Texas - I love living here!!!

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

What would reason would anyone have had not to?

examine that pic again...
do you have any idea what weapons are in that room???

That room is a museum...

Most of the guns are illegal without a level 3 NFA permit for each and every one separately.

Nonetheless, I do find it humerous.

At the time I posted that pic, my debater and I were purely having fun and throwing out wild jokes and gestures...

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

examine that pic again...
do you have any idea what weapons are in that room???

That room is a museum...

Most of the guns are illegal without a level 3 NFA permit for each and every one separately.

Nonetheless, I do find it humerous.

At the time I posted that pic, my debater and I were purely having fun and throwing out wild jokes and gestures...

Why do you assume that everyone has--or should have, whichever the case is--the same knowledge of illegal weapons that you have?

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

What would reason would anyone have had not to?

The ATF and FBI would be knocking on my door with a tank if I had those weapons...

[mcsluggo]

yes-m. but then we are still left with some cold hard facts when we try to compare the scary murder rates in the UK with our own:

Originally Posted by Wiki

In 2005/06 there were 766 offences initially recorded as homicide by the police in England and Wales (including the 52 victims of the 7 July 2005 London bombings), a rate of 1.4 per 100,000 of population. Only 50 (6.6%) were committed with firearms, one being with an air weapon. The homicide rate for London was 2.4 per 100,000 in the same year (1.7 when excluding the 7 July bombings).

By comparison, 5.5 murders per 100,000 of population were reported by police in the United States in 2000, of which 70% involved the use of firearms.

you can make the "need to defend oneself" argument, and we can go back anf forth on some clear pluses and minuses on both sides of the debate.... but I don't think the "people will just find other ways to kill each other" dog hunts very well.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

yes-m. but then we are still left with some cold hard facts when we try to compare the scary murder rates in the UK with our own:



you can make the "need to defend oneself" argument, and we can go back anf forth on some clear pluses and minuses on both sides of the debate.... but I don't think the "people will just find other ways to kill each other" dog hunts very well.

So... McSluggo, my friend. Explain why Britain has a knife problem then...

People use whatever they have...

[wmbwinn]

Why do you suppose the murder rate is higher in America than in Britain?

How many Chicagos are in Britain? How many Dallas and LA metroplexes?
How many racially divided slums?

Does it matter whether the murders are performed with guns or knives or stones (the Palestians throw rocks at the Israelis and shoot rockets that are no more advanced than my 4th of July bottle rockets as to accuracy)?

Take guns away from Chicago and Dallas and LA and the murders will still happen with knives and other weapons.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Why do you suppose the murder rate is higher in America than in Britain?

How many Chicagos are in Britain? How many Dallas and LA metroplexes?
How many racially divided slums?

Does it matter whether the murders are performed with guns or knives or stones (the Palestians throw rocks at the Israelis and shoot rockets that are no more advanced than my 4th of July bottle rockets as to accuracy)?

Take guns away from Chicago and Dallas and LA and the murders will still happen with knives and other weapons.

If the weapon doesn't matter (only the intent to cause harm) then why the hell did you or anyone else care care whether or not Saddam Huessain had "weapons of mass destruction"?

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

If the weapon doesn't matter (only the intent to cause harm) then why the hell did you or anyone else care care whether or not Saddam Huessain had "weapons of mass destruction"?

Wow, that's a stretch... The reason we care about ANY state we consider to be "rogue" (aka Saddam's Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, etc) having a nuke is because of the capability it gives them to inflict mass casualties. These states will still try, but without nukes their ability to inflict the max harm is minimized. If you don't get that, then I'm truly shocked.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

If the weapon doesn't matter (only the intent to cause harm) then why the hell did you or anyone else care care whether or not Saddam Huessain had "weapons of mass destruction"?

1)Because he had the intent to do harm. That is the primary crime. Dead people and their living families don't care a lot about what weapon was used.

2)Because he had weapons which he was using (mass murder of Kurds and Shiites) to massacre thousands.

3)Because he had intent to directly hurt Americans and American interests and American Allies.

But, number one is what matters. He had the capacity to do great harm AND HE INTENDED To do great harm. And, he had already demonstrated his willingness to inflict great harm.

The NRA and common sense gun owners have no problem with preventing those KNOWN to have committed crimes with weapons from getting weapons.

[chumdawg]

Thanks very much for the detailed information. I do feel as though I learned something today.

One question tugging at the back of my mind, though, as a person who doesn't yet own a gun but who is interested in self-defense and who is willing to consider the notion of carrying a lethal weapon as a reasonable means of self-defense...

It sounds to me as though the automatic weapon would give me a whole hell of a lot more self-defense. If I am trying to protect myself against a lethal threat, I'd a lot rather have an automatic weapon than a revolver. What gives here?

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Thanks very much for the detailed information. I do feel as though I learned something today.

One question tugging at the back of my mind, though, as a person who doesn't yet own a gun but who is interested in self-defense and who is willing to consider the notion of carrying a lethal weapon as a reasonable means of self-defense...

It sounds to me as though the automatic weapon would give me a whole hell of a lot more self-defense. If I am trying to protect myself against a lethal threat, I'd a lot rather have an automatic weapon than a revolver. What gives here?

There are two kinds of automatic weapons. The fully automatic weapon is the one of wars and Hollywood and is the one where you pull the trigger and keep it pulled and spray bullets everywhere. If you want that, you have to go through a Level 3 NFA application and screen and fee.

The other type is the semi automatic weapon. This is legal. This is the type of gun where you pull the trigger once and the gun fires once. There is often a large or fairly large magazine capacity so that you can quickly shoot many times. This is what you probably want.

Now, if you really are just looking at defense, get a 12 gauge shotgun. Buckshot rounds hold about 12-20 large balls per shell. A semiauto 12 gauge shotgun can therefore shoot at least 12 balls each time you pull the trigger. This weapon puts out more lead than a fully automatic weapon as a result...

And, believe me, the 12 gauge shotgun loaded with buckshot is pretty much the most effective short range weapon available...

And, you can get it pretty cheap.

If you want to go a little exotic, get the Russian made Saiga semiauto 12 gauge...

It is based on the AK47 and magazines are available ranging from 5 to 25 in capacity...

And you can get that shotgun for around 500 dollars.

Or you can get a simple Mossberg for 200 dollars or less...

[wmbwinn]

I do recommend picking up the Golani/Galil while Century has them before they sell out...

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Thanks very much for the detailed information. I do feel as though I learned something today.

One question tugging at the back of my mind, though, as a person who doesn't yet own a gun but who is interested in self-defense and who is willing to consider the notion of carrying a lethal weapon as a reasonable means of self-defense...

It sounds to me as though the automatic weapon would give me a whole hell of a lot more self-defense. If I am trying to protect myself against a lethal threat, I'd a lot rather have an automatic weapon than a revolver. What gives here?

Fully automatic is illegal, without the Level 3 NFA permit wmbwinn mentioned earlier. So if you're looking for automatic, the more technically accurate term for what you're looking for is semi-automatic, meaning one shot fired as fast as you can pull the trigger.

I have a model 1911 45 ACP pistol (a clone based on the original Colt design). The magazine holds 7 rounds, so I can carry 8 rounds max (1 in the chamber and 7 in the magazine). If I felt a need to fire 8 rounds, then I could do it. However, the drawback with my particular weapon is that it has a problem with jamming. When completely emptying a magazine, I usually have at least 1 jam, sometimes 2. It REALLY pisses me off. I also have a 9MM and a CZ52, which have similar magazine capacities. Those two guns never jam.

The advantage to a Revolver is that it's impossible to jam. If you have a 2 Stage Trigger (meaning you can just pull the trigger without having to manually cock the gun), then you can empty the gun as fast as you can pull the trigger, with no fear of jamming. Some revolvers hold 5 rounds, others hold 6, and you can probably find some that hold 7. So the number of rounds the gun can hold is comparable.

The advantage to a semi-auto such as the three I own is that it's really easy and quick to reload. I simply remove the empty magazine and insert a second mag that is already charged (loaded with bullets), and then I release the slide and start shooting again. A revolver isn't quite that easy. They make quick load devices for revolvers, but they are more awkward to carry. Reloading a revolver is more time consuming.

I know a guy who used to be in the military and later served as a police officer. While he was a cop, his sheriff wouldn't let any of them carry semi-autos (such as the 1911), because of the potential for jamming. They all had to carry revolvers.

My preference is the semi-auto, but after firing my 45 and dealing with jams, I can't complain about revolvers.

[chumdawg]

If my concern is protecting my homestead and my family and myself, I want whatever the military sees best fit to use in a firefight. If that's the 12-guage, so be it. But how quickly can I load that bad boy, under very stressful conditions with which I am not familiar?

It seems like I would be better off with a weapon that could squeeze off fifty or sixty rounds in short order, thereby overcoming my inherent limitations in using the weapon in that situation.

The guns you have recommended do sound good, but I'm not the kind of guy who likes to take chances. If I or my family is getting attacked, I'm certainly not concerned about overkill, or using a crane to swat a fly. If my interest is defense, I want the best defense possible.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

If my concern is protecting my homestead and my family and myself, I want whatever the military sees best fit to use in a firefight. If that's the 12-guage, so be it. But how quickly can I load that bad boy, under very stressful conditions with which I am not familiar?

It seems like I would be better off with a weapon that could squeeze off fifty or sixty rounds in short order, thereby overcoming my inherent limitations in using the weapon in that situation.

The guns you have recommended do sound good, but I'm not the kind of guy who likes to take chances. If I or my family is getting attacked, I'm certainly not concerned about overkill, or using a crane to swat a fly. If my interest is defense, I want the best defense possible.

For home defense purposes, I agree with wmbwinn that a shotgun is the best option. Whether it's a pump or a semi-auto, they are loaded the same way. There is a slot on the bottom side (just forward of the trigger), where you can slide a shell in (one at a time). A standard size shotgun can hold up to 5 shells. If you purchase one that has an extended tube (such as a riot gun), then I believe you can hold 8 rounds.

If you want to shoot off 50-60 rounds in short order, then a semi-auto handgun with several extra magazines is what you need. When gun is empty, the slide locks back. You press a button on the side, and the magazine falls out. Shove in a new mag, release the slide, and then fire away.

However, shooting 6-8 rounds of 12 gauge buckshot would probably be more effective than 50-60 rounds out of a 45 (where only 1 piece of lead flies with each shot fired). With the shotgun, your ability to aim is not as much of an issue. It's the original "point and click" interface, so to speak.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

For home defense purposes, I agree with wmbwinn that a shotgun is the best option. Whether it's a pump or a semi-auto, they are loaded the same way. There is a slot on the bottom side (just forward of the trigger), where you can slide a shell in (one at a time). A standard size shotgun can hold up to 5 shells. If you purchase one that has an extended tube (such as a riot gun), then I believe you can hold 8 rounds.

If you want to shoot off 50-60 rounds in short order, then a semi-auto handgun with several extra magazines is what you need. When gun is empty, the slide locks back. You press a button on the side, and the magazine falls out. Shove in a new mag, release the slide, and then fire away.

However, shooting 6-8 rounds of 12 gauge buckshot would probably be more effective than 50-60 rounds out of a 45 (where only 1 piece of lead flies with each shot fired). With the shotgun, your ability to aim is not as much of an issue. It's the original "point and click" interface, so to speak.

These certainly seem like reasonable alternatives. But the shotgun does need to be aimed at the intruder, right? I'm talking close range here, probably inside of twenty feet. What kind of spread can I expect from a shotgun at twenty feet? In other words, how accurate do I need to be?

I think I would be more confident in a fully automatic weapon that could spray off all the shots I reasonably want to fire in short order, in different directions as I adjust my aim. If there are multiple intruders, I want to be able to adjust aim and fire again as quickly as possible. I don't know that I am sold on five shotgun blasts picking off all the intruders, if there are several, at short range. I think I would prefer to just squeeze the trigger and point it wherever I see fit.

[dude1394]

From 20 feet I don't think you are going to miss with a shotgun. And if you hit him, he'll stay down.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

These certainly seem like reasonable alternatives. But the shotgun does need to be aimed at the intruder, right? I'm talking close range here, probably inside of twenty feet. What kind of spread can I expect from a shotgun at twenty feet? In other words, how accurate do I need to be?

I think I would be more confident in a fully automatic weapon that could spray off all the shots I reasonably want to fire in short order, in different directions as I adjust my aim. If there are multiple intruders, I want to be able to adjust aim and fire again as quickly as possible. I don't know that I am sold on five shotgun blasts picking off all the intruders, if there are several, at short range. I think I would prefer to just squeeze the trigger and point it wherever I see fit.

What you are not considering is where all those bullets are going that don't hit the intended target. Bullets can go through walls. If the round is strong enough, they can go through brick. You don't want to shoot into your neighbors house. And probably more important, you don't want to shoot through every wall in your house and hit your own family. Never shoot unless you're sure of your target, AND what is behind your target. We're not talking about a military style urban warfare scenario. I don't have the specific spread info at 20 feet, because it differs by how hot the load is. But at 20 feet, you could expect to hit more than one person with a single shot, if they are relatively close together (such as in your hallway). Just point in their direction and fire away.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by jefelump

What you are not considering is where all those bullets are going that don't hit the intended target. Bullets can go through walls. If the round is strong enough, they can go through brick. You don't want to shoot into your neighbors house. And probably more important, you don't want to shoot through every wall in your house and hit your own family. Never shoot unless you're sure of your target, AND what is behind your target. We're not talking about a military style urban warfare scenario. I don't have the specific spread info at 20 feet, because it differs by how hot the load is. But at 20 feet, you could expect to hit more than one person with a single shot, if they are relatively close together (such as in your hallway). Just point in their direction and fire away.

Well, what I'm saying is that I don't want to mess around, when my and my family's lives are at stake. I feel that I may need the automatic weapon, and I'm not too concerned with laws that say I can't use them.

[jefelump]

Here is a link to some Mossberg shotguns. These are pump, and not semi-auto, but there are several options to choose from. The semi-autos are more expensive.

http://www.webarms.com/Gun%20Supplie...20Shotguns.htm

Oh, and the sound of a shotgun pump being worked will in many cases scare the sh!t out of an intruder and cause him to retreat in a panic...

[dalmations202]

For the self defense of the home............forget buckshot..... use #9 shot. Buckshot will penetrate walls, possibly hurting someone else.

#9 shot will be in the guy forever. Even if it didn't kill him, it would still knock him off his feet and they would be picking out shot for DAYS -- much nastier than buckshot going through him and possibly through the wall, and through someone else.

Wmbwinn, and Jefelump seem to be very well informed about the guns available (probably better than I am anymore, I kind of got out of the firearm dealing about 10 years ago).

Chum, if you are going to carry a weapon for self-defense. Consider the .45 ACP or the 10MM -- both are large enough caliber to knock a man down -- allowing you time to remove yourself and loved ones and get the police there.

If you are talking home -- 12Guage all the way. Although like I said, I suggest #9 shot because you aren't going to be shooting over 100' anyway, and birdshot doesn't penetrate as far.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

For the self defense of the home............forget buckshot..... use #9 shot. Buckshot will penetrate walls, possibly hurting someone else.

#9 shot will be in the guy forever. Even if it didn't kill him, it would still knock him off his feet and they would be picking out shot for DAYS -- much nastier than buckshot going through him and possibly through the wall, and through someone else.

Wmbwinn, and Jefelump seem to be very well informed about the guns available (probably better than I am anymore, I kind of got out of the firearm dealing about 10 years ago).

Chum, if you are going to carry a weapon for self-defense. Consider the .45 ACP or the 10MM -- both are large enough caliber to knock a man down -- allowing you time to remove yourself and loved ones and get the police there.

If you are talking home -- 12Guage all the way. Although like I said, I suggest #9 shot because you aren't going to be shooting over 100' anyway, and birdshot doesn't penetrate as far.

I have heard that idea before. But... I'd like to know the guy I just shot isn't going to be able to shoot back.

Buckshot is terribly effective and will kill. Number 9 birdshot will penetrate skin, hurt, blind if the shot is to the face, and knock a man down at close range. But, he could shoot back from the floor.

I understand the issue of over penetration. But, I'd not go weaker than goose loads (#2 shot) and I prefer the buckshot.

If you reload your own shells, then... there are more options...

To Dalmation's credit, the birdshot is unlikely to kill and that is generally better so long as you can prevail over the living attacker.

Agree that if you are talking about a concealed carry weapon, that the 45 ACP Colt type revolver just can't be beat.

But, there are countless great options.

And, don't forget about the Taser...

[chumdawg]

jefe and winn, I'm afraid that you guys are missing some subtle arguments on this page of the thread.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

jefe and winn, I'm afraid that you guys are missing some subtle arguments on this page of the thread.

And what might those subtle arguments be?

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

jefe and winn, I'm afraid that you guys are missing some subtle arguments on this page of the thread.

The only "subtle arguement" I see is that it has been proposed that perhaps we should have less effective weapons than guns. Is that your point?

1)can't eliminate guns
2)I don't want to bring a knife to a gun fight
3)dead is dead. The knife or the baseball bat or the rat poison will all do the job.
4)criminals commit crime. Gun laws prevent non criminals from having a gun. The criminal will ignore the gun law and get a gun.

The USA and USSR reduced their supplies of nukes in the past cold war. The world tried to reduce the effectiveness of its tools for destruction. Didn't change anything, did it?
Places like Pakistan and N. Korea got nukes anyway...

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

The only "subtle arguement" I see is that it has been proposed that perhaps we should have less effective weapons than guns. Is that your point?

1)can't eliminate guns
2)I don't want to bring a knife to a gun fight
3)dead is dead. The knife or the baseball bat or the rat poison will all do the job.
4)criminals commit crime. Gun laws prevent non criminals from having a gun. The criminal will ignore the gun law and get a gun.

The USA and USSR reduced their supplies of nukes in the past cold war. The world tried to reduce the effectiveness of its tools for destruction. Didn't change anything, did it?
Places like Pakistan and N. Korea got nukes anyway...

The thing Chum says he wants is a fully automatic weapon, so he can just hold the trigger down and spray 50-60 shots in any direction, to make sure the bad guys are all good and dead. The scenario is absurd. It sounds like Hollywood, and not reality. His point, I presume, is that anyone will get guns who truly wants them, so he may as well get one too, and have the bigger, better gun. He's trying to be facetious at our expense. Personally, I think it's a stupid point. Law abiding, second amendment supporters don't think like this, nor support such utter crap, so there really is nothing to his "subtle point".

[chumdawg]

Actually, it was mcsluggo's argument that I was primarily talking about. It really wasn't a "subtle" argument...I was trying to be kind.

Winn argued that Brits who are going to kill are going to do it whether they have guns or not (they will use knives if they have to)...or something like that.

Sluggo countered by presenting some facts that show murders in the US are much more prevalent than murders in the UK, and also that murders in the US are committed with firearms much more prevalently than they are in the UK.

Winn countered by suggesting that were other reasons that the murder rate in the US is higher in the UK, at the same time claiming that the murder rate in the US would stay the same whether the murderers wielded guns or knives.

This was a very unreasonable argument, given that guns can cause another person's death much more readily than knives can. Surely you won't argue this point, will you? If so, you are going to have to backtrack on all your recommendations of home defense and suggest that the best knives will be good enough for the job.

So Sluggo countered this (evidently ridiculous) argument by asking why the nature of the weapon mattered when it came to Hussein. This was the "subtlety" that was completely lost.

For my part, I was trying to get at what the rights are when it comes to being able to defend yourself and your family and your homestead. Mine, admittedly, was more subtle...but still reasonable. See, the question is this:

If you get into a situation where you need to defend yourself and/or your family and home, what is the most effective way to do so?

We got some recommendations about shotguns and how to load them--which admittedly were educational, and I do genuinely thank you for contributing to my knowledge of the subject--but no one really seemed to address the issue of...if it's life or death, what do you want in your hand? We heard about costs and licensing red tape and laws other stuff. But we didn't address the ideological issue at hand.

If I want an armory to protect myself and my land, who is the government to say I can't have it? If I want AK47's, why can't I have AK47's?

In conceding that I shouldn't be able to have AK47's, you are conceding that there are limitations on my Second Amendment rights. Is that what you intended to do?

If not, you missed the subtlety.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Actually, it was mcsluggo's argument that I was primarily talking about. It really wasn't a "subtle" argument...I was trying to be kind.

Winn argued that Brits who are going to kill are going to do it whether they have guns or not (they will use knives if they have to)...or something like that.

Sluggo countered by presenting some facts that show murders in the US are much more prevalent than murders in the UK, and also that murders in the US are committed with firearms much more prevalently than they are in the UK.

Winn countered by suggesting that were other reasons that the murder rate in the US is higher in the UK, at the same time claiming that the murder rate in the US would stay the same whether the murderers wielded guns or knives.

This was a very unreasonable argument, given that guns can cause another person's death much more readily than knives can. Surely you won't argue this point, will you? If so, you are going to have to backtrack on all your recommendations of home defense and suggest that the best knives will be good enough for the job.

Saying "guns can cause another person's death" is something I will dispute, on the grounds of semantics. Guns don't cause death. People shooting guns cause death. But semantics aside, I will concede the point that it's much easier to kill someone with a gun than it is with a knife. However, I'm not about to backtrack on my recommendation. When it comes to protecting my home, I choose a shotgun.

And to Wmbwinn's claim that the murder rate would stay the same in the US whether the criminal has a gun or a knife, I still agree with him. We're talking about "murder", and not "accidental death" or "negligent homicide". If it's the intent of the criminal to murder, they will carry through until death is achieved. It's easier with a gun, but not that much harder with a knife. The intention is the same.

Originally Posted by chumdawg

So Sluggo countered this (evidently ridiculous) argument by asking why the nature of the weapon mattered when it came to Hussein. This was the "subtlety" that was completely lost.

And I provided a response that I thought was reasonable. I said a WMD gave Hussein the ability to commit murder to a higher degree/rate. I believe I spoke of inflicting "max casualties." In the case of Hussein, we're not talking about 1, 2, 10, or 20 people. We're talking about the ability (and internationally agreed desire) to wipe out an entire city with one strike. So yes, the weapon mattered. And again, we're talking about murder, and not home defence. Your scenario vs the Hussein scenario is comparing apples to oranges.

Originally Posted by chumdawg

For my part, I was trying to get at what the rights are when it comes to being able to defend yourself and your family and your homestead. Mine, admittedly, was more subtle...but still reasonable. See, the question is this:

If you get into a situation where you need to defend yourself and/or your family and home, what is the most effective way to do so?

Your proposed way (a fully automatic machine gun) will certainly kill the intruder, but you completely disregarded the collateral damage of bullets spraying through walls and killing neighbors and other family members. I would not claim this is more effective at all. This is more damaging. Whether the intruder is dead with 1 shot or 10 shots doesn't matter. Dead is dead.

Originally Posted by chumdawg

We got some recommendations about shotguns and how to load them--which admittedly were educational, and I do genuinely thank you for contributing to my knowledge of the subject--but no one really seemed to address the issue of...if it's life or death, what do you want in your hand? We heard about costs and licensing red tape and laws other stuff. But we didn't address the ideological issue at hand.

I want a gun in my hand. No, I do not want an AK47 being shot in my home. I can kill the intruder with a shotgun and minimize collateral damage. An AK47 being fired 50-60 times in various directions, as you described, yields no control over the situation, and therefore definite collateral damage. We have discussed ideology at length in this thread... the argument of property vs life, the argument of wound vs kill. My stance has not changed. If I feel my family is threatened by an intruder in my home, I'm going to shoot to kill. I am not going to try to wound the intruder and let him sue me later for assault. Yes, I value the sanctity of life, but I value it more in my own family than that of a stranger. I have heard nobody on this thread disagree with that. Everyone has said if an intruder is in their home threatening their family, then they have no problems with killing the intruder.

Originally Posted by chumdawg

If I want an armory to protect myself and my land, who is the government to say I can't have it? If I want AK47's, why can't I have AK47's?

In conceding that I shouldn't be able to have AK47's, you are conceding that there are limitations on my Second Amendment rights. Is that what you intended to do?

Yes, I have stated as much in the posts where I was talking about the majority opinion in the Heller case. Alito himself said the second amendment is not unlimited. There are legal limits to what I can own, that are not an infringement of my right to keep and bear arms. I'm OK with that. You seem to think second amendment supporters claim that any restriction on weapons is wrong. As wmbwinn has posted, the NRA supports restrictions on fully automatic weapons, as well as restrictions on convicted felons and mentally ill people. The State has the right to pass laws to protect it's citizens. The DC ban, as stated by the SCOTUS, went too far.

And your legal inability to own a fully automatic AK47 without a license is not an infringement on your right to keep and bear arms. You can have one, IF you're willing to pay for the license and follow all of the rules and requirements to have that license. On the contrary, the DC gun ban completely forbade handguns. There was no way to have one (legally), irregardless of any license or permit you were willing to pay for. That is the difference. You can have an AK47 if done right. In DC, you could NOT have a handgun, period.

[chumdawg]

You have strong ideas and you can articulate them well, but you are still not appreciating what it is that is being debated here.

Originally Posted by jefelump

Saying "guns can cause another person's death" is something I will dispute, on the grounds of semantics. Guns don't cause death. People shooting guns cause death. But semantics aside, I will concede the point that it's much easier to kill someone with a gun than it is with a knife. However, I'm not about to backtrack on my recommendation. When it comes to protecting my home, I choose a shotgun.

It's not at all semantics. It's the idea you espoused that you are more readily equipped to kill someone with a shotgun than you are with a knife. This is obvious to everyone, I would think.

And to Wmbwinn's claim that the murder rate would stay the same in the US whether the criminal has a gun or a knife, I still agree with him. We're talking about "murder", and not "accidental death" or "negligent homicide". If it's the intent of the criminal to murder, they will carry through until death is achieved. It's easier with a gun, but not that much harder with a knife. The intention is the same.

Now it's "not that much harder with a knife"? Gimme a break, man. You aren't going to be satisfied with a knife for home defense, as you have said. But you claim that the hood who wants to kill someone can do it just as readily with a knife as he can with a gun? You can either reconcile your two disparate views or abandon one of them.

So yes, the weapon mattered. And again, we're talking about murder, and not home defence. Your scenario vs the Hussein scenario is comparing apples to oranges.

What we're talking about is weapons, and how they can be deployed.

Your proposed way (a fully automatic machine gun) will certainly kill the intruder, but you completely disregarded the collateral damage...

When innocent people die because someone had ready access to a gun, is that not also "collateral damage"?

Everyone has said if an intruder is in their home threatening their family, then they have no problems with killing the intruder.

And my contention is, if that is your stance then how could you ever rest comfortably with someone telling you, "No, that's too much firepower"? What's next? The shotgun is too deadly? Only a revolver for you? And you can only buy so much ammunition, if what you are concerned about is protecting your home against the odd intruder who may appear, on average, less than once in your lifetime?

There are legal limits to what I can own, that are not an infringement of my right to keep and bear arms. I'm OK with that.

Now, this is what we are getting at. How's about if the legal limits say you can own all the knives you want, but you can't own a gun? Still comfortable with your home defense? You need to be consistent.

The State has the right to pass laws to protect it's citizens.

True. It has not only the right, but the responsibility. So how about the Americans who died by gunfire, far outnumbering the Brits who died at knifepoint? Any obligation for the state in this regard?

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

You have strong ideas and you can articulate them well, but you are still not appreciating what it is that is being debated here.

I understand the debate. Your whole point is about the weapon itself. I get that.

Originally Posted by chumdawg

It's not at all semantics. It's the idea you espoused that you are more readily equipped to kill someone with a shotgun than you are with a knife. This is obvious to everyone, I would think.

And for the record, I'm not looking to kill anyone. Let's not forget that we're also talking about home defense. If I'm using a knife as my weapon of choice when an intruder comes in, then he has a good chance of wrestling that knife away from me, or having a gun himself and just shooting me. So the debate isn't solely about the weapon. It's about the "right" weapon for the circumstances.

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Now it's "not that much harder with a knife"? Gimme a break, man. You aren't going to be satisfied with a knife for home defense, as you have said. But you claim that the hood who wants to kill someone can do it just as readily with a knife as he can with a gun? You can either reconcile your two disparate views or abandon one of them.

You're claiming my views are disparate when I say I prefer a shotgun for defending my home, but that a criminal can kill with a knife too? I don't see that as disparate. I say that circumstances change with each encounter. If we're facing off and I have a shotgun and he's carrying a knife, then my statement that killing is "not that much harder with a knife" is obviously wrong. But that's only one scenario. I made that statement with the idea of a criminal attacking an unarmed victim, or a victim who is caught by surprise and doesn't have the chance to grab his own weapon. Ask the family of a knifing victim in the UK how hard it is for a criminal to kill with a knife.

Originally Posted by chumdawg

What we're talking about is weapons, and how they can be deployed.

Yes, I understand that.

Originally Posted by chumdawg

When innocent people die because someone had ready access to a gun, is that not also "collateral damage"?

Of course it is. Accidents happen, and innocent people get hurt or killed. That happens every day on the Interstates in this country. And when someone is killed by a speeding/drunk driver, that is collateral damage too, even though a gun (or knife) was not involved.

Originally Posted by chumdawg

And my contention is, if that is your stance then how could you ever rest comfortably with someone telling you, "No, that's too much firepower"? What's next? The shotgun is too deadly? Only a revolver for you? And you can only buy so much ammunition, if what you are concerned about is protecting your home against the odd intruder who may appear, on average, less than once in your lifetime?

It comes down to common sense. The laws of this country do not allow every gun owner to buy a fully automatic weapon. Saying that is "too much firepower" would be an accurate statement. Just because I support the second amendment doesn't mean I'm therefore against common sense laws that limit the type of firearm I can own. And again, I CAN own a fully automatic weapon, if I'm willing to pay for the license and background checks.

I do believe that restrictive laws on fully automatic weapons are reasonable. However, I do not believe that a restriction on my shotgun as being "too deadly" is reasonable. I do not believe telling me I can only own a revolver is reasonable either. That is exactly what happened to Heller after the SCOTUS passed their ruling. He went to register his handgun, and was turned away because it was a semi-auto instead of a revolver. And I also would not support any limits on the amount of ammunition I can own.

So no, I would NOT rest comfortably if the types of laws or restrictions you described were passed. If a President tried to pass such laws, I think there would be an uprising again in this country... perhaps Civil War II?

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Now, this is what we are getting at. How's about if the legal limits say you can own all the knives you want, but you can't own a gun? Still comfortable with your home defense? You need to be consistent.

No, I would not be comfortable with my home defense, if I could only use a knife (or baseball bat), because I would still claim the criminal breaking into my home could be carrying a gun. As we have said before, the laws don't matter to a criminal. If they want a gun, they will have a gun. This is why I don't live in the UK.

Originally Posted by chumdawg

True. It has not only the right, but the responsibility. So how about the Americans who died by gunfire, far outnumbering the Brits who died at knifepoint? Any obligation for the state in this regard?

The problem with those statistics is that they assume each incident happened in a vacuum. It completely ignores circumstances. And before you quote me and say "Dead is dead", it's true those people are all dead, irregardless of the circumstances surrounding their deaths. I do believe the state has an obligation to protect it's citizens. That is why we have a Police force. That is why we have a military. But I also believe it's the responsibility and obligation of each individual to look out for themselves. I don't lay the responsibility solely on the state.

[dalmations202]

Since there are many here who do not seem to like the 2nd amendment and think I should give up my guns -- That the weapon is the debatable issue, and not the people or their intent -- then I say we give up our nukes in America and also all our "big guns".

Now, here is my problem now that I have destroyed all my weapons.
I do not feel safe with Russia and Pakistan and China having nuclear capability.

How do you propose to resolve this issue?
The only answer I have ever heard from any liberal is to whine them to death. I am willing to listen to alternatives though.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Since there are many here who do not seem to like the 2nd amendment and think I should give up my guns -- That the weapon is the debatable issue, and not the people or their intent -- then I say we give up our nukes in America and also all our "big guns".

Now, here is my problem now that I have destroyed all my weapons.
I do not feel safe with Russia and Pakistan and China having nuclear capability.

How do you propose to resolve this issue?
The only answer I have ever heard from any liberal is to whine them to death. I am willing to listen to alternatives though.

Unilateral disarmament will never work, in my opinion, because Russia, Pakistan, and China won't follow suit. It will simply make America weaker, and therefore make these other states stronger by comparison.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by jefelump

Unilateral disarmament will never work, in my opinion, because Russia, Pakistan, and China won't follow suit. It will simply make America weaker, and therefore make these other states stronger by comparison.

And, that is one reason why removing guns from honest people is also not effective.

[wmbwinn]

knives versus guns:
the gun is more effective.
the knife is used if the gun is not available
if murder is the object and a person is committed to accomplishing that goal, he/she will use whatever he/she has until they are successful or stopped

The gun is a protected right under the constitution. Funny we should be debating the gun vs. the knife when the previous assault weapon ban said that the gun itself was ok if and only if the knife was removed from the end of the gun....


The real issue here is law enforcement. It is already illegal to kill people in most situations not related to desperate defense. The law does not say it is legal to kill with a knife but not a gun or vice versa. The problem we have is that the laws are not enforced. There are probably more murders committed by people released from jail than the total number of murders in England. But, the scale is off because England is tiny compared to the numbers in question in the USA.
-------------------------------------------------

"Quote:
Your proposed way (a fully automatic machine gun) will certainly kill the intruder, but you completely disregarded the collateral damage...

When innocent people die because someone had ready access to a gun, is that not also "collateral damage"? "

Collateral damage is defined as killing unintended targets. If I have ready access to a gun and use it to kill an intruder into my home, I have no collateral damage unless I shoot someone else. This is why Dalmations suggested the close range use of bird shot. It won't kill anyone (rare cause of death at least) including the intruder. I have suggested the pepper spray weapons and Taser gun as other options to stop an intruder without killing him. But, back to the point, it is only collateral damage if I shoot the wrong person.

The number one cause of US servicemen death in active combat scenes is "Friendly fire" meaning we accidentally shoot our own troops... That is collateral damage. When a bomb is dropped from a plane and knocks out the desired target but also kills a 2 year old child, that is collateral damage.

When I shoot an intruder in my house, that is not collateral damage.

-----------------------------------------

On the issue of "overkill" questions or questions about defining the limits of the second amendment:

If you want an AK47, you can go get one today in at least 50 places in the DFW metroplex. It will be semi automatic but you can now get 70 round magazines for it.

If you want a fully auto AK47, you can get one just as soon as you apply for and receive your level 3 NFA permit.

If you want the AK47 fully auto weapon for your choice of home protection, then go get it. No problem with me.

I'd advise the semi auto 12 gauge. If I am ever in a bad situation and there are two weapons to choose from and my opponent gets the one I don't choose... I'll take the Saiga 12 gauge with the Wraithmaker magazine loaded with buckshot and let the other guy have the fully auto AK47...

But, Chum, you can have either weapon you want so long as you follow the rules.

Now, as to the question of "over kill": There are no rules in war. Get the biggest weapon you can own legally. Since we are not in a war, then you have to follow the rules of the ATF.
Please learn to use it as safely as possible. Avoid collateral injury. Take proper training. Take a concealed handgun carry course in Texas even if you don't intend to buy a pistol. Take hunter safety training courses. Be careful and wise and nice to your neighbor. Idiots with guns tend to not last very long.

----------------------------------------

Limits on ammo: this is actually very nice timing, Chum. This is one of the most recent Left Wing attacks on the Second Amendment. They have decided to go after ammo if they can't win by going after guns...

Now, it is silly to say that I can only have the amount of ammo that I need to protect my home against a threat to my home that is likely to occur on average less than once in an American's life.

I want plenty of ammo to practice with. It is a hobby. The more practiced I am, the less colateral damage I will cause if I ever do have to use the gun for defense.

---------------------------------------------

I already dealt with the gun vs. knife debate above. It would be unconstitutional to restrict me to a knife and deny me a gun.

And, in your little dream world, you have removed the gun from the criminal so that I don't need a gun. That is a dream world. The criminal has a gun.
I want a gun and I want to use it better than the criminal.

--------------------------------------------
"True. It has not only the right, but the responsibility. So how about the Americans who died by gunfire, far outnumbering the Brits who died at knifepoint? Any obligation for the state in this regard?"

Again, there are a great number of reasons why the murder rate in the USA is higher than the rate in Britain. Is one reason because Americans are more effective with their gun than the Brits are with their knife? Sure, that is logical.

But, go back up and note that the criminal has a gun. Even the Brits have not succeeded in preventing the bad guy from having a gun. The Brits have partially succeeded in preventing gun ownership. The spike in knife violence is due to the abscence of guns.

But, the main reasons why the Brits have a lower murder rate than the USA is that the USA is so much more complicated than England. There are a great number of reasons why the problem is bigger in the USA than England.

Shall I quote murder rates in Palestine and try to make a conclusion about policies in Palestine and then try to extrapolate to the USA? That would be crazy.

Shall I look at Zimbabwe and conclude that if we just got rid of the military in the USA, then the death rate would decline?

There is very little to compare "straight across" between the US and UK.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by dalmations202

Since there are many here who do not seem to like the 2nd amendment and think I should give up my guns -- That the weapon is the debatable issue, and not the people or their intent -- then I say we give up our nukes in America and also all our "big guns".

Now, here is my problem now that I have destroyed all my weapons.
I do not feel safe with Russia and Pakistan and China having nuclear capability.

How do you propose to resolve this issue?
The only answer I have ever heard from any liberal is to whine them to death. I am willing to listen to alternatives though.

This is precisely the where the arguement keeps coming around to where it started.

You can't remove weapons including guns or nukes from your enemy. Therefore, you better have a gun and a nuke and as much other advantage as you can get.

[wmbwinn]

bitter3.jpg

Enjoy...

I love this yard sign...

[wmbwinn]

bearwarning].jpg


Here is a good example of not having an adequate weapon for defensive purposes...

[wmbwinn]

Here we go again....


______________________________________________


NRA, Heller Take District Back to Court

Friday, August 01, 2008

Shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's gun ban, the District, Mayor and City Council are being sued again over the District's thinly veiled attempt to continue its restrictions on firearm ownership. D.C. residents Dick Anthony Heller and Absalom F. Jordan, Jr., in conjunction with lawyers for the NRA, filed a complaint against the District of Columbia and Mayor Adrian Fenty challenging D.C.'s Firearms Control Emergency Amendment Act of 2008.

"The District of Columbia's so-called 'emergency regulations' prohibit law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves and their loved ones in their own homes," said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. "The Mayor and City Council have proposed a list of regulations that violate the Supreme Court's decision."

On June 26, 2008, the U. S. Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller, that "the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense." The Supreme Court explicitly articulated that handguns are constitutionally-protected, yet the District's Firearms Control Emergency Amendment Act of 2008 bans all semi-automatic handguns and requires any firearm in the home to be disassembled, unloaded and secured by locking devices unless there is an "immediate" threat of violence, even for innocuous purposes such as cleaning.

"The D.C. Council and Mayor are demonstrating their arrogant disregard for the Supreme Court's decision and the safety and liberty of their own law-abiding constituents," concluded Cox. "These elitist politicians who live under secured protection are continuing to prevent their residents from keeping a functional firearm in the home for self-defense. NRA will continue to work to restore the rights of D.C. residents."

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Fe...d.aspx?id=4118

[jefelump]

Every handgun I own is a semi-automatic. I certainly hope Heller wins, since I'm moving to Chicago.

This is why the June 2008 Heller decision somewhat concerned me. The decision was a 5-4 split. If this next case goes to the Supreme Court, who's to say Kennedy won't swing with the other side on this one? That is why I wish the original Heller decision was at least a 6-3 spread.

Hopefully the lower courts will rule in favor of Heller and this will end. Hopefully if the District appeals up to the SCOTUS, they will uphold the lower court ruling and decline to hear the case.

[92bDad]

Okay, for some reason the printed word is confusing me.

As I understand, according to the Constitution of America, we as private citizens have a right to bare arms. In other words, we are allowed to OWN guns.

As such, I believe we should be allowed to OWN and handle our guns/weapons as deemed necessary on our private property...or rental property that is our residence.

The thought of having to disassemble our private weapons on our property is simply against the Constitution of America.

I have no problems with a ban of weapons in public and government places. Keep in mind, that I believe our Automobile is considered private property...thus having some weapons in the glove box, under the seat or any other convenient place that is secure, but easy to obtain in the event of an emergency is okay by my book.

Personally, I don't own any weapons, but that is my choice...if I choose to own and operate a weapon, I have every right according the Constitution to do so.

Just remember, it's not the Law-Abiding citizen you have to worry about, it's the criminal. He/She will use weapons, regardless of the law. That is why they are criminals