Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumToday's shooting news once again makes the obvious obvious.
Guns and ammo in the hands of the public is a resoundingly bad idea.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57474421/tuscaloosa-ala-shooting-suspect-nathan-van-wilkins-turns-self-in/
elleng
(141,926 posts)Welcome.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)elleng
(141,926 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)sarisataka
(22,704 posts)permatex
(1,299 posts)Loudly
(2,436 posts)One of the robbers has a gun.
How does this argue in favor of guns in the hands of the public?
hack89
(39,181 posts)so we don't have to carry in public. Are you going to make them illegal like drugs?
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Instead, they want to create new classes of criminals so as to secure a future for their bureaucracies.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Otherwise you have guns only in the hands of the bad guys and that leaves the rest of us helpless.
another defensive use of a gun
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2012/07/man_kills_attacker_at_northeas.php
Well, will you look at this, another defensive use of a gun
http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2012/07/17/columbus-pizza-delivery-driver-shoots-at-would-be-robbers.html
Shall I keep going?
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)~sigh~
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)others by having a lawfully concealed firearm for self-defense when two armed-robbers chose to attack peaceful customers in a Internet cafe.
DU headline: Customer at Internet cafe shoots 2 robbers (Video)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117251255
The video is at:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=428_1342491285
Loudly
(2,436 posts)Armed with a gun?
End of argument.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Yes. One of the robbers had a gun. That's armed robbery.
His accomplice had a baseball bat and was also participating in the armed robbery.
A gun used for an armed robbery and a baseball bat used for an armed robbery are both deadly weapons.
The armed robbery effort was stopped in less than 20 seconds.
Williams, who lives in Ocala, could not be reached for comment on Monday. But at least one of his 30 fellow patrons at the cafe wants to thank him.
I think he is wonderful. If he wouldnt have been there, there could have been some innocent people shot, said Mary Beach.
http://www.ocala.com/article/20120716/ARTICLES/120719790/0/sports
Loudly
(2,436 posts)This story does absolutely no good for the guns in the hands of the public argument.
Why not?
Because a gun emboldened the commission of the crime.
It's a gun as solution to guns story, just as most of them are.
i.e. that perv Wayne LaPierre's wet dream.
sarisataka
(22,704 posts)I like a belly laugh at bed time.
With this logic you can only use a gun against a criminal who does not have a gun. Of course if you do that you have committed murder because everyone can go mano y mano against a criminal who does not have a gun.
Nice catch 22.
Loudly
(2,436 posts)Just about every story they offer up which attempts to illustrate why the public should have access to guns and ammo begins with some dumbass using a gun and ammo.
All it illustrates is that guns and ammo in the hands of the public is a recipe for mischief.
So allow me my own belly laugh at their attempt at promoting their indefensible argument.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)where there was no gun involved, just some other deadly weapon, you'd be whining about the use of excessive force. There is no pleasing you anti-gun zealots.
You use the tool that will best allow you to defend yourself. That happens to be a gun.
spin
(17,493 posts)It would appear that you might wish to ban the civilian ownership of all firearms which might be a noble goal as you state. 'All it illustrates is that guns and ammo in the hands of the public is a recipe for mischief."
Unfortunately it is politically impossible to accomplish this idea at this time in this nation. There are over 300 million firearms in our nation in the hands of an estimated 80 million individuals.
The support for gun bans has dropped dramatically since 1959. You might believe that there would be overwhelming support for banning handguns or semiautomatic firearms but you would be wrong.
We face serious problems in our nation and gun violence is one. In our history we have tried to ban certain items before such as alcohol during the Prohibition Era between 1919 and 1933 and we started our War on Drugs in 1971. We also tried to ban "assault weapons" in 1994 and the law expired ten years later in 2004.
Prohibition led to the development of organized crime and the corruption of many members of our law enforcement establishment and our elected politicians.
Prohibition In America
***snip***
True to La Guardia's prediction, Prohibition spawned organized crime, bootlegging and corruption among the police on an unprecedented scale. It is fair to say that the Volstead Act indirectly gave rise to the American Mafia, along with it's most famous figure, Al Capone. Capone, along with many others, including Kennedy family head Joe, made huge amounts of money running bootlegging operations from Canada all the way to Florida. Capone found a rival in the form of former attorney George Remus. Remus was a successful lawyer when Prohibition came into effect. He soon noticed that his criminal clients were making more money than he was from their bootlegging activities. Convinced that he could outdo them in the illegal alcohol business he became intimately aware of the Volstead Act. He soon found a loophole wherein he could buy distilleries and pharmacies in order to sell alcohol to himself under Government license for medicinal use. The liquor would disappear on the way to market. He moved to Cincinnati and bought up 9 whiskey distilleries. Remus bribed many officials in order to keep his operation going, including a half million dollar gift to the U.S. Attorney General.
Speakeasies soon flourished across the country. These were underground saloons. By 1925 there were more than 100,000 speakeasies in New York alone. The job of the Prohibition Enforcement agency was a hopeless one. It was also demoralising. The 3,000 jobs of the Prohibition Agency were held by 10,000 different men over a six year period. Still, throughout the Prohibition years millions of gallons of alcohol were confiscated. By the late twenties Prohibition was becoming a very unpopular reality. Democratic Party Presidential candidate Al Smith campaigned against it in 1928. Although he lost the election, Smith did manage to weld together a groundswell of discontent against Prohibitionism. Four years later, the Democrats again used Prohibition as an issue and this time their candidate, Franklin Roosevelt was swept into the White House. In February of 1933 Congress passed the 21st amendment which repealed prohibition. On December 5th of that year the 21st Amendment was ratified. America was no longer dry!
http://www.essortment.com/prohibition-america-21019.html
(On a side note I was raised in a fairly large home in Ohio that had once been a speakeasy.)
It is my opinion that we lost the War on Drugs many years ago and just as with prohibition this ban has caused the creation of dangerous gangs who often have turf warfare that are a leading cause of gun violence.
Gun and Gang Violence Prosecution
***snip***
NDAAs Gang Response Model
The United States Department of Justice estimates that there approximately 1.4 million gang members in this country, up 40 percent since 2009, representing 33,000 gangs. As they expand their reach throughout our nation in search of new territory or trafficking routes, gangs bring with them drugs, weapons, and crime, conjuring fear and violence within our communities. Gangs are responsible for an average of 48 percent of violent crime in most jurisdictions, much higher in others, and they are increasingly beginning to engage in less visible crime, such as identity theft and human trafficking.
http://www.ndaa.org/gun_gang_home.html
The "Assault Weapons" ban was allowed to sunset and interesting enough I observed during the time that it was in place that military style semiautomatic weapons became very popular with shooters. Few of the regular shooters that I knew prior to the ban had any real interest in what they called "plastic rifles". Once the ban was in place, a few shooters decided to buy one as they were always available even during the ban. They were impressed and by the end of the ban almost every shooter that I knew owned at least one of these weapons. I was an exception as I could see little personal need to own one.
In recent years hunters have discovered just how versatile and useful these weapons can be.
20 Versatile Semi-Automatic Rifles
The debate is moot. Regardless of what you think or how you feel about using semi-automatic guns for hunting, autoloaders and AR-style rifles are becoming more common in camps and virtually every major manufacturer is producing these guns in calibers heavy enough to drop deer, hogs and bears. Not to mention the fact that they're a blast on the range.
http://www.outdoorlife.com/photos/gallery/guns/rifles/centerfire/2011/11/20-best-semi-automatic-rifles-big-game-hunting
Now you might have noticed that I am not arguing that allowing civilians to own firearms is either good or bad. That's an entirely different argument. I am merely focusing on what you would suggest to stop gun violence and pointing out the impossibility and foolishness of implementing gun bans if that is indeed what you favor.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)It was exactly like every other AR15 except it had no bayonet lug or flash supressor. Functionally identical in every way to every other AR15. The AWB was a feel good law that did absolutely nothing to take guns off the streets.
spin
(17,493 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)if they believe in banning all firearms or draconian gun control.
That's sad as there are valid arguments on both sides of the issue and a good debate allows everybody to consider their viewpoint and to consider the weaknesses of their position.
After posting here for a while I have found that those who oppose RKBA favor emotional argument and those who support it use facts and statistics.
I personally have seen both the good and the bad results that the civilian ownership of firearms can cause. Firearms are indeed very dangerous tools and not everybody should own one. Many of those who post in favor of gun bans or draconian gun laws have suffered tragedies in their lives caused by firearms. That's why I attempt to be polite to all those who post in the Gungeon who have a far different view than I do on RKBA.
I welcome the opinion of those who disagree with my support of the Second Amendment and always try to consider their viewpoint in a far and unbiased manner. Perhaps one day I will find a valid argument that I can't logically dispute and my view will change.
I hope to foster such discussion. In my opinion life should be an educational journey and experience and discussion should lead to a reevaluation of one's own personal beliefs.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Period.
spin
(17,493 posts)As with most issues there are valid points on both sides of the gun control issue including the ban on the ownership of all civilian firearms. However it is not my goal or objective to present them.
After considering both sides of the debate I feel that the stronger side supports RKBA.
Meiko
(1,076 posts)of that pesky second amendment things would be just fine. I have an idea, why don't we restrict the first amendment too while we are at it. That way we can't talk about guns either. Anti gunners are always talking shit. They always yell about how guns are evil and we should get rid of all of them or we need more sensible gun laws. Lots of talk but never any suggestions on how to accomplish what they are preaching. No suggestions on how to deal with criminals.
So in the absence of any constructive ideas put forth by the anti-gunners the gun owners in this country have adopted their own approach. We arm ourselves and if someone attacks us or others we shoot the bastards. It seems to be working so why mess with success. There are a lot of gun owners in this country, on both sides of the political isle, and a whole lot of guns. We are here to stay and so are the guns, get used to it.
Oh yea, stop using the term "guns and ammo" It makes it sound like you don't know what you are talking about.
Spoonman
(1,761 posts)Because a gun emboldened the commission of the crime.
Provide us with ANYTHING (beside your lame ass opinion) that substantiates your claim!!!!!
We have address this before;
Vehicles do not "embolden" you to drive drunk
Knifes do not "embolden" you to stab someone
Poisons do not "embolden" you to kill your spouse
Spoons do not "embolden" you to over eat
New shoes do not "embolden" you to run from the police
Lighters do not "embolden" you to commit arson
Condoms do not "embolden" you to commit rape
Rope do not "embolden" you to strangle someone
GET IT!?
Guns do not have some mystical, magical, supernatural ability to influence the individuals behavior.
To believe otherwise places you at the same brain damaged level of mentality as birthers, and once again, ignorance on steroids!
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)I think it is silly to argue that weapons do not embolden criminals.
Who would walk into a room full of people without a weapon and demand them to give them their money? They would get laughed out of the place.
But with a weapon, they know they will get compliance through fear.
So there is no doubt that a man with a weapon will be bolder than one without one.
That is not the point.
The point is that good people can also be emboldened with firearms, as was the case in this crime - a good man was able to stop a violent crime because he was emboldened and enabled by his firearm to act.
Oneka
(653 posts)That law enforcement officers, should remain armed, and all other citizens, should have thier firearms confiscated?
spin
(17,493 posts)Have a tough time actually admitting to that stance. When they do admit it, they are advocating for, "guns" as a solution to "guns".
spin
(17,493 posts)although some people who oppose the Second Amendment do wish to pass laws that would ban and possibly confiscate many if not all firearms in civilian hands.
I also try to politely point out my viewpoint without insulting those who disagree with me. I seriously believe that we can make headway on the issue of gun violence in our nation if both sides attempt to find common ground and compromise to pass laws that are rational and effective.
I do have a tendency to let some negative feelings out, when dealing with folks who want to destroy my rights. Name calling should not be the way to show it though.
spin
(17,493 posts)not an ultra conservative site.
In the past I used to post on more conservative sites about firearms and almost everybody agreed with my opinions. The problem was such sites often contained political views on other topics which I disagreed with as I am a Democrat.
I found that DU was basically more aligned with my political views but many posters largely disagreed with my feelings about gun control. I decided to test my thoughts on this issue by debating them with some very intelligent and liberal people. It has proved challenging and along the way I have learned far more than I would have if I would have continued to post on the more conservative sites. Both sides of the gun control issue have good arguments to make and all deserve consideration.
I doubt if I have convinced any very liberal posters to change their views on gun control however I feel that insulting them would accomplish nothing so I do my best to try to be polite. I sometimes get insulted by some who use this technique as they feel they are losing the debate on gun control but overall most here have been reasonably polite in their responses. When someone does flame me, than I merely laugh and realize that I am winning the argument.
sarisataka
(22,704 posts)10 points to Slytherin for honesty.

Now to your claim
how, pray tell, does honest citizen defend themselves from gun wielding bad guy? You should we all accept our role as good victims and accept robbery, injury rape and death as God and Deputy Mayor Quander intended?
ileus
(15,396 posts)sarisataka
(22,704 posts)said we would only escalate the situation. Wouldn't want that now. Some poor underprivileged criminal could get hurt.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)and more than willing to take away others' freedoms in order to enforce their extreme, fundamentalist view of morality.
CokeMachine
(1,018 posts)According to the SharesUnited's math this would be a -1. Bat +1, Gun (criminal) -1 and Gun (victim) -1. Thank god you think the criminals and victims are both bad -- not!! Bless your pea pickin' heart (I really do love peas).
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Concealed carry permit holder fends off 4 attackers
Police say that the concealed carry permit holder was in a parking lot near 195th Avenue and Indian School Road when 4 males in their late teens or early twenties approached him and attacked with a baseball bat. After being hit several times in the head and arms, the concealed carry permit holder is said to have drawn and fired his handgun, striking one of the attackers and causing all four of them to flee. Police are seeking the suspects, and the concealed carry permit holder was treated on the scene for minor injuries.
http://www.examiner.com/article/concealed-carry-permit-holder-fends-off-4-attackers
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)I'm gonna guess that the bat emboldened the commission of the crime.
Now the TaliBanners will want to ban bats.
Should make for an interesting World Series.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)You always ignore the good things that people do with guns, and you are willing to prevent any good thing being done with guns in a futile attempt to stop people from doing bad things with guns.
burrfoot
(821 posts)this sounds wicked familiar.
Loudly = Shares United?
Am I allowed to ask that? I confess that part of the bylaws is unclear to me. I'll be happy to edit if necessary.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)writing styles are close enough for probable cause.
CokeMachine
(1,018 posts)I don't particularly care, just wanted be sure I wasn't crazy.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)I'm betting that not only can you not do this, you won't even try.
HALO141
(911 posts)If no one is using guns for ill the no one will give a crap one way or the other who has them and when.
sarisataka
(22,704 posts)If you don't believe in guns strongly enough the criminals gun will magically vanish.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)that the police can arive in a timely manner and kinda sort things out.
People who carry such beliefs need to get out in the real world a little more often.
Marinedem
(373 posts)I coulda sworn we outlawed murder already.
We should get around to that.
If not that, then at least we should at least outlaw guns. Maybe criminals and psychopaths will follow that one, if not the other.
Yessir, a land in which the police and military have a monopoly on force is just what I've always dreamed of!
One day, one day....
spin
(17,493 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Do you think the public should have no right to own firearms? How about the police?
SkatmanRoth
(843 posts)The Constitution of the United States clearly states that the Government will not restrict our right to keep and bear arms. If you do not like people having rights guaranteed under our Constitution, start a movement to replace the Second Amendment.
Keep us posted on your progress.
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)It's the Way of the TaliBanners.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)They don't see that that is a pushback against their own efforts.
If they'd just quit it the NRA would lose its mass appeal.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)people never respond with "its time to repeal the first amendment".
Or if a murderer gets off because the police couldn't search his home and he goes on to kill again it's never "we must get rid of the 5th amendment".
It's always on the person who did it. Not the rights that enabled him to cause harm.
ileus
(15,396 posts)jeepnstein
(2,631 posts)That makes him a Felon. And we all know about the rules concerning felons and firearms, don't we?
Law-abiding citizens are not the problem here.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Tejas
(4,759 posts)Callisto32
(2,997 posts)Still boring after all these years.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)Do you have a proposal that will prevent the public from having guns and ammo?
If not, what's the point?
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)the military of Canada and Mexico. I guess it didn't pan out.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)Those are still cool right?
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)And every gun in private possession was rounded up and destroyed, criminal gangs would start smuggling guns into the US to feed the demand for guns by dope dealers and other criminals in this country. And then you, and others with your mindset would still be screaming "something needs to be done to get those guns off the street."
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Remmah2
(3,291 posts)DrDan
(20,411 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)They are a relatively small minority here who carry a printed Constitution in their pants too that has "a well regulated militia" whited out.
Tejas
(4,759 posts)
jeepnstein
(2,631 posts)They are by and large a pretty easy going and law-abiding group. That's why I'm a liberal, because I believe in the innate goodness of people.
Sure, we have criminals. We always will. And we'll have crazies. But I'm not into doing collective punishment against the whole nation for the crimes of a very few. Perhaps we would be better off looking at the root sources of most of the violent crime in the U.S.?


