The more the gun nuts fight the assualt weapons ban, the more attention it gets

You have fallen for the propaganda. How about Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter that used both a 9mm and a 22 handgun to kill more people than any of the other shooters? In most cases, police now carry the .40 caliber that has more penetration than a 9mm and none carry 22's.

What you are missing is that all guns are deadly if used for violent purposes. The problem is not guns but society. Lanza is now known to immerse himself in violent video games yet it is politically correct to dismiss that. Even then, violent crimes are down by 1/2 in the last 20 years but the media has you believing that it is out of control.

 

I think we (those with the expertise and authority to do so), should define what a person should have for self-defense vs. offensive capability. We should NOT have common people possessing and/or walking around with certain unnecessary levels of firepower.

Now, I know there are various perceptions of what that is... but in time I hope what I just shared above is seriously looked into.

Consider the job they do. Civilians DO NOT typically hunt down and apprehend the bad guys. That is the main difference.

 

It's not propaganda I'm hearing, but using a bit more sense overall. People aren't thinking properly IMO and want more guns and firepower out here. That will not be my view.

The pro-gun lobby has its rhetoric out here too; and it is just as biased. Even so, I realize that we need to continue to work on compromise and consensus over time.

We cannot cease thinking about this issue; it would be foolishly self-destructive to do so.

 

So? If gun control works, then why shouldn't police be restricted to the same weapons as the peasants?

 

Well, I admit I'm not willing to go into this any further now. But I will leave you with the fact that overall, I personally afford those wearing a badge under proper authority... far more trust and latitude than just ANY random citizen who wants just ANY weapon they can get their hands upon

We disagree on that point, but I'm not labeling you as being wrong necessarily. I think we ALL want a proper balance between freedom, liberty and security... and it just may be that your view/influence braced up against mine, are what helps us (as a nation) to achieve that balance.

 

cry more.

 

I really don't care. A police officer can execute you in front of your children and receive nothing more than an office job as punishment.

You are yet to justify the police possesses more firepower than civilians.

Why would you want to live in a police state?

 

Security of your freedom and liberty requires diligence and sometimes bloodshed. Your idea is to give up some of your freedom and liberty for a false sense of security.

 

The evidence like it or not Johhny is that reducing the number of firearms in civilian hands almost always results in an increase in violent crime and all other types of crime.

 

I DO care. And please, how many cases of policemen justly killing someone's parents in front of their kids are there?

And certainly 'horrible' situations of that type 'can' occur; but the odds of some crazy-idiot WITHOUT a badge misusing their weapon is more likely to affect the public, than some cop acting in the far-fetched and unlikely manner you suggest above.

That's what YOU think. Even so, I live in a small city on the East Cost... and I've seen some of what the cops have. Considering what the bad guys they pursue may be in possessing of, they need the firepower. I'm certain that the average citizen does not need it for self defense.

That is an assertion made by YOU. And really, if you are outside of the LAW (which our nation is based upon)... you aren't going to BEAT or OUT-SHOOT the police/military. And most law-biding citizens are NOT going to lift a finger (guns or not) to help you, especially if they know you've broken the law.

There are "guns" and there is "the law"; if you have just 'guns' on your side... you'll most likely lose. This is why people should be FAR MORE concerned about their rights to go and vote without obstruction (as many right wing politicians are propagating), rather than salivating over which new and more powerful weapon they can get their hand upon.

I agree that self defense is a right; but I'm almost absolutely certain that the Founding Fathers did not intend for people to be taking-on the local police or U.S. Military.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay, we got plenty of the bloodshed part; where's the rest?

 

Subscribe to Police State USA on Facebook, they do an excellent job in pointing out the statist swine's abuse of power.

Just a couple of days ago police murdered a mentally handicapped man in a movie theater. They also executed a home owner who was sitting in the corner of his living room. Nevermind the 600+ homes that were ransacked by the statist swine (without a search warrant) in the California manhunt.

I find you trust in those who job it is to remove your freedoms to be very cute.

That's nice.

But you have not given a reason why the police need more firepower than the peasants. If gun control works, why would police need anything more than a revolver?

 

Americans will always have assault weapons.

 

You see the future? (Always?)

 

I see our constitution .

 

You really think that firearms are only for protection? I've never needed to use my firearms for protection, well outside of Iraq and Korea where they were an important part of keeping me alive in hostile environments. I use my firearms for target shooting. I'm hurting no one. I see no reason why I should be punished. It's really that simple. Again the vast, vast, vast majority of firearms owners hurt no one. The issue is violence, not the tools used to act it out. I think the left is completely wrong on this and is simply dividing the vote further by chasing people away from them.

 

Firing at targets is fine. Just keep the weapons at a secure facility when your done; such as at the gun club armory. No need to bring them home in that case.

 

No thanks. But I will be watching what States and the Federal Government enact as policy/law.

Extra guns/firepower in the hands of citizens, isn't going to improve that most likely. It may indeed make someone 'feel' better or stronger... but that problem has to be handled another way.

Why? What city and more details, please.

And people shooting at the cops with whatever, will improve that how?

That may be so, however I don't see your solutions as being particularly tenable overall.

I think that I have suggested enough, that some of my military and law enforcement friends could likely expound upon. Still, you can see what cops and other decent Americans are saying about that using Google.

Personally, I think it is less-than-sane to think or believe that putting MORE firearms out here will actually improve upon the state of violence in America. As I mentioned before, the conversation and the problem-solving effort is important. We see where the status quo has taken us... further into the abyss is NOT where we need to head.

You are stuck (affixed) on guns... I see a more comprehensive solution approaching on the horizon. And I'm very certain that MORE guns isn't really a part of that solution.

- - - Updated - - -

And that has always remained the same?

 

Do you see the future?

 

Why? I own them, why should I not be able to take them back home?

 

I don't claim that I know what is going to happen. With me, it's a bit like the abolitionists... they didn't know exactly what was coming either, but they fought for the right thing.

And so it shall be, you will advocate for whatever... and I'll advocate for something else.

Welcome to America.

 

Are you intellectually unaware of the Strawman Fallacy?

I suggest reviewing it on Wikipedia and replying to my post a second time.

 

Look.This debate is complex. And what you see as a straw-man, is probably because I've imperfectly related something which has informed by opinions. I get it.

Even so, I know we aren't going to agree. This will be hashed out more fully as you, I and others visit the polls over the years and as new laws are passed etc.

Yes, the politicians will compromise (as they always have), and this nation will remain on the LONG arc to adjusting its laws to fit the times and public opinion.

I'm certain that we will not agree here tonight.

I surely have more to learn. Still, I didn't take the positions I have overnight.

Right or wrong, we all have some influence in the process.

 

Because its highly unlikely you'll be shooting at targets in your house. Thus no need to bring them home.

 

I'm still not seeing the issue. Why can I not take home an item that I own?