Oh those pesky assult rifles......

[Beavah]

Thats like justifying driving a Corvette instead of a Smart car. Some folks just like bigger and faster.

 

Yah, I agree with this, eh? I'm not in favor of restrictin' other people's hobbies. I don't much care for quilting or see any pleasure in it, but it doesn't mean that I want quilting to be banned. As a general aviation pilot, I enjoy flyin' for business and recreation, and I don't much care for folks who say "you can just take an airline like everybody else."

 

What's a might more disturbin' in all these threads, though, is that a fair number of folks aren't talkin' about firearms as a hobby, where they just enjoy huntin' or target shootin' or whatnot. They report carryin' out of fear - fear of economic collapse, of government takeover, of looters/invaders. It'd be like me claimin' I fly airplanes because I'm worried about needin' a quick getaway from evil men, or a dive-bomb platform to stave off da government agents. Nah, it's just a hobby.

 

Yah, sure, our hobbies can sometimes perform a public service. I've volunteered to fly organs for organ donations or to take rural folks into urban hospitals for treatment. But when we're performin' a public service, we're doin' that workin' with others and da civilian authorities as part of a team, not workin' out of fear of da civilian authorities.

 

Da other thing is that if I want to fly bigger aircraft, there are additional regulations, licensure classes, and proficiency requirements. More insurance, too. That seems reasonable to me. If I decide my hobby is suborbital space plane launches, I'd expect my fellow citizens to exercise a bit more oversight than if I'm just sightseein' in a Piper Cub. Within' da pilot and engineerin' communities, I'd also be expected to maintain higher proficiency and standards. So I reckon that perhaps it's OK for our fellow citizens to exercise a bit more oversight over high-velocity semiautomatics with a drum of frangible rounds than my Austin & Halleck muzzleloader, and within' da shootin' community da expectation should be that folks with more sophisticated rifles also demonstrate higher proficiency and standards.

 

So I'd say some of da failures in CT are a woman who was a fearful soul worried about "economic collapse" rather than someone who was a genuine firearms hobbyist, who was possessin' stuff beyond her own experience or proficiency as demonstrated by not exercisin' proper care and storage around a son she knew to be mentally unstable. That's perhaps somethin' both da shootin' community and our fellow citizens have an interest in, eh? In da same way they'd have an interest in me buyin' a Russian MIG fighter jet in preparation for class warfare and leavin' it out for da local fellow who preaches Jihad against Capitalism on Fridays.

 

Beavah

 

[AZMike]

"Those men and women guarding us are well-trained, and well vetted. Yeah, I'll trust them over some guy who has never gone through that kind of training walking off the street and buying a civilian version of that weapon. "

 

Like Major Nidal Hassan at Ft. Hood?

 

Or former Marine Charles Whitman? He killed 13 people and wounded 32 others in Austin with a bolt-action rifle, didn't need an "assault rifle." He was an Eagle Scout as well.

 

Or former Marine Lee Harvey Oswald? He only killed one man with a bolt action Mannlicher-Carcano, but certainly created more chaos than anyone else you can name.

 

Or John Allan Muhammad, the D.C. Sniper and honorably discharged army veteran?

 

Or David "Son of Sam" Berkowitz, an honorably discharged army veteran who killed at last 8 people with a Charter Arms Bulldog revolver?

 

Or honorably discharged Gulf War veteran Timothy McVeigh, who killed 168, including 19 kids under the age of 6, without firing a single round from an "assault weapon."

 

Talk to any M.P. or any police offer in a base town, you'll hear stories that will curl your hair about what trained and vetted soldiers are capable of.(This message has been edited by AZMike)

[JMHawkins]

How many rounds does one need for ... basic self/home defense? What's reasonable? 6, 10, 30, 50? Just asking?

 

Dunno. How many rounds is it going to take to drive off or incapacitate the bad guy(s)? 7, 11, 31, 51? What do you say when the answer ends up being one more than the number you advocated as the limit? Oops, sorry? Just askin'...

 

 

 

 

[Eagle732]

AZ, this is exactly why those that argue only the military should have weapons are wrong.

 

"How many rounds does one need for ... basic self/home defense?" My answer would be at least one more than is necessary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Basementdweller]

Mike you forgot one that was nearly as bad as New Town.... Robert Bales

 

 

 

 

 

[AZMike]

One of the issues that is often brought up is that the police have the need for high-capacity magazines, but civilians do not.

 

How is that again? Police don't carry firearms to execute enemies of the state, they carry them for the same reason civilians do - self defense. (And yes, I know that police officers are actually civilians as defined by law. You know what I mean.) If we believe we were created with the right to self-defense as part of our humanity and personal dignity, we should have the right to an effective means of self-defense. There is a reason that few law enforcement officers in America carry revolvers any more.

 

As the evidence seems to show that more law-abiding civilians, on a monthly basis, use firearms (including "assault weapons" and high-capacity semi-automatic pistols) to prevent loss of life than to take life, would banning such weapons cause a greater loss of life than if such laws were not in place? How is that moral?

[Beavah]

Yah, AZMike, but law enforcement officers are paid by da rest of us to go seek out and arrest criminals, eh? Their needs for self defense are somewhat higher than me goin' to da grocery store. In fact, believin' that my need for self defense goin' to da grocer is da same as a LEO on the job is a sign of mental illness.

 

As the evidence seems to show that more law-abiding civilians, on a monthly basis, use firearms (including "assault weapons" and high-capacity semi-automatic pistols) to prevent loss of life than to take life, would banning such weapons cause a greater loss of life than if such laws were not in place? How is that moral?

 

Yah, yeh need to be careful about "evidence" like that, eh? It's very hard to do any genuine research on this stuff, and da topic is littered with crap lobbyist "research" on both sides. Even so, there are lots of ways what yeh suggest could be "moral", though I tend to think of it as a public policy question rather than in da black-and-white. A change could yield short-term problems but longer term improvement would be one example. Da reduction in access could lead to economic changes that benefited families and da nation as spending shifted from guns and ammo to more productive and sustainable family investments. Maybe if folks have da money for an extra family vacation a year to reconnect with their kids, their kids won't be takin' da family arsenal to school to blow away their peers in a disaffected funk.

 

It's just a practical public policy question with lots of variables, eh? Not a black-and-white moral one.

 

Beavah

 

[noname]

Sorry Beave- I carry a gun cause a cop is too heavy!

[Beavah]

Yah, noname, but da question still remains.

 

Why do yeh feel yeh need to have a cop with you 24/7?

 

Unless you're a celebrity of some sort, or a high-profile public official like the POTUS, da notion that yeh need a 24/7 armed law enforcement body guard most of us would consider delusional.

 

Again, I've long been an advocate of "shall issue" CCW laws and have no problem with mentally stable, well-trained, responsible citizens carryin'.

 

But these threads here have made me question that, to be honest. Feelin' a need for 24/7 armed protection in da woods or in suburban America doesn't pass the "mentally stable" test.

 

It's fine as a hobby, eh? Somethin' you enjoy for personal reasons and if yeh blundered into da one in a million situation yeh might contribute thoughtfully. But to my mind it's not OK if it's somethin' yeh feel yeh need, or must have on a BSA campout because yeh can't sleep at night without it, or stockpile for fear of da imminent breakdown of society. That stuff ain't rational, and irrational folks should not be permitted to possess firearms.

 

Beavah

 

[CalicoPenn]

"One of the issues that is often brought up is that the police have the need for high-capacity magazines, but civilians do not."

 

The real question is which is the tail and which is the dog? The police see a need for high capacity magazines because they're faced with the possibility that civilians they encounter (whether that civilian is a "criminal" (read gangbanger) or deranged like the Colorado shooter, or is stressed out in a domestic disturbance, or is just a guy who wants to help out if they see a crime being committed have high capacity magazines. If civilians didn't have access to high capacity magazines, would the police then feel that it's a neccessity to have high capacity magazines of their own?

 

I've always found it interesting that many of the more strident pro-gun folks also like to loudly proclaim they are more pro-law enforcement than other people but completely ignore calls from law enforcement to restrict certain guns, and high capacity magazines, and who oppose concealed carry because it makes their jobs less safe.

 

I oppose concealed carry - but I support your right to carry - I would much rather that folks that carry be required to carry openly - either by openly displaying the gun in a holster, or if the gun is carried under a coat, or in a purse, by some kind of identification device that will tell me at a glance that you're armed.

 

[perdidochas]

Calico,

 

Is it law enforcement officers or politicians asking for certain guns to be banned?

 

 

[Stosh]

Regardless of the laws, criminals will find a source of large magazine automatic weaponry. It is imperative that our police have equal if not better firepower than the criminal. But when the police are not around is where criminals are most often found plying their trade. The police can't be everywhere all the time. Thus there are "blind-spots" in the scenario that the law-abiding people feel needs filling if nothing more than self defense. If that be true, shouldn't the citizens be given the same level of protection afforded the police for self-defense?

 

Stosh

[Beavah]

If that be true, shouldn't the citizens be given the same level of protection afforded the police for self-defense?

 

Nah, that logic doesn't follow at all.

 

It's like sayin' that EMS or fire can't be everywhere within a limited time ("blind spots"), so da civilians should all carry intravenous drugs and powered extraction equipment (jaws of life), with red and blue flashers and sirens on their private cars "just in case" they have to transport da injured themselves to da hospital within the golden hour.

 

And that scenario is far more likely than needin' to respond with firepower to a crime in progress.

 

Beavah

 

 

 

[Eagle732]

Civilians do carry Epi pens and AED are becoming more available and are so simple to use anyone that can read or interpret a simple drawing can operate one. And how about all those fire extinguishers and fire hoses you see in buildings, are they just for the trained professionals?

And the vast majority of those professionals fire and EMS personnel are really volunteers.

[Stosh]

I don't think the comments were faulty logic. I never been a professional EMS person, but I have been trained in EMT-A, carry current CPR certification as well as first aid, all our boys are first aid trained, I was a Emergency Rescue Technician, and even though I no longer am certified, I did know what to do for a gentleman having a seizure last Sunday night.

 

If given the proper training, Mr. Joe Average can be a very capable asset in our society.

 

I know how to use a fire extinguisher and have had to use it in an emergency situation. As a matter of fact, I have yet to see a professional firefighter use a wall extinguisher...ever.

 

So, according to your logic, with all the EMS, police and firefighters out there, all my "Be Prepared" skills are useless or not needed?

 

Sorry, by there are gaping holes in such logic.

 

If the public is properly trained, they can provide invaluable service during the response time in an emergency.

 

First responders/civilian CPR until EMS shows up.

 

Wall fire extinguishers until the fire department shows up.

 

Conceal carry until the police show up.

 

Nothing illogical about that.

 

Stosh