Gun control poll--please read OP for assumptions.

[Stout]

Might be funny it were a remark by Leno, Letterman, or Stewart, instead it was said in earnest by an elected official. That just makes it scary.

It does, somewhat, especially when coupled with the heat seeking comment. We have the same sort of politicians here in Canada who banned the "scary looking guns" because, they were, well, scary looking.

Canada didn't go as far as the Australians and restrict semi automatics, we did ban hi-cap magazines and limited capacity to 5 shots. I'm personally not interested in shooting sports, so I don't have a problem with this limit but catch me if I find myself in a situation where I have to eliminate a whole community of prairie dogs in a short amount of time and my opinion may change.

 

[Stout]

Yes. In fact, I just bought one today. The round, that is, not the rifle (sigh). It was a .50BMG bargain at $3.50 for a single armor-piercing incendiary round. I got it just for kicks.

Is that something you really want to have just sitting around ? What are the chances that in, say 20 years time, that piece of ordnance might just do something you don't want it to do, like ignite, or something ?

Yep, I'm ignorant when it comes to guns and ammo, but it doesn't sound like an object I'd feel comfortable having just sitting around. I do have a deactivated .50 caliber round somewhere around here, I know it's deactivated as there's three holes drilled in the casing and no primer. Looks purdy when it's all polished up.

 

[Autolite]

"It is reasonable to conclude that the banning of possession of firearms or certain categories of firearm only affects those who posses and use them lawfully – those who use them unlawfully are already outside the law."

The whole gun control argument pretty much boils down to this one inescapable fact. I'm not any longer interested on getting deep into these gun discussions because this very basic concept seems to be so completely lost on so many folks.

Magazine capacity restrictions, 'assault' weapons bans and the like are all just placebo 'feel good' laws designed to create the illusion of public safety. Why so many people fail to see this is well beyond me.

It's just too frustrating arguing with people who are oblivious to the obvious...

 

[gdnp]

The whole gun control argument pretty much boils down to this one inescapable fact. I'm not any longer interested on getting deep into these gun discussions because this very basic concept seems to be so completely lost on so many folks.

Magazine capacity restrictions, 'assault' weapons bans and the like are all just placebo 'feel good' laws designed to create the illusion of public safety. Why so many people fail to see this is well beyond me.

It's just too frustrating arguing with people who are oblivious to the obvious...

Oh, I see.

It is clear to me now that no gun used in a crime was ever purchased lawfully. Or purchased lawfully and then stolen. Or purchased lawfully and then resold unlawfully. And enacting restrictions on what types of guns or ammunition can be purchased lawfully, or instituting systems that make them easier to track, will not make it more difficult for criminals to acquire weapons and ammunition, and thus will have no effect on crime. Because banning of possession of firearms or certain categories of firearm only affects those who posses and use them lawfully.

I don't see how I missed these obvious things before. Thank you for raising the scales from my eyes.

 

[FlamingMoe]

You yourself admit that police have guns to protect themselves AND OTHERS. So your assertion that limiting them to cops somehow makes their lives more valuable than the lives of others is fallacious.

Well then allow me to be more specific: cops have guns to protect themselves and others who happen to be fortunate enough to be in the immediate vicinity of a cop when the need to apply lethal force arises. We are not all able to have 24/7 police protection at our sides.

Do you think that police forces give weapons to officers without making sure that they go through extensive training in their safe handling and use?

Think it? ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊*, I know it. (The expletive is intended as an emphasis, not an insult.) I work in law enforcement and I see the crap training we are provided. Once per year. We'll go to the range, toss about 100 rounds downrange, spread across three different weapons, and be declared qualified to operate them with the required proficency. Believe me, I get there early so I can have a wider selection of lanes because there are people next to whom I would refuse to stand while they are operating a firearm. This is the standard across my agency. A large portion of us shoot outside that once-per-year qualification course and keep ourselves sharp, at our own expense and with our own weapons. Many do not. Some need help with how to hold the things. Every single year. I am comfortable with just about everyone in my department in their firearms proficiency, but that comfort level drops dramatically when the sample is widened to include all staff at the installation.

Yet they are listed as qualified to carry and use firearms, even among the public. So no, I don't have heaps of confidence in the training behind the badge when it comes to a law enforcement officer's firearms expertise.

Do you think that they don't track which officer is in possession of which weapons?

They may try, but they don't seem to be experts on success in this endeavor.

Are you thus proposing that citizens should only be allowed to possess guns after they have gone through training in their use equivalent to what a police officer goes through? Equality and all that...

No.

 

[Ranb]

I work in law enforcement and I see the crap training we are provided. Once per year. We'll go to the range, toss about 100 rounds downrange, spread across three different weapons, and be declared qualified to operate them with the required proficency.

I used to be in the Navy, sub force. The security personnel (most of the non-engineering guys) had even less training then you claim the police did. Some of those guys were scary. AFAIK, the only time a Sailor on a submarine security watch intentionally discharged his weapon in Pearl Harbor during the 90's was to kill himself.

I think if the Navy really wanted to raise security to a good level on Subase they would have used Marines.

Ranb

 

[gdnp]

I work in law enforcement ...

THAT is the most frightening thing I have read today.

 

[FlamingMoe]

THAT is the most frightening thing I have read today.

Please elaborate.

 

[gdnp]

Please elaborate.

Your avatar is a photoshopped portrait of President Obama in front of a Soviet flag. Your sig refers to him as the Chimp in Chief. I can only hope that when you say you work in law enforcement you mean that you are a security guard at the mall, not a member of the Secret Service.

 

[FlamingMoe]

Your avatar is a photoshopped portrait of President Obama in front of a Soviet flag. Your sig refers to him as the Chimp in Chief. I can only hope that when you say you work in law enforcement you mean that you are a security guard at the mall, not a member of the Secret Service.

My personal opinions are just that. I do my job and I do it well.

 

[makaya325]

What I don't get is that you can not use a gun in your own home if a robber breaks in and challenges you with a bat.

 

[Region Rat]

What I don't get is that you can not use a gun in your own home if a robber breaks in and challenges you with a bat.

If you are being serious, where do you get that idea?

 

[Ranb]

What I don't get is that you can not use a gun in your own home if a robber breaks in and challenges you with a bat.

Where do you live that places such restrictions on use of firearms or deadly force?

Ranb

 

[Darth Rotor]

If you are being serious, where do you get that idea?

I agree, bats tend to feed at night, and so would not be available for the burglar to use as a weapon in such a home invasino.

I note that makaya325 is responsible for this thread necromancy, and as such, ought to be made to spend the afternoon with zombies. (aka fans of emo music).

DR

 

[Eyeron]

I'm neither liberal nor conservative. Liberals call me a racist homophobic conservative hick who wants to have sex with farm animals and conservatives call me an atheistic homosexual Satan worshiper who sacrifices children to Satan and whenever I say I support the government option to provide welfare to people libertarians call me a fascist authoritarian bastard who just wants to enslave the American people to a socialist regime.

I am a strong supporter of individual rights. The second amendment is for the right of the individual to carry firearms for self-protection. I am also opposed to regulations of firearms for things such as requiring fingerprints to be given to law enforcement just for buying ammo.