer or rob a store in the vicinity of armed police officers.

Arming the populace on the other hand is a 'must not do' for any country. What is the difference between a common citizen and a police officer in that case? A police badge or the amount of authority? Anyone can flash a badge, but not everyone can wear a gun around his waste. I understand that in the USA lobby of gun owners is very strong. And I don't see their gun regulations to change any time soon. Handguns are to blame for high homicide and suicide rates as the articles posted here suggested. So why then put hunting in front of human life I ask you?

And in the end police force is a government force. And as we all know government (or country, state, constitution whatever word you may use) has a physical monopoly over it's residents or even dare I say minions in order keep everything under law and order. What kind of physical monopoly is there if just every 20th cop on the streets is armed?

Was this post supposed to be sarcastic? I honestly couldn't tell.

 

[Hyng Dieng]

It's not. Only the first paragraph is related to your post. I only used your concept of arming the police vs. arming the populace and then elaborated on the matter using my own opinions and statements.

 

[Evo]

This thread has outlived any purpose.