Curiosity about the pro-gun stance

[poliguru]

Now, I have never been against people using guns to hunt, providing they use actual hunting weapons (semi-autos don't qualify) and they eat what they kill. And, although I'm personally against it, I won't tell someone they can't have a handgun to defend their home (although the stats show it's more dangerous to the gun owner and it can encourage vigilante behavior in some - I mean, seriously, if someone's lurking in your driveway, lock the doors and call the police first).

What I DON'T understand is the antipathy towards restrictions on semi-autos and autos, bazookas, etc. and against the waiting period and background checks. Does this really infringe on people's rights? If you're an average gun owner, wouldn't you WANT that stuff, if not to keep you and yours safer, but to further legitimize your own gun use and show off responsibility in gun ownership?

The only arguments I have ever heard for this was A) the 2nd amend gives us the right (which it doesn't, really - you're not militia, the national guard is) and B) if the government tries to take away our liberties, we can defend them (oh really? you and your buddies are going to stand down the US military? Ask the Waco compound how that worked for them - you're up against TANKS!!).

So if someone could tell me what I'm missing in this logic here (preferably without yelling "you're taking away our guns!!!), I'd be appreciative. Here in Chicago, we don't have much of a gun culture (well, not that kind of gun culture, anyway), so I don't get it.

[rucky]

1. penispenispenispenispenis

penis


everything else is just bullshit rationalization.

[TheRovingGourmet]

9. I guess there are exceptions to the rule in your theory.

[Swede]

2. An assault rifle is made to kill humans.

Hence the "assault",and I don't see why anyone would want to own one. Living in a city in Canada,I don't know anyone that owns a gun. Out in rural areas friends have hunting rifles,shot guns and .22s. In my entire life I only knew one person that owned a hand gun.

[TheRovingGourmet]

8. Canada is not what one would call violent. Wonder why?

It is not because it is impossible to get guns there. You want them, you can get them.

[Swede]

11. My dad gave me semi-automatic 22 for my 16th birthday.

I grew up in the sticks,hunting was part of growing up. When I moved to the city I left that behind,but guns are a part of rural life.

[TheRovingGourmet]

12. Canada has done a wonderful job of addressing the problems

that create the violent among them. They have their problems with drunks though, as we do. :) They also are more realistic about who they lock up and why.

[Swede]

15. Welcome to DU,by the way.

Is it our social safety net,or your gun culture that is the root. I don't have an answer. Does any of your states have comparible lower gun deaths?

[TheRovingGourmet]

21. Thanks for the invite. :) I think more rests with your social

safety net, educational opportunities, different value system, and so forth. We do have states with extremely high gun ownership rates but few deaths and other states where the opposite is true. It is also true that if you were to take a GPS system and plot every shooting, whether it is justified/unjustified homicide or police action, you would see a map with relatively isolated little dots of concentration. Looking at who lives in these "dots" and what conditions are like there, they would all appear about the same. This should tell us something but we don't want to hear it. :)

[Swede]

26. I have read that because Canada has the USA

to the south and the Arctic ocean to the north we spend less on defense and more on our society. I,personnaly think Canada should spend more on defense,there is no reason we cannot do both. I think the USA was just as isolated,but times have changed.

[TheRovingGourmet]

29. That does sound like a reasonable statement and I hope

that the mutual protection arrangements between the US and Canada will be good enough to protect us both. With your smaller relative population size a larger military would sure take a toll on y'all.

But times sure have changed...

[K-W]

31. How have times changed?

The US stepped in a hornets nest in the middle east, so Canada should turn to militiarism?

[Swede]

37. Our late Prime Minister Trudeau predicted a struggle back in the 70's.

He called it the North-South struggle. The rich countries of the Northern Hemisphere would pay for exploiting the poorer countries of the Southern Hemisphere. He didn't know how the poorer countries would rise up,but he knew they would.

[K-W]

30. That is the exact wrong conclusion.

That is the reason the US should be spending LESS on defense.

Lets take whats wrong with the US and spread it to Canada, GREAT idea.

[Swede]

32. I'm not talking Bush size increase.

But since the end of the cold war,our military has rusted too much.

[K-W]

35. Modernization doesnt neccessarily require a larger investment.

But I am certainly not an expert on the Canadian military. I just didnt like comparison with the US. The US has a big military because we use it, and that has been a disaster.

[Swede]

39. Canadian soldiers proudly wear the blue helmets as UN peacekeepers.

I know because of politics the USA can't do that right now. But we need new equipment.

[TheRovingGourmet]

38. I know very little about your military except that your

snipers are supposed to be the best there is; I don't remember where I heard that though. I know your Coast Guard has been a lifesaver many, many times. :)

[TheRovingGourmet]

33. I think you misread the last couple of posts.

[K-W]

36. How so? EOM

[TheRovingGourmet]

40. We were not talking about exporting our military industrial

complex over to Canada, or at least I hope we did not come across that way.

[Swede]

41. Canada spends 1.1% GDP on defense,USA 3.9%.

It is such a waste of money, but the world is a nasty place.



http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

[jukes]

45. assault rifles

are fun to shoot @ targets w/. for most, it's just an extension of a hobby. there def are some concrete commandos & fauxmilitia, but their activities are quite limited, their "training" is hopelessly inadequate, & most are more dangerous to themselves than the public.

a serious domestic terrorist can make, steal, or buy whatever they need to create havoc. the DC sniper whackos cd have done just as much damage w/ a single shot .22.

this whole thing is a non-issue. we have much more important projects to concern ourselves w/.

[ComerPerro]

3. I agree

[TheRovingGourmet]

4. Well, you mix a lot of unrelated items all together but that is

okay. What you, and others, need to understand is that your average gun owner wants law enforcement efforts directed against those that use or possess guns illegally instead of wasting time, money, and effort going against those that are not the problem. Nothing that you mention addresses this but does illustrate why traditional gun control falls flat with so many voters.

You fail to mention one big casualty at Waco, posse comitatas. We all lost that day but so few realize it. At least we have stopped executing such poorly planned raids for now.

[poliguru]

5. They aren't unrelated

The average gun owner does not seem to understand that the majority of "illegal" guns were originally legal but were then stolen from people like them. So they are in the cycle.

What precisely does someone need an assault rifle for?

And I was never for the assault on waco - particularly in the manner in which it was carried out. My point was, to argue we need those weapons to stand down the government is ridiculous. We can't stand down the US military.

[TheRovingGourmet]

7. The average gun owner understands a lot more than you

give them credit for. They understand how nothing will happen if you lie on your Form 4473, a felony. They understand how little actual policing of firearm dealers there is at present and how little goes into catching straw purchasers and prosecuting them when caught. They also understand that the jails are full of people jailed for all sorts of silly things, like having a little pot, so that violent criminals get released early from the, most likely, light sentence they got in the first place. Want me to go on? Or would you rather I say nothing and allow the deflection that politicians so love to continue unabated so that they do not have to address the problems that give rise to so many dangerous people to begin with?

An "assault rifle" is a semi-automatic weapon dolled up to look scary, as has been proven here too many times before. The AWB is a non-issue as far as violent crime is concerned.

Don't assume the military will always follow orders in these types of screw ups. They are we, if you know what I mean. I doubt any anti-government groups would ever stick with guns either.

[poliguru]

10. I think I understand more than you give ME credit for

I'm not arguing that gun laws shouldn't be enforced. To me, THAT is a separate issue. Of course they should. But that's besides the point. And I know what an assault rifle is, and as I said, why does someone need a semi-auto? It's sure as hell not for hunting and downright dangerous for everyone involved in defense of a break in, etc.

And I damn well DO believe the military will follow orders - name a time in history they didn't and I'll give you a hundred where they did. Especially if you're talking US history. You try to stand up to the govt., they and the mdia will demonize you and the military will think they're doing the right thing. Hell, we handed off a bunch of rights with the Patriot Act without blinking, and anyone who challenged it was considered unpatriotic. So tell me again what I don't understand.

[TheRovingGourmet]

17. Enforcing gun laws is the issue. Period. It is also one area

that all politicians shy away from. This won't change any time soon.

The military will not go for long against their family, friends, and fellow countrymen. No politician with any sense would expect them to do so or will give orders to test them on this.

It is also not for you to tell me what I need or don't need. For some things I prefer a semi-auto. Why? This is my business, not yours.

[Arianrhod]

23. We don't have any politicians with any sense in charge right now.

Only desperate, backed-into-a-corner powermongers who will stop at nothing to maintain their position.

[TheRovingGourmet]

27. You just summed up Washington quite well. :)

[T Town Jake]

6. Down in the "Justice/Safety" forum...

...(aka "The Gungeon") I think you'll find a number of people ready, willing, & able to discuss this issue in depth with you. Better wear an asbestos suit, though. The flame wars that rage down there make GD threads look like Emily Post's sitting room on a Sunday afternoon...

[Mountainman]

13. Two points, I think

1. Gun control laws do not stop criminals from getting guns. They may restrict the flow of guns going through legal channels but do nothing to stop guns going through illegal channels. They are not deterrents to criminals. What they do is make more people criminals for failing to abide by the new gun laws, and they make those who support gun control feel good because they think they have done something about the problem of gun violence.

2. Gun owners feel that gun control advocates will not stop at the "sensible" gun control laws but will want to add more and more controls believing that some day they will get rid of all guns. From these debates on DU I tend to agree with gun owners.

[K-W]

16. Not very good points.

1. Most guns used illegally were obtained at some point through legitimate channels. Cutting the supply of legal firearms would cut the number of illegal firearms. Im not saying we should per se, just that your point isnt very good. Less legal firearms is less firearms that can be stolen or resold, which is where most illegal firearms come from.

2. So? Sure, some people want to remove all guns. Thats a silly reason to oppose all gun legislation whatsoever. The slippery slope argument is often misused and this is one example of that. There is certainly always a risk of society going too far, but considering the considerable political clout of gun owners, I dont think its a realistic concern in this situation.

[TheRovingGourmet]

19. I spend much of my time close to the Mexican border. You

would be shocked at just how many resources go into fighting to keep marijuana out of the country. In many communities, it is easier for a kid to get a dime bag than it is to get a pack of smokes.

[K-W]

24. Guns dont grow on trees. But I agree,

total prohibition is not the answer.

[TheRovingGourmet]

25. haha :) No, they don't grow on trees, to my knowledge, but

they do have a way of traveling about on the same "roads" that the drugs do.

[Mountainman]

20. I disagree, they are very good points, you just don't agree with them

1. You create more illegal channels by gun control laws. People will sell or give away guns without reporting the sale. You lose all traceability of the gun after it passes through a couple of hands.

2. The slippery slope is real and it is feared not only by gun owners but by gays, atheists, pro choice people, etc.

[K-W]

28. im afraid the points just arent good

1. That means nothing. The existance of black markets for contraband does not prove that prohibiting or limiting the supply of legitimate guns will have no effect on the supply of illegitimate guns. It is a good argument that it is very difficult to fully eliminate them, but, in fact, the black market is not very efficient. Alot of them get arressted, alot of supply gets siezed. Prices increase, which hurts demand. There is every reason to believe forcing illegal gun demand fully to the black market would reduce illegal gun supply.

2. Yes, slippery slopes are to be feared and watched for, they are not an excuse to stonewall. I dont think, with the clout of the NRA, you have to fear slipping down any slopes in the near future.

[Kenergy]

14. For perspective

Please read "United States v. Emerson" (5th Cir. 2001)
The dicta portion of this case is very enlightening
regarding firearm ownership.

[onebigbadwulf]

18. They get pissed off whe their liberties are removed

because of a 5 day waiting period - but not when the patriot act allows the government to search their houses without probable cause and imprison them without reason.

[cynatnite]

22. It's Because of Gun Nuts & NRA

In their mindset is if you're at home and someone tries to break into your house, you should be able to have whatever kind of gun you want to defend yourself with. They don't have much faith in the police to get there before you're raped or murdered. They also want to protect themselves should the government decide they're bad. We're talking a paranoid lot here.

It's tougher on normal people who have a gun or two.

It's the ones that have 10,000 guns and call themselves 'collectors' I worry about. No matter what, you can't convince them the benefit of having the Brady Bill or some kind of control.

Most gun owners are normal sensible people and they make think that someone who lives in an area with a high crime rate may need a gun in order to defend themselves from roving gangs or something like that.

They also think that since it's in the constitution it's a god-given right, but won't tolerate it being amended at all.

We own a hunting rifle. My husband loves to hunt and we eat what he kills. Our mindset is one of common sense. Guns should be treated like cars. A person should have a license, insurance and the weapons should be registered in addition to having a background check.

For some reason, the gun nuts thinks this means we want to take all their guns away.

There's very little common sense when it comes to this issue.

Cyn:)

[DenaliDemocrat]

46. Good Points

Howevr, if ever there was a case for WHY we have gun ownership (I disagree about the militia being National Guard) one has only to look at this administration. May need to get out our guns and topple them before its all over

[TheRovingGourmet]

51. Actually, this sort of thing trumps anything the NRA could ever

come up with.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x78018

[AWhitneyBrown]

34. One gun owner says;

Just as you mention that long guns (rifles and shotguns) are a part of rural life, handguns are a part of urban life. Different gun for different targets. Since I live in the suburbs, I like to have both.
The real question for me is, if you can have a gun, why not? They're cool, they're useful, they're fun.
And just the fact that anybody might have them, makes the cops knock before they bash in your door.
The bottom line is, so long as the Montana Militia and the Aryan Nation has guns - I want 'em, too. And just as many and just as big.
And by the way, why should cops be the only ones armed? They're a bunch of assholes and they kill plenty of innocent people, but you never hear folks trying to take their guns away.
It's a question of fairness, is all.

[Guaranteed]

42. I'm not against waiting periods or background checks at all.

I am against keeping people from possessing real power in their firearms, though. I believe the 2nd Amendment is there to keep our government in check, so we need to make sure that people will have at least some firepower with which they could defend their homes from infantry should the need arise.

I don't think they should be allowed grenades, explosives, AA guns, etc. That's too dangerous. But they need at least a minimal amount of ability to keep fascist assholes from overrunning their homes- just enough to make them think twice about it.

[elderly man]

43. curiosity about the pro-gun stance

Why should a semi-auto not be considered for use as a tool
for hunting?

[elderly man]

44. original message

Upon reading the posts it becomes apparent that gun ownership
and usage is an emotional and devisive issue.
We should not loose focus,but remain concentrated on the main
issue of regime change in november.

With regard to semi-automatic firearms, I have been hunting with
a semi-automatic shotgun for about forty years, and the gun was
about twenty years old when I purchased it. The point being that
the use of semiautomatic firearms for hunting goes back to near
the turn of the century.
Moreover, the use of semi-automatic firearms for hunting is widespread. I suspect the major portion of arms used for hunting
are semi-automatic.
My semi-automatic shotgun has a capacity for five shells. Federal
law dictates that for duck hunting the capacity be reduced to three
shells by inserting a wooden plug in the magazine,which I have done.
Capacity may be reduced to two,one, or zero by proper choice of plug.
Would any of the options be acceptable to those who oppose the
use of automatic firearms for hunting

[poliguru]

47. Sure

Like I said, I'm not a hunter. That's why I asked, and I appreciate your enlightening me on those particular regulations. But it irritates me when reasonable limits like waiting periods, background checks, and banning armor-piercing bullets is villanized.

What's the problem with a waiting period? Everyone knows when hunting season starts - people can't plan ahead? The answer is because it's not hunters who the law is aimed at. Background checks, extended to places like gun shows? Do we really think it's OK to let someone out of prison for a violent crime and then arm them? Armor-piercing bullets? Don't delude yourself, everyone - they AREN't bought and used by people concerned about defending themselves from abuse of the people's liberties (and, as I have pointed out, it's futile and, IMO, paranoid anyway).

To the one who suggested we may need to rise up soon because of Bush, give me a break. We have regularly had liberties taken away from the people during wartime or states of emergency. I'm not defending it, I think it's wrong, but we have always seen the return of those liberties and never needed to "rise up" to get them. The protests of the people have simply meant that the liberties lost have come back sooner and been less publicly acceptable, which is an improvement. Even if Bush is reelected (God forbid), it's 4 years, and then a new person in the White House. And I'm about as anti-Bush as you can get. This is politics, not revolution. Get some perspective.

[TheRovingGourmet]

50. You are framing everything in the context of hunting. That is

more and more of minor issue. Your choice of words shows that you generally follow the statements made by anti-gun people. I don't mean that as an insult; that is just the way I read your posts.

You make statements like arming violent felons. No one wants that. Until recent years nothing was really done if they did get arms though. Waiting periods? That would do what? Stop a murder? It might stop someone from getting a weapon because their life is in immediate danger but if someone wants to kill, they will, gun or no gun. Background checks are great and even the NRA wants them for private sales. Get a clean bill in the works and it will go through. Fill this bill up with crap and it won't.

[skygazer]

48. Quite honestly

I like guns and I like to shoot. I don't hunt. I'm not a man so "penis" has nothing to do with it. I grew up in a rural area and learned to shoot and respect a weapon at a young age.

I have no quibble with waiting periods - seems like a sensible thing to me. I own many firearms and use them for target shooting. Like any sport, what I enjoy is mastering the use of a finely made piece of equipment. I've never shot an animal or a human and most likely never will.

I own handguns, hunting rifles and semi-automatic weapons. Why the semis? Because they're fun to fire. I keep them locked in gun safes except for the 9 mm that's next to my bed.

I've known many people from all walks of life - none of the crooks I've known have ever owned a legal weapon. That said, I do beleive in sensible gun laws but I think they should be administered at the state or even local level because the situation in Vermont is a helluva lot different than that in Oakland, CA.

[Scrat]

49. Gun Facts

poliguru,

I wasn't going to register at this site but I saw your questions and you seem to be honestly seeking some answers. I have seen a few answers thrown your way concerning this issue but there were a few that got away and I didn't feel like you were answered very well.

1.) Semi-autos are not the horrible guns that you seem to think they are. Most of your hunting rifles and shotguns are semi-auto. I use a .22 that is semi-auto for squirrels and semi-auto shotguns for squirrel/birds.

2.) Stats do not show that you are more at risk with a gun in your home. There was a study done long ago that was debunked that showed that and it is still mis"quoted". One of those things that "If you say it long enough it will be true" needs to go away.

3.) IF you were ever unfortunate enough to have someone come 'calling' at your home uninvited YOU are the best protection that you and your family have. You can dial 911 all day long but the cops are usually there after the fact. They simply cannot be everywhere all the time and the bad guys don't look for hard targets. You won't see them breaking into the police station or the local armory. They look for soft targets to attack. If you had a sign in your yard that announced that you had no firearms and a neighbor had one that said NRA member lives here I would bet on your home being broken into first. Whether you were there or not.

4.) Waiting periods .... does it infringe on my rights? Sure does! A right delayed is a right denied, right? If you think waiting periods are really the way to go why not ask some of those who were in LA during the riots who tried to get guns RIGHT THEN to protect their property .... The only ones who could protect their property were those who already owned guns. Remember the pictures of them standing on top of their stores aiming guns at the looters? The cops couldn't/wouldn't help them so they helped themselves....glad they already had their guns.

5.) Background checks .... They already have background checks at gun shows. What they don't have is background checks on private sales. Which is the way it should be. If I want to sell one of my guns to a brother or friend I shouldn't have to take it to a gun dealer to have a background check ran.

6.) The 2nd amendment does in fact give me the right to keep and bear arms. If the framers had not wanted me to have a gun it would have been much simpler to word it that way. We did not have the National Guard back then so they could not have been talking about them. The militia is any able bodied man 18-65 (in most states) and you should have your own firearm to defend yourself and your state. Look up your state constitution and you will find that you are probably supposed to have a firearm in defence of your state.

7.) Oh yeah, gun owners can not only defend themselves but you as well if the gov't comes a calling when they shouldn't. Think about it. If we get to a point where we are going to have a civil way (odd term but there it is) there will be much discussion and sides picked. some of those will come from the military and they will more likely than not bring their hardware with them to add to what most of us already have. Not to mention that if you are successful in a couple of ambushes .... to the victor go the spoils. Do some research on some of the wars ... You will find it fascinating how inventive man can be. Not to mention that IF we had a civil way we would probably have foreign powers to back one or both sides hoping to get some of the left over spoils for themselves.

Well, there ya go. No yelling, name calling or anything else. Just ol' fashion logic and a fine sense of knowing the laws. I have been in this battle for a long time. OH one more thing .........

Assault rifles were NOT made to kill. They were made to maim and injure but not kill. You would die a lot quicker being shot by almost any hunting gun. That is why you don't hunt with 'Assault rifles'. AND almost ANY hunting rifle shoots ..... armor piercing rounds. Sorry that is the way they are made. There is far too much mis'information' out there and I try to head most of it off where I find it. That is the only reason I registered here....for just this post. Hope it helps you and if you need some good research let me know ..... I would be more than happy to help you out with this topic.

cya,
KC