How Gun Makers Can Help Us

[Axiom_Blade]

1) Who is this person trying to shoot you? Would they be criminals who have illegally purchased their firearms? How would stricter gun laws prevent this person from obtaining their illegal firearms?

The person would only be a criminal once they had committed a crime.
Whether or not the person could obtain the weapon in spite of the stricter law would depend on how the law was written and enforced.

2) You say you fear being shot because you are an easy target. Why? Could it be that your assailant knows you do not carry a weapon because large U.S. cities prohibit citizens from carrying handguns legally?

Seriously, if someone's trying to shoot me, having a gun to defend myself would be small consolation, even if I was trained in its use. I would rather avoid the situation coming up at all.

3) If firearm owners "rarely" use their weapons for self-defense as you claim, exactly what is the frequency of criminals shooting at you so far in your life? Would zero be an accurate assessment?

Yes, fortunately zero. I did have a gun pulled on me and some friends once.
It was not by a "criminal", but by a concerned homeowner who didn't think we belonged in his neighborhood. Yes, one of my idiot friends threw some trash on the guy's yard, but that still doesn't qualify as "self defense". (We were not on his property, either.)

What's the frequency of criminals shooting at you? Why do you need one for self-defense?

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

The person would only be a criminal once they had committed a crime.
Whether or not the person could obtain the weapon in spite of the stricter law would depend on how the law was written and enforced.

Actually, someone become a criminal the instant they begin the crime, so the proper description would be, "the person would only be a criminal once they commit a crime." Again, during a crime, my chances are slim to none, and I want as much stuff as I can get piled onto the, "slim," side of the equation.

You do know that there's a brisk business in the US of hobbyists making their own machine guns, right? The full-auto restrictions are on interstate sales, so as long as you make your own firearm and never sell it, even IN-state, you're pretty much legal in states allowing full-auto firearms as long as you're in compliance with federal law.

So: Will your proposed law cover restricting the sale of plumbing parts? There's nothing special about making a firearm.

Seriously, if someone's trying to shoot me, having a gun to defend myself would be small consolation, even if I was trained in its use. I would rather avoid the situation coming up at all.

Good luck with that. If it happens, how much consolation will calling 911, or its local equivalent, be?

Do you try to avoid situations where you'll get a flat tire? Do you carry a spare tire, anyway?

Yes, fortunately zero. I did have a gun pulled on me and some friends once.
It was not by a "criminal", but by a concerned homeowner who didn't think we belonged in his neighborhood. Yes, one of my idiot friends threw some trash on the guy's yard, but that still doesn't qualify as "self defense". (We were not on his property, either.)

I love to hear that. Seriously. It means, pretty much, that the rule of law is working.

What's the frequency of criminals shooting at you? Why do you need one for self-defense?

More often than I've had flat tires. I still carry a spare tire.

 

[Ziggurat]

Whether or not the person could obtain the weapon in spite of the stricter law would depend on how the law was written and enforced.

Gun crime rates in cities (such as DC) with very strict gun laws suggest that it cannot be done - certainly it hasn't been.

Seriously, if someone's trying to shoot me, having a gun to defend myself would be small consolation,

And yet, it would be your only consolation. Having someone else call the cops won't cut it, and knowing that they own the gun illegally is of no consolation. I'd take small consolation over no consolation any day of the week.

I would rather avoid the situation coming up at all.

So would most people. But many people cannot do so, because they are poor and live in dangerous areas. As I said before, gun control is discriminatory.

 

[Cicero]

Hi


You do know that there's a brisk business in the US of hobbyists making their own machine guns, right? The full-auto restrictions are on interstate sales, so as long as you make your own firearm and never sell it, even IN-state, you're pretty much legal in states allowing full-auto firearms as long as you're in compliance with federal law.

If you are referring to United States v. Stewart (2003), it is still very much illegal to own, or manufacture any full auto/select fire receiver or parts if the receiver is not registered with ATF, or you do not have a SOT license.

I do not know where you got the idea that there is a "brisk business" in home made mg/smg's. Just calling it a "business" would negate your supposition that these illegal firearms were expressly for personnel use. Either way, they are very much illegal.

"Raich holds that Congress can use the Commerce Clause to ban homegrown marijuana; the implication of the Court's vacation is that Congress also has the power to criminalize the possession of homemade machine guns even though they were never involved in a commercial transaction."

 

[Cicero]

Actually, in the famous photo of the attempted assassination of Reagan, the secret service agent brandishing the IMI UZI retrieved it from a special briefcase. You can see the open case to the far right of the agent in this photo.


Cicero, I have to say that you are a wealth of information. I must have seen that picture a couple dozen times, but I never noticed the briefcase. The case is right there on the pavement, wow. I may be wrong on the shoulder rig then, although I'm positive I read from a couple of different sources that they did use them. Right before I retired I had a class III dealer bring a dealer sample MP5K operational briefcase to my shop for refinishing of the gun, the claw mount, and the trigger/drawbar mechanism inside the case. He mentioned that the Secret Service has purchased a number of them and have them in inventory. Is there any truth to that?

The Secret Service no doubt utilizes such a case for their H & K's today. As far as the shoulder rigs, I have never spotted one in use, and the bulge from even a mini/micro UZI would tend to be a dead giveaway under a suit jacket.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

If you are referring to United States v. Stewart (2003), it is still very much illegal to own, or manufacture any full auto/select fire receiver or parts if the receiver is not registered with ATF, or you do not have a SOT license.

I do not know where you got the idea that there is a "brisk business" in home made mg/smg's. Just calling it a "business" would negate your supposition that these illegal firearms were expressly for personnel use. Either way, they are very much illegal.

"Raich holds that Congress can use the Commerce Clause to ban homegrown marijuana; the implication of the Court's vacation is that Congress also has the power to criminalize the possession of homemade machine guns even though they were never involved in a commercial transaction."

Thanks for the correction.

The business involved is about designs and kits, from what I'd heard. I'll have to recheck my sources.

As for me, I can't afford to feed a full-auto, so I wasn't going to make one. Still, they can be made form stuff you can buy from a plumbing supply or steal form a construction site. In fact, it's easier to make a full-auto weapon than a semi-auto.

As such, the question still stands: Will this theoretical access-control law be extended to things that people who are already intent on breaking the law can use to create firearms, because that list is awfully long.

...and as for that Uzi armpit rig: Please notice that none of the weapons shown has a MAGAZINE! It would stuck out the back of your suit jacket like...

like...

like a 30 round Uzi magazine, I guess.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

So: Will your proposed law cover restricting the sale of plumbing parts? There's nothing special about making a firearm.

Where did I propose a law?

I love to hear that. Seriously. It means, pretty much, that the rule of law is working.

Please tell me this is a troll.
So, you think a society where people get guns waved at them over minor infractions is a good one, huh?
That's not "rule of law", anyway; it's vigilantism.

More often than I've had flat tires. I still carry a spare tire.

So, you just carry a gun around everywhere you go?
You'd be even safer if you wore a bulletproof vest. And...a helmet, too. Because you never know when something heavy could fall on you.
So, a bulletproof vest, and a helmet...no, there's still stuff that can get through that. Just go full body armor. That's pretty safe. Although I'd suggest getting a rocket pack, too, because if a large vehicle hit you, you could still be injured. So it's better to just fly everywhere. Besides, it's a frigging rocket pack. How cool is THAT?

Why go Dirty Harry, when you can go full-on Robocop?

 

[Ziggurat]

So, a bulletproof vest, and a helmet...no, there's still stuff that can get through that.

Yes indeed: a knife, for example. How do you propose one defend oneself against an attacker that is physically stronger than you and has a weapon like a knife or a baseball bat?

You're not interested in letting people defend themselves, because you think it's possible to achieve a utopia where no one needs to ever do so. All we need is the right laws, the appropriate centralized controls on people's behaviors, and paradise will come. But that is a delusion, and a dangerous one at that.

 

[WildCat]

So, you just carry a gun around everywhere you go?
You'd be even safer if you wore a bulletproof vest. And...a helmet, too. Because you never know when something heavy could fall on you.
So, a bulletproof vest, and a helmet...no, there's still stuff that can get through that. Just go full body armor. That's pretty safe. Although I'd suggest getting a rocket pack, too, because if a large vehicle hit you, you could still be injured. So it's better to just fly everywhere. Besides, it's a frigging rocket pack. How cool is THAT?

Why go Dirty Harry, when you can go full-on Robocop?

Ah, reduced to histrionics and strawman arguments. Well done Gagglenash!

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Yes indeed: a knife, for example. How do you propose one defend oneself against an attacker that is physically stronger than you and has a weapon like a knife or a baseball bat?

At that point, running seems like a good option.
If that's not possible, I'm sure there's any number of things you can do to disarm your opponent, provided you're quicker than they are. A lot of it depends on how well-trained in self-defense you are.

How do you propose I defend myself if somebody who's quicker gets the drop on me with a handgun?

You're not interested in letting people defend themselves, because you think it's possible to achieve a utopia where no one needs to ever do so. All we need is the right laws, the appropriate centralized controls on people's behaviors, and paradise will come. But that is a delusion, and a dangerous one at that.

Guns don't kill people...they just make killing people really friggin' easy.
Of course, I'm not proposing that by banning handguns a "utopia" will come about. I don't think that anybody's suggesting that, except for pro-gun people who want a straw man they can tear apart.

I think that people should be able to defend themselves, sure. Only a total nut would say otherwise. (Again, straw...) I'm just questioning that they should be allowed to defend themselves with guns...not knives, baseball bats, nunchakus, swords, or just plain ol' fists.

What makes guns different is their speed, efficiency, and range. Nobody would be able to create a massacre like Columbine or Virginia Tech with knives or baseball bats. Nobody's going to climb into a clocktower and start picking off people with throwing knives. And if they did, most of the victims wouldn't die.

 

[Ziggurat]

At that point, running seems like a good option.

If you're an older person, and your attacker is young, that won't work either.

If that's not possible, I'm sure there's any number of things you can do to disarm your opponent, provided you're quicker than they are.

In other words, if you posit physical superiority. Which is frequently not the case. And which (in the case of older people and women) the attacker can frequently determine before they choose their victim.

A lot of it depends on how well-trained in self-defense you are.

And if you're physically weak, well, who cares, right?

How do you propose I defend myself if somebody who's quicker gets the drop on me with a handgun?

Sometimes you're out of luck no matter what. But it's rather ironic that you bring up this objection, since you want to expand the pool of people who might face a situation where they cannot defend themselves.

Guns don't kill people...they just make killing people really friggin' easy.

Which provides more benefit to the physically frail far more than to the physically strong. Which means the net benefit accrues to potential victims, not potential perpetrators.

Of course, I'm not proposing that by banning handguns a "utopia" will come about.

Yes you are, you're just not labelling it as such. Your logic is completely predicated on the notion that outlawing guns will prevent outlaws from having them, when the data indicates that this never happens.

I think that people should be able to defend themselves, sure. I'm just questioning that they should be allowed to defend themselves with guns...not knives, baseball bats, nunchakus, swords, or just plain ol' fists.

Sorry, but every single method you propose requires parity in physical ability. And that does not exist, even with training, for the elderly (especially elderly women). So you think they should be allowed to defend themselves, just not with the one thing which will actually work.

What makes guns different is their speed, efficiency, and range.

And the fact that everything else you mentioned depends upon physical strength to be effective.

Nobody would be able to create a massacre like Columbine or Virginia Tech with knives or baseball bats.

That exact scenario? No, but then, it might also have played out differently had more people been armed. Which is what happened in Colorado Springs: that incident didn't get nearly as much attention precisely because the shooter was himself shot.

But are you aware that most of the killing in Rwanda was done with machettes and not guns? Yes, I know, that's not exactly likely to happen here, but it illustrates another important point: in conflicts involving weapons like knives or baseball bats, a lone person is essentially helpless against a group. As with physical strength, guns also provide the only real hope for defense against larger numbers. And gangs most definitely are a problem in parts of the US. Robeeb's personal annecdote involved facing off two possible assailants with a gun is a case in point that the issue of numerical superiority for the attackers is not hypothetical at all.

 

[senorpogo]

At that point, running seems like a good option.
If that's not possible, I'm sure there's any number of things you can do to disarm your opponent, provided you're quicker than they are. A lot of it depends on how well-trained in self-defense you are.

You expect my uncoordinated self to box a knife wielding tweeker?

Nobody would be able to create a massacre like Columbine or Virginia Tech with knives or baseball bats.

Nobody? Ever hear of the Congo?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-05-27-congo_N.htm

 

[senorpogo]

And that does not exist, even with training, for the elderly (especially elderly women).

Not mention that women would pretty much always be at a disadvantage.

But are you aware that most of the killing in Rwanda was done with machettes and not guns?

Darn. You beat me to it.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Where did I propose a law?

How else are you going to get rid of the guns?

Please tell me this is a troll.
So, you think a society where people get guns waved at them over minor infractions is a good one, huh?
That's not "rule of law", anyway; it's vigilantism.

You said that you'd never been shot at. I can't say that, and I wish to hell I could. I am delighted that you can.

In the state of Indiana, with 100,000 issued concealed-carry licenses issued (one of them mine), fewer than 1,000 rescinded (and it's wicked easy to lose your license), and only one incident of a licensed carrier using his firearm to commit a crime (back when I was looking this stuff up - maybe more now), the rate of misdemeanor and felony jackassulation among licensed carriers is significantly lower than that of the general population.

Whoever is waving the gun at you over a minor infraction isn't as law-abiding as you'd think, as that's a Class D felony (class A misdemeanor if the weapon is found to be unloaded)... in Indiana, anyhow.

So, yeah - the fact that you've never been shot at, despite the apparently felonious jackassulaiton of one person pretty much means that things are working, rule-of-law-wise.

So, you just carry a gun around everywhere you go?
You'd be even safer if you wore a bulletproof vest. And...a helmet, too. Because you never know when something heavy could fall on you.
So, a bulletproof vest, and a helmet...no, there's still stuff that can get through that. Just go full body armor. That's pretty safe. Although I'd suggest getting a rocket pack, too, because if a large vehicle hit you, you could still be injured. So it's better to just fly everywhere. Besides, it's a frigging rocket pack. How cool is THAT?

Why go Dirty Harry, when you can go full-on Robocop?

Ok - you say that people with guns are dangerous, and that guns are dangerous, and that anyone with a gun is likely to go off the deep end and start killing people at the drop of the proverbial cowboy hat.

This is about what I expect from the anti-gun crowd, and let me tell you why it doesn't really worry me much.

You then, as soon as you run out of reasonable arguments, start insulting and belittling us. That PROVES that you don't believe what you're saying.

If you thought, for one instant, the things you say were actual facts, you would go WAAAY out of your way not to piss us off. Instead, you say things about us that would start a fight if what you say were the truth.

So, here's my response to your little hypocritical (you are saying that you believe one thing, then acting like you don't, right?) outburst:

I don't carry a firearm to be cool. When I carry, no one knows I'm carrying. I would wear a bullet-proof vest, if I had one, but I don't. To me, carrying a firearm is like having a spare tire or home-owners' insurance: A reasonable precaution against something I hope never happens.

To you, I hope it never happens.

To me, I hope it never happens again.

 

[Cicero]

What makes guns different is their speed, efficiency, and range. Nobody would be able to create a massacre like Columbine or Virginia Tech with knives or baseball bats. Nobody's going to climb into a clocktower and start picking off people with throwing knives. And if they did, most of the victims wouldn't die.

And yet during the 1996 Norh Hollywood Bank of America shoot-out, the two robbers armed with illegally converted full auto AK's fired over 750 rounds at police and civilians and didn't kill anyone.

The high school shootings are more an indictment on parenting and the liberal public school doctrines rather than firearms. Otherwise, this sort of thing would have been happening back in the 1980's, 70's, 60's etc.

Since the University of Texas shooter, Charles Whitman, primarily used an M1 carbine, how does this work with your handgun ban?

 

[GreyICE]

And yet during the 1996 Norh Hollywood Bank of America shoot-out, the two robbers armed with illegally converted full auto AK's fired over 750 rounds at police and civilians and didn't kill anyone.

The high school shootings are more an indictment on parenting and the liberal public school doctrines rather than firearms. Otherwise, this sort of thing would have been happening back in the 1980's, 70's, 60's etc.

Since the University of Texas shooter, Charles Whitman, primarily used an M1 carbine, how does this work with your handgun ban?

Cicero, you misinformed hater, they did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orangeburg_massacre


They are an indictment of liberal parenting, and...

No. You're just like every idiot who is trying to blame the school shootings on lack of gun control or Doom, only you've chosen liberal parenting.

"Oh ho ho, liberal parenting. Why this never happened in the 60s. Or 70s. Oh, but it did... uh... damn TIME TRAVELING LIBERALS!"

Oh, it must be cave-liberals, the precursor to the deadly liberal threat that has now taken over America.

Be careful, you have no idea what superpowers we have. Some of us can time travel. Personally? I can shoot lasers from my eyes.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I used to think that things like Columbine were because of parents.

I was telling my mother that, one time, and I believe I said, "how could any attentive parent NOT KNOW that their kid was making bombs in the garage!?!?"

My mother, fairness-minded and frank, said, "I never know what those little gray things you made in the cellar were. Those were bombs, weren't they?"

For a guy that used to make bombs in the cellar to go and blow up at the abandoned limestone quarries just outside the neighborhood, I certainly am remarkably good at getting hoist by my own petard.

It's not just the parents or the schools. I don't think you can say that it's, "just," anything.

On the other hand, I do not believe that guns are the problem, either!

At my high school, most of the kids were from the outlaying farms, and all of those drivers' licensed showed up to school with their rifles and shotguns in their rear-window racks, and their pistols in the glove compartments, and we had no shootings.

Go figure.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Hi
How else are you going to get rid of the guns?

I dunno. High-profile campaign to get people to trade their firearms for delicious candy?

So, yeah - the fact that you've never been shot at, despite the apparently felonious jackassulaiton of one person pretty much means that things are working, rule-of-law-wise.

Mmmm...okay. Sorry, I misunderstood you there.

Ok - you say that people with guns are dangerous, and that guns are dangerous, and that anyone with a gun is likely to go off the deep end and start killing people at the drop of the proverbial cowboy hat.

This is about what I expect from the anti-gun crowd, and let me tell you why it doesn't really worry me much.

You then, as soon as you run out of reasonable arguments, start insulting and belittling us. That PROVES that you don't believe what you're saying.

If you thought, for one instant, the things you say were actual facts, you would go WAAAY out of your way not to piss us off. Instead, you say things about us that would start a fight if what you say were the truth.

WHOA...WHAT?!
How exactly do you "start a fight" with somebody over the Internet?
Do you have a gun that can target people over TCP/IP?

Well, since I've apparently heard all the reasonable, totally not-at-all emotional arguments from some calm, level-headed gun owners, maybe I should go check out this "anti-gun crowd" that I'm a part of.

 

[robeeb]

At that point, running seems like a good option.
If that's not possible, I'm sure there's any number of things you can do to disarm your opponent, provided you're quicker than they are. A lot of it depends on how well-trained in self-defense you are.

Axiom,

I wrote a detailed account back on page two about having to use a firearm

for self defense. The two men who assaulted me with a bat, and a knife, had

me backed into a corner. I am 5'10" and 175lbs. They were both well over six

foot, and both had 50 lbs on me. Both of them were high on meth at the time

of the assault. I was in a car accident earlier in life, The injuries I sustained

and the lasting effects of those injuries makes learning any sort of hand to

hand fighting/martial arts impossible. Being cornered prevented me from

running. I tried in vain to talk them down and verbally defuse the situation.

The only option I had left was to draw my handgun and order them to drop

the weapons, back off, and get on the ground. Fortunately, they decided

to do as I ordered them to, and I did not have to fire my weapon. It was two

against one, I had no escape, they were both armed with a deadly weapon,

and I don't have the ability to learn any other form of self defense. You don't

think anyone should be able to use a gun for self defense. In my case what

do you think I should have done to defend myself? If not a gun, then what

do you propose? The man who brandished a gun on you and your friends was

absolutely wrong in doing that. His actions were grossly irresponsible and

incredibly dangerous. I do not blame you one bit for your anger in regards

to this idiot with a gun. But you have to realize that the majority of people

who legally carry a gun for self defense are not like that. They take the

responsibility of carrying a firearm very seriously. And they do not recklessly

wave their guns around or even draw their weapon unless it is the only option

left.

 

[Cicero]

Cicero, you misinformed hater, they did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orangeburg_massacre


They are an indictment of liberal parenting, and...

No. You're just like every idiot who is trying to blame the school shootings on lack of gun control or Doom, only you've chosen liberal parenting.

"Oh ho ho, liberal parenting. Why this never happened in the 60s. Or 70s. Oh, but it did... uh... damn TIME TRAVELING LIBERALS!"

Oh, it must be cave-liberals, the precursor to the deadly liberal threat that has now taken over America.

Be careful, you have no idea what superpowers we have. Some of us can time travel. Personally? I can shoot lasers from my eyes.

Who did? You have not provided any incident of a public school shooting before the 1990's where a student(s) went berzerk.

I already mentioned Whitman and he was 24 at the time of the shooting. He was beyond the influence of his parents, not to mention he killed his mother.

Why do you feel slighted at the mention of poor parenting? Or the mention of the overwhelming failure of the liberal doctrine controlling the American public school system? The two shooters could just be bad seeds as well. Does that make you happy?