Gun Rights vs. Gun Control

[vyo476]

I think the title says it all, really. How much, how far, what kinds, etc. Your thoughts?

 

[Dave]

I am very pro-gun rights. I believe that the history of gun control in the UK shows that it does not work for preventing crime. i may be a bit of a conspiracy theorist on this one, but I do believe that the 2nd ammendment is the people's best defence against the government stretching beyond its bounds. The democratic process still works in my view, but if there is ever a time when it doesn't, then the 2nd ammendment will be our best friend.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Exactly, Dave. Taking guns out of the law-abiding citizens hands only does that. Criminals will be criminals. They'll import guns from Mexico, the Middle East, etc.

There are countless stories where gun-toting, yet law-abiding citizens have used their firearms to protect themselves and them families from intruders with illegal weapons.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

There are countless stories where gun-toting, yet law-abiding citizens have used their firearms to protect themselves and them families from intruders with illegal weapons.

Yes indeed. And here are a few:

The News, Birmingham, AL, 8/22/87 State: AL American Rifleman Issue: 11/1/1987 When Mamie Thornton awoke in her Birmingham, Ala., home, she found a man's hand over her mouth. Bending back one of her attacker's fingers to make him release his grip, the 87-year-old jumped out of bed and ran for her revolver. Firing a shot in the direction of the intruder, the elderly homeowner forced her assailant to flee the premises.

The News, Opp, AL, 1/29/87 State: AL American Rifleman Issue: 4/1/1987 An 81-year-old Andalusia, Ala., woman turned the tables on an intruder she discovered in her bedroom. Awakened by the sound of a chamber pot being kicked over, the woman saw a man at the head of her bed. Taking a .38 from under a pillow, she shot and wounded the man, who fled. A police search of the nearby area yielded a wounded suspect, a man alrady facing charges in the attempted rape of a neighborhood elderly woman.

Payson Roundup, Payson, AZ, 07/01/03 State: AZ American Rifleman Issue: 10/1/2003 When a man came to his door asking to use a phone, an elderly Beaver Valley, Ariz., resident did not expect what would happen next. The visit suddenly turned deadly when the man pulled a knife on homeowner Ray Freisen, demanded his wallet and car keys and then tied him to a chair. Freisen was able to free himself and retrieve his gun, but not before the intruder stabbed Freisen's wife. In defense of his wife, Freisen shot the home invader several times, killing him. By the time medical personnel arrived, Annie, Freisen's wife of 53 years, had also died from her wounds.

Arizona Republic, Phoenix, AZ, 9/27/97 State: AZ American Rifleman Issue: 4/1/1998 When he heard screaming outside his Phoenix home, Joe Ligidakis looked out to see an elderly woman running across his front yard pursued by a male assailant who was beating her. Ligidakis grabbed a pistol and went outside to confront the man, who was savagely attacking the woman. The attack was stopped, and the man was held for police. The attacker has been linked to a series of 1994 rapes.

The Citizen, Tucson, AZ, 2/15/86 State: AZ American Rifleman Issue: 5/1/1986 Awakened by shattering glass, an elderly Tucson, Ariz., man found a stranger had broken into his bedroom. Despite the darkness, the homeowner managed to find his pistol and let off a shot, sending the burglar scurrying out the window. A wounded suspect was arrested at a nearby hospital.

The Daily News, Anchorage, AK, 12/20/83 State: AK American Rifleman Issue: 4/1/1984 Elderly Alaska resident Vladimar Wadsworth was about to answer a late-night knock at his door when a man suddenly broke in and began beating him with a tire iron. He forced Wadsworth into a bedroom and ransacked the home. Though dazed, Wadsworth got to his .357 Mag. and confronted the assailant. When the man threatened to kill him, Wadsworth opened fire, killing him.

The Oakland Tribune, Oakland, Calif., 5/8/00 State: CA American Rifleman Issue: 9/1/2000 A 65-year-old newspaper delivery man was in his Oakland, Calif., garage preparing for his daily run when a 19-year-old armed ruffian suddenly came inside demanding money, according to police. The younger man apparently had not benefitted from the positive influence of his father's former position as an Oakland police officer and instead had chosen to make his living the 'easy' way. His choice of victim was equally poor, however, because the elderly man was intent on self-defense. The resident, gun to his head, quickly found himself backed against a workbench, but managed to retrieve his revolver from under a stack of papers. His single, fatal shot sent the attacker staggering outside and prompted two accomplices to flee the scene. The delivery man later told authorities that he feared for his life and for those of his grandchildren who were sleeping inside the home.

San Francisco Examiner, San Francisco, Calif., 2/22/00 State: CA American Rifleman Issue: 5/1/2000 Awakened by noises at his back door early one morning, an 83-year-old San Francisco widower resolved to protect himself with a handgun purchased for exactly such an eventuality. As an intruder armed with a tire iron approached his bedroom, the elderly homeowner retrieved the gun and pulled the trigger for the first time in 30 years. Bought in 1948, the .38-cal. Smith & Wesson revolver had gone largely unused for more than half a century. It finally became the man's only hope of self-preservation, proving deadly reliable in a pinch. The shot ended the confrontation and the invader's life. The homeowner said later, "I never thought I would kill another person. I just wanted to stay at home and mind my own business."

The Tribune, Oakland, CA, 11/23/95 State: CA American Rifleman Issue: 5/1/1996 An 81-year-old Oakland, California, man was entering his apartment when a hoodlum approached from behind, knocked him to the floor and began beating him savagely in the face and head. About to lose consciousness, the elderly man managed to reach a .32 cal. he kept on a nearby shelf and fired once at his assailant, wounding him in the neck.

The Bee, Fresno, CA, 6/14/95 State: CA American Rifleman Issue: 9/1/1995 It took NRA Life Member Earl Tiller, 67, to do what others had been unable to as the Fresno, California, resident's actions led to the arrest of one of California's most-wanted fugitives. Suspected of more than 15 home invasions and numerous robberies in which elderly residents suffered severe beatings, the thug dove through an open bedroom window and attacked Tiller and his wife in his typical fashion. Untypical was the ensuing struggle where Tiller shot the fugitive four times before the man fled the home. The criminal later turned up in a hospital where police arrested him in connection to the string of savage attacks.

The Union, Grass Valley, CA, 1/23/87 State: CA American Rifleman Issue: 8/1/1987 An elderly Grass Valley, Calif., couple was awakened at 3 a.m. by the sounds of a break-in. Jay McLeod armed himself with a handgun. After two masked men attacked him and his wife, Inez, the badly injured homeowner fired at his assailants, who fled.

The Times, Los Angeles, CA, 2/23/86 State: CA American Rifleman Issue: 5/1/1986 Two strangers strolled into the small Los Angeles candy shop operated by Primitivo Nieves, loitered a bit, then grabbed the elderly owner. One produced a knife, but Nieves responded with a pistol, shooting his assailant once. The other robber also pulled a knife, but was shot twice. Both would-be robbers died.

The Evening Outlook, Santa Monica, CA, 5/3/85 State: CA American Rifleman Issue: 8/1/1985 A masked intruder forced his way into a Palms, Calif., apartment and began beating an elderly couple. When a neighbor armed with a handgun ran to their aid, the attacker turned on the young man, who, police said, "in fear of his life, fired the handgun, wounding the suspect." The burglar ran from the building, but was later found dead.

The Tribune/News, Whittier, CA State: CA American Rifleman Issue: 11/1/1984 Hearing someone breaking through the double dead-bolted front door of his Silver Lake, Calif., home, late at night, a 78-year-old man pulled an M1 carbine from storage. His niece, attacked by the intruder, broke free, took refuge in the bedroom, and locked the door. The assailant continued his attack, but the elderly uncle shot him twice, killing him, as he attempted to break down the bedroom door.

The Times, Los Angeles, CA, 6/13/84 State: CA American Rifleman Issue: 9/1/1984 An elderly Los Angeles, Calif., resident was watering his lawn when an assailant approached from behind, locked an arm around his neck, and demanded money. A struggle ensued, and the homeowner managed to draw a pistol, fire and kill his attacker.

The News, Brawley, CA, 7/29/82 State: CA American Rifleman Issue: 10/1/1982 William Dalton, 74, and his wife were relaxing in their Brawley, Calif., home, when a trio of robbers entered and demanded cash. But the elderly couple went on the attack instead, beating the criminals and finally driving them away with the help of a .38.


These are a fraction of the articles anyone can search on:
http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx

People who want to deny others, especially women and the elderly, of a legitimate means of self-defense are truly sick and misguided.

 

[MarkVI]

...the 2nd ammendment is the people's best defence against the government stretching beyond its bounds. The democratic process still works in my view, but if there is ever a time when it doesn't, then the 2nd ammendment will be our best friend.

I'd hope that something like that would never happen, but who knows anymore. We don't live in a perfect world, no matter how much some people would like to think!

I couldn't agree more!

 

[vyo476]

How far, though? What types of firearms ought to be legal and which shouldn't?

 

[palerider]

I think the title says it all, really. How much, how far, what kinds, etc. Your thoughts?

I don't favor much government interference with regards to law abiding citizens and defensive weapons. By defensive weapons, I mean any weapon in whch an individual can be reasonably expected to dispatch an individual target without undue danger to bystanders. Explosives for example, are not defensive targets. Neither are weapons of a chemical or biological nature.

What I do favor is extreme government prejudice with regard to gun crimes comitted by those who aren't law abiding.

 

[Dave]

How far, though? What types of firearms ought to be legal and which shouldn't?

The second ammendment does not say that there are exceptions to the kinds of arms people should be permitted to have, so I am against the restriction of any form of firearm. James Madison, who was responsible for proposing the second ammendment, clearly stated his pro-gun stance in the Federalist Papers, and said that a well-armed population should serve as a backup to the regular military in case of invasion. Using this logic, I believe James Madison intended for people to have access to any and all forms of firearms. I do however, agree with palerider on explosives, chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. Those types of weapons could not have been envisioned by the framers of the Bill of Rights, so I would argue that they are not given the same type of protection.

Just a couple of things to keep in mind:
Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence. When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them.

Assault weapons were involved in less than 1% of homicides before the assault weapons ban took effect in 1994. The same is true as of 1998.

Armor piercing bullets have been referred to in the media as "cop killers." No law enforcement officer has ever been killed because an armor-piercing bullet defeated a bulletproof vest.

 

[vyo476]

The second ammendment does not say that there are exceptions to the kinds of arms people should be permitted to have, so I am against the restriction of any form of firearm. James Madison, who was responsible for proposing the second ammendment, clearly stated his pro-gun stance in the Federalist Papers, and said that a well-armed population should serve as a backup to the regular military in case of invasion. Using this logic, I believe James Madison intended for people to have access to any and all forms of firearms. I do however, agree with palerider on explosives, chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. Those types of weapons could not have been envisioned by the framers of the Bill of Rights, so I would argue that they are not given the same type of protection.

Just a couple of things to keep in mind:
Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence. When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them.

Assault weapons were involved in less than 1% of homicides before the assault weapons ban took effect in 1994. The same is true as of 1998.

Armor piercing bullets have been referred to in the media as "cop killers." No law enforcement officer has ever been killed because an armor-piercing bullet defeated a bulletproof vest.

Can you justify in a practical sense owning an automatic weapon?

I think we may, as of now, consider explosive, chemical, biological, and nuclear weaponry outside the scope of this discussion.

 

[palerider]

Can you justify in a practical sense owning an automatic weapon?

I think we may, as of now, consider explosive, chemical, biological, and nuclear weaponry outside the scope of this discussion.

Why should a law abiding citizen be prohibited from having such a weapon? The fact is that a skilled marksman could take out more people with a semi automatic firearm or even a bolt action firearm than with an automatic. Automatics are notoriously inaccurate when in full auto mode.

 

[vyo476]

Why should a law abiding citizen be prohibited from having such a weapon? The fact is that a skilled marksman could take out more people with a semi automatic firearm or even a bolt action firearm than with an automatic. Automatics are notoriously inaccurate when in full auto mode.

Okay, so you can kill more people with them. That isn't a practical answer to why they should be allowed in American homes. What is the situation you are planning for in which you'll have to kill so many people in the vicinity of your place of residence?

 

[Dave]

Can you justify in a practical sense owning an automatic weapon?

I think we may, as of now, consider explosive, chemical, biological, and nuclear weaponry outside the scope of this discussion.

As part of the citizen militia that James Madison envisioned when passing the second ammendment.

Many have questioned how thin our military has been spread, and what would happen if there were an attack on America. If you have even 10% of the American population owning a firearm, that would more than make up for troop levels abroad.

 

[vyo476]

As part of the citizen militia that James Madison envisioned when passing the second ammendment.

Many have questioned how thin our military has been spread, and what would happen if there were an attack on America. If you have even 10% of the American population owning a firearm, that would more than make up for troop levels abroad.

James Madison was President of this country from 1809 to 1817. In those days you had to worry about regiments of foreign troops who had horses, muskets, sidearms, sabres, and cannons, as well as fighting frigates and other wooden warships. A militia with enough weapons was a great defense against that because in the end it's people with guns vs. people with guns.

Today, that isn't the case. Weaponry has evolved to the point where it's people with advanced tech vs. people with advanced tech. This isn't always the case but any foreign force capable of invading this country would have to have some pretty impressive technology, or a truly killer strategy.

Bottom line, in a world where ballistic missiles, tanks, and advanced warplanes are the norm for combat, citizens with machine guns wouldn't do a whole hell of a lot of good. In the case of a successful foreign invasion of America it would be nice to be able to fight back; I just don't think that letting those types of weapons sit in peoples' homes is a good idea because the contingency scenario of which they are a part is just as unlikely to become reality as a nuclear war - perhaps even less so.

I'm all for allowing citizens to own and carry for personal defense, but you don't need semiautomatics and automatics for "personal defense." If someone is trying to rob your house having an AK-47 is what you might call overkill. If someone is trying to invade your country chances are that they will be using new-age war tech that an AK-47 wouldn't do a whole lot of good against, and you'd just be getting yourself killed with no potential for gain.

 

[palerider]

Okay, so you can kill more people with them. That isn't a practical answer to why they should be allowed in American homes. What is the situation you are planning for in which you'll have to kill so many people in the vicinity of your place of residence?

Semiautomatic weapons, which are entirely legal are the more deadly weapon. Full auto, which is highly regulated is not nearly as accurate. And I couldn't possibly say what situation might arise that would require me to fire on a large number of people but then, the 2nd amendment isn't about duck hunting is it? The second amendment is about citizens defending the country against agressors or against the government itself should the government become tyranical.

 

[palerider]

If someone is trying to rob your house having an AK-47 is what you might call overkill.

Unless, of course, the one robbing your home is in posession of an AK. Don't the police regularly complain that the criminals are better armed than they are? If you are threatened by someone who is illegally armed better than you can legally arm yourself, then the 2nd amendment has failed.