Only the Police and the Military Should Have Guns

Good example of how deadly assault weapons are in the hands of people who can shoot straight.

Another provocative post, possibly to make the point that not only armed civilian rednecks can kill people with guns?
Anwar Sadat was also killed by a soldier with an assault rifle, in Egypt, in 1981.

So for me the lesson is that civilians shouldn't have access to assault weapons.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51427301

Daryl wrote:Good example of how deadly assault weapons are in the hands of people who can shoot straight.

Another provocative post, possibly to make the point that not only armed civilian rednecks can kill people with guns?
Anwar Sadat was also killed by a soldier with an assault rifle, in Egypt, in 1981.

So for me the lesson is that civilians shouldn't have access to assault weapons.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51427301

There really is no place for assault weapons in civilian society. We liberals get accused of wanting to take away everybody's guns. And in all honesty, there are liberals who think that way. But most of us would be satisfied to ban the assault weapons, close the gun show loophole, and make adequate provision for keeping guns out of the hands of convicts and crazies.

Don

-

Why would you liberals be content to just ban military style, semiautomatic rifles? The FBI data reveals that rifles of any type are used in less than 3% of all homicides. The Clinton "assault rifle" ban actually resulted in an increase in homicides with the prohibited weapons.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Why would you liberals be content to just ban military style, semiautomatic rifles? The FBI data reveals that rifles of any type are used in less than 3% of all homicides. The Clinton "assault rifle" ban actually resulted in an increase in homicides with the prohibited weapons.

Which might explain why it's easier to get a long arm in Australia than a hand gun.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Why would you liberals be content to just ban military style, semiautomatic rifles? The FBI data reveals that rifles of any type are used in less than 3% of all homicides. The Clinton "assault rifle" ban actually resulted in an increase in homicides with the prohibited weapons.

You have a point. But the assault weapons have been used in most mass shootings that I can recall. I am well aware that this is not a magic fix, but if we can cut back on the numbers of the things out there, at least we might eventually cut down on the butcher's bill. I am not going to comment on the Brady bill sinse I haven't researched it.

Let's come up with something rational to cut back on gun violence. I don't want to take away the guns of responsible law abiding citizens. But I do want to walk down the street without getting shot at. I think that I have as much of a right to life as the guy shooting at me has to a gun. We are not doing a very good job of keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

Don

-

I grew up with guns. On the land they are a tool, but also a source of entertainment from hunting to target shooting.
As I write my concealed gun cupboard is within a metre of me.
That said there is no sensible reason for a civilian to own either an assault rifle (full or semi auto), or a concealable hand gun. Both are useless for hunting. The hand gun could be excused for range work, but left locked up there.

Daryl wrote:I grew up with guns. On the land they are a tool, but also a source of entertainment from hunting to target shooting.
As I write my concealed gun cupboard is within a metre of me.
That said there is no sensible reason for a civilian to own either an assault rifle (full or semi auto), or a concealable hand gun. Both are useless for hunting. The hand gun could be excused for range work, but left locked up there.

Or, a handgun can be a tool for self defense. I know people who found themselves in a position of needing that.

Don

-

As I mentioned in another thread, I am of the opinion that the size/number of guns and ammunition that a person can own should be inversely proportional to the local population.
In the wilds of America, some animals see humans as walking meat. Those animals cannot usually be deterred by the use of reasoned philosophical discussion or the chanting of religious/political verses, weapons are the key to preventing them from shifting their diet to Homo Homo Sapiens.
By the same point, dense urban areas have no real threat from animals seeking to expand their diets and as such, firearms are relegated to defense of self/other or attack. As such, training and responsibility become far more important if one wishes to avoid a societal collapse. Someone living in a high-density urban environment with a minigun is obviously a potential threat to his/her neighbors and needs to have a careful eye kept on them at the very least.

Of course, limiting ammunition would be a slightly less hot-button way of controlling gun crime. If someone is found to have more than a pre-determined amount in their house at any given time, a fine or jail sentence could be applied to give out the message that stocking up walls of ammo leads to loss of liberty. Of course, gun clubs would thrive under this idea as they could provide secure ammo storage, allowing people to stock up their sperm substitute levels to that which they wished to fire from their compensatory equipment while making it significantly harder for them to legally accumulate enough instant-access ammo for shooting sprees.
Seriously, why does anyone need ten million+ rounds of ammo in their basement unless they're either suicidal (possible ammo explosion) or genocidal?
Even hunters rarely need an annual supply of more than a couple of thousand rounds unless they're Joe Biden-level shots...

There are some reasonable responses here but with some unreasonable aspects and underlying presumptions.

Even after conceding the FBI data, people fall back on the isolated mass shooting incidents in America to justify banning "assault rifles". However; the full statistics reveal that most of these mass murders are committed with handguns or shotguns. Daryl's beloved, politically correct Lee Enfield could become an extremely lethal weapon of mass murder if he chose to do that. It is no innocent accident that the New Zealand government censored the video of the mosque massacre to conceal the fact that the primary weapons were shotguns rather thann semiautomatic rifles. You have not been told how many people were shot with what type of weapon, and you never will.

The primary weapon employed in the University of Texas Clock Tower Massacre was a Remington 700, bolt action rifle. The actual killing ended when students who were involved in the civilian marksmanship program retrieved their semiautomatic, M1 Garand rifles to return his fire. They didn't succeed in shooting him, but they kept him pinned down so he couldn't shoot anyone. An armed civilian who accompanied the police to take down the murderer is credited by experts with saving the cops from being ambushed and killed.

While many Americans use handguns for hunting (mostly to handicap themselves to make the hunt more challenging and respect the animal) handguns are primarily defensive or offensive weapons, depending on the intent of the person with the gun. One can make the argument that we need to ban handguns because they are used for most homicides. If you succeeded in banning handguns, criminals would revert to using shotguns. Even a politically correct, break action shotgun can be devastating even at extended range.

Your alternative solution is limits on how much ammo someone can possess. You are so bigoted that you claim that anyone who owns " to much" ammo is crazy. There are millions of Americans who have thousands of rounds of ammunition. They own a lot of ammo because they shoot a lot. On a typical day at the range (at our home) the wife, kids and I will shoot hundreds if not thousands of rounds of ammunition. Almost none of these people who own lots of ammo commit mass murders. In contrast, my marijuana bootlegging tenant with his politically correct, Remington 870 which he misrepresented as an antique Reminton 1873 gets a free pass for shooting at my children.

I would not object so strenuously to gun control if this idiotic debate was not intentionally employed by the police, judges and politicians (including poverty pimps) to distract attention from their culpability. Two police officers were recently shot near my home. Both survived but one remains crippled by light birdshot. He still has over 100 pellets in his body, many of which migrated via his blood stream to his lungs, heart and brain. There is much criticism of the citizen whose guns were stolen from an outdoor storage locker. No journalists has questioned why the shooter whose extensive criminal record began with a homicide as a juvenile was on the loose.



If any of you had ever had to identify the body of your brother after he had been intentionally ran over with a Dodge can, you might have a clue as to what the real issues should be.