Gun Confiscation

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmac00

Common sense dictates that one should have a tool in case it's needed, rather than wait til it's needed and then try go purchase the tool.

---

True.

Quote:

---

I don't NEED a hammer, I HAVE four of them. I don't use them everyday, but they are there in case I need one.

I don't NEED a chain saw, I rarely ever use it. But when I do NEED it, I can get it and put it to use in a moments notice.

I don't NEED a fire extinguisher, but I have one just in case.

I am safer WITH these weapons ( AR-15, 44mag, 380, 12ga) because if I need them, I have them. If I don't have them and I need them, Im screwed and so is my family.

---

Hammers, chain saws and fire extinguishers are rarely if ever the weapon choice of mass-shooting perpetrators; AR-15s and like weapons are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scrogdog

Think so?

Well, I suggest that you consider that even though I have not called myself a republican since about mid-way through Shrub's second term, I still consider myself a Reagan conservative AND I have never, not once, voted against how the NRA would vote on ANY gun issue.

But I'm prepared to do so now. That should tell you something but clearly has not rung a bell with any of you.

So, keep your rose colored glasses on and your tunnel- vision blinders, and we'll see what happens.

---

WHY?

That is the important question in my mind?

Why now? What has changed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geerair

True.

Hammers, chain saws and fire extinguishers are rarely if ever the weapon choice of mass-shooting perpetrators; AR-15s and like weapons are.

---

Hammers have killed more people than "AR-15 and like weapons"



Gun killings get more play.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgA-Ub4uY7k

Listen to the Oracle....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jpsmith1cm

I'm looking at the problem of "gun" violence through a wider lens.

If we were to ban to tools used to commit crimes without addressing the root causes of the crimes being committed, then we'll leave a criminal class to look for new tools with which to commit their crimes.

---

Which is why the movement is towards a comprehensive solution which includes but is not limited to an examination of weapons.

Quote:

---

If, however, we stop and think logically about the problem of "gun" violence, we come to realize that it isn't a GUN problem, but a VIOLENCE problem. Guns are simply handy tools with which to commit violence.

---

Which elegantly argues that part of the solution is to limit the availablity of these weapons.

Quote:

---

SO, let's do the difficult thing rather than the easy thing, and look to the root causes of the VIOLENCE problem and find ways to resolve them rather than ignoring the root cause.

---

I believe the seriousl proposals include a scrutiny of root causes. One of those root causes is the availabilty of weapons used in mass-shootings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geerair

Which is why the movement is towards a comprehensive solution which includes but is not limited to an examination of weapons.

Which elegantly argues that part of the solution is to limit the availablity of these weapons.

I believe the seriousl proposals include a scrutiny of root causes. One of those root causes is the availabilty of weapons used in mass-shootings.

---

Guns do not CAUSE crime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jpsmith1cm

Hammers have killed more people than "AR-15 and like weapons"

---

Since blunt force statistics aren't broken down by type of weapon used it is impossible to determine the accuracy of your statement.

Be that as it may, how many mass-shootings have occurred with hammers as the weapon?

Quote:

---

Gun killings get more play.

---

Given the rarity and grusomeness of a hammer murder, I would expect these murders receive adequate play.

However, if a mass-shooting was pulled off with a hammer, I have no doubt the news coverage would be extensive, prolonged and worldwide.

Quote:

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgA-Ub4uY7k

Listen to the Oracle....

---

Could you summarize and provide context for this video?

Argument by video is weak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geerair

Argument by video is weak.

---

Since you didn't view the video, it is Biden stating that the proposed legislation won't prevent mass murders.

If it doesn't do what it is intended to do, then why do it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jpsmith1cm

Guns do not CAUSE crime.

---

I'm not saying they did. However they are the weapon of choice for mass-shootings. As such, the availabilty of these weapons (AR=15 and like) must be considered as part of a solution to mass-shootings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geerair

I'm not saying they did. However they are the weapon of choice for mass-shootings. As such, the availabilty of these weapons (AR=15 and like) must be considered as part of a solution to mass-shootings.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geerair

I believe the seriousl proposals include a scrutiny of root causes. One of those root causes is the availabilty of weapons used in mass-shootings.

---

So, which is it, geer?

The proposed gun laws are an attempt by honest citizens to effect change to help solve a problem. I certainly respect their view. However it is much like the stampede that lead up to prohibition.They are ill informed and most have no idea of the consequences.

The proposed laws are not so simple. The ban on "Assault weapons" would make millions of legal guns illegal and subject to be registered. What do you do with the legal high capacity magazine clips, that just become illegal? You confiscate them!
The deputy director of the National Institute for Justice--DOJ's research andevaluation agency--said that the proposals before Congress are unlikely to have an effect unless they are made even more draconian. For instance, the document makes clear that the effectiveness of "universal" background checks"depends on … requiring gun registration." On the topic of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, NIJ writes, "In order to have an impact, large capacity magazine regulation needs to sharply curtail availability to include restrictions on importation, manufacture, sale, and possession." As for popular semi-automatic firearms, the NIJ notes,"Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to U.S. gun homicideand the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapons ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptionsthen it could be effective."

I think it is pretty clear where this is headed. All good intentioned but misguided just the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jpsmith1cm

Hammers have killed more people than "AR-15 and like weapons"



Gun killings get more play.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgA-Ub4uY7k

Listen to the Oracle....

---

Biden is right, no legislation will prevent all mass-shootings.

There is however the possibility that reduced availabilty as part of a comprehensive package will make it more difficult to accomplish a mass-shooting or reduce the number of victims or prevent a mass-shooting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geerair

Biden is right, no legislation will prevent all mass-shootings.

There is however the possibility that reduced availabilty as part of a comprehensive package will make it more difficult to accomplish a mass-shooting or reduce the number of victims or prevent a mass-shooting.

---

Given all of the laws being broken during a mass shooting, it is completely illogical to believe this.

Reduction in availability would only happen if confiscation were done, and many of those who currently support this legislation would turn around on it if confiscation were a part of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jpsmith1cm

So, which is it, geer?

---

Do you detect a contradiction between those statements? I don't.