Carrying Guns

[LSUmiss]

I remember casually talking to a coworker, who mentioned that she had a gun. She rather qualified that the reason why was "I lived in Oakland". Certainly I know Oakland well. Certain parts of Oakland are actually about as safe from violent crime as anywhere in California. However, the big issue that they have there is property crimes and the poor police response times. They're so busy dealing with gang violence that they often didn't have the personnel to respond to residential burglary calls or even take reports. They have an online form that will satisfy most insurance company requirements.

It's got to be tough though. I know some cops look forward to working in the tough areas. I've heard of one detective who worked in a bland suburb with almost no violent crime, and he joined a county drug task force where he would probably get more interesting cases. However, Oakland had a problem with a lot of their police who they trained at their academy leaving for suburban police departments the first chance they got. They also had a budget shortfall where they ended up shuttering their academy. They ended up getting help from the California Highway Patrol. It was mostly to run local traffic patrols to free the city cops to handle other issues, but they did have regular police training and could answer a residential call if needed.

And I guess that is my point to some extent, I am not against gun ownership at all. I can see the need/want. But, like so many things, I think it’s get out if hand & needs to be regulated much more strictly than it is. When WDW put out their pet policy, ppl freaked out that this would a horrible idea b/c ppl would not be responsible enough to control their pets, yet we are supposed to believe that ppl can be responsible with owning a weapon that is designed to kill?! Ppl are not responsible for the most part (IMO) & need to be monitored/regulated for most things!

 

[LYSE]

And I guess that is my point to some extent, I am not against gun ownership at all. I can see the need/want. But, like so many things, I think it’s get out if hand & needs to be regulated much more strictly than it is. When WDW put out their pet policy, ppl freaked out that this would a horrible idea b/c ppl would not be responsible enough to control their pets, yet we are supposed to believe that ppl can be responsible with owning a weapon that is designed to kill?! Ppl are not responsible for the most part (IMO) & need to be monitored/regulated for most things!

>>

Especially being non American I can get it...

But just for you and others to consider did you know that American's who legally carry concealed are more law abiding than the general public and even more so than police officers?

Source: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2814691

 

[LSUmiss]

:-0 Thanks for the entertaining post.

As I said before NEED is not a requirement and you seem to struggle with that.

Yes your Opinion is yours to have and that's fine keep having it, luckily we have the constitution and the courts to fight this all out in.

As far as the “need” requirement, IMO, the 2nd amendment does not mean you can bear any kind of arm. And, since machine guns are illegal, I would argue that is not just my opinion.

And, luckily there have been times in our history that common sense & public safety have prevailed. So, just b/c you’re getting your way now, doesn’t mean it’ll stay that way.

 

[bcla]

The reduced weight of the M16 and its corresponding ammo provides one real combat benefit - the foot soldier can carry more ammo with him (or her) when away from resupplying points for long periods of time. And that was the way to go in Vietnam. Were we still fighting traditional front-based battles, our troops would be carrying heavier, more powerful weapons. And honestly, were 2 men to walk into a crowded stadium - 1 carrying an M4, and the other an M60, there is no doubt that anyone reporting on the event would refer to the M60 as the "more deadly" weapon.

And indeed, there has been a much greater reliance on heavier, more powerful rifles in Afghanistan & to an extent Iraq.

I'm not sure about that. An M60 isn't exactly user-friendly, and frankly rather clumsy if used by one person even on a bipod. I thought that in combat it usually required two or even three people in order to carry the ammo, to reload, and to clear jams. I know there's this movie fantasy about Rambo using one by himself, but in such a setting as you describe I'd think a couple of people with modern combat rifles or even submachine guns would be more dangerous. The Bataclan shooting was done with Kalashnikovs.

I've certainly been in situations where there was heavily armed security like the Super Bowl event in downtown San Francisco. I was at an air show where there were Air Force MPs everywhere. I've never been to a football game where there weren't armed police on the field. Heck - you watch an NBA game where a player is ejected, and the scene always involves an armed police escort to the locker room.

 

[LYSE]

As far as the “need” requirement, IMO, the 2nd amendment does not mean you can bear any kind of arm. And, since machine guns are illegal, I would argue that is not just my opinion.

And, luckily there have been times in our history that common sense & public safety have prevailed. So, just b/c you’re getting your way now, doesn’t mean it’ll stay that way.

On your side of the argument courts have expressed that Arms in common use are what is mainly protected, unfortunately for your side the AR15 is the most popular rifle in America .

 

[LSUmiss]

>>

I actually wasn’t referring to CCP. I don’t have a problem with this...guess why?...it’s highly regulated (at least in this state). Ppl have to have background checks & have to take a class AND pass. My dad did this years ago & ppl failed this class b/c they didn’t seem to see eye-to-eye on their right to use the gun. It weeded out the crazies! If all gun ownership was this stringent, I would have no problem. My issue is there is need for more regulation. I would even be ok if AR15 type weapons weren’t banned, but you needed a special license to own one. But, that’s where I feel there is no room for compromise.

 

[dreiwhit]

I was talking about weaponry like the AR 15 Bushmaster that really (IMHO) have very limited legitimate civilian use, you do not go deer hunting with an assault rifle, you do not need an assault rifle to keep your home safe, or to go safely to the supermarket etc. I don't care if you want to go to a target facility and shoot them all you want in a controlled environment, however I really do not think that weaponry of that caliber needs to be in the public domain. Just my opinion.

For what its worth, I know many people who hunt with AR-15 style rifles in various calibers, including calibers for larger game such as deer.

Keep in mind that the true definition of an "assault rifle" is a selective fire weapon that is capable of semi-automatic (1 round fired per pull of the trigger) or fully-automatic (more than 1 round fired per pull of the trigger) with the mode of fire set by a selector switch. The first "assault rifle" that was invented was the German Sturmgewehr during World War II - a select fire weapon. I've researched how the term "assault weapon" came to be applied to semi automatic rifles, but have had no luck. Although, I have learned that it was in use during the late 1970s. I personally suspect it was done as a marketing term to sell more semi automatic rifles. I have found where, in the 1980s, a gun control group wanted to focus on semi-automatic rifles instead of hanguns because they felt that by labeling semi automatic rifles as "assault rifles", it would make them "scarier" and be easy to outlaw them.

And, FWIW, you mention target shooting in a controlled environment. For many years, the Federal Government has not considered target shooting or shooting competitions to fall under "sporting purposes." Unfortunately, "sporting purposes" as used by the Federal Government pertaining to firearms is subject and can change.

As it has been pointed out by others, rifles in the past were of calibers much more lethal than the AR15. In fact, in Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan, a common complaint is that the 5.56mm round fired by the miltary M-16 and M4s is not sufficiently lethal to stop the enemy quickly. Some units have even issued M-14s, which was the service rifle before the M16 and fires a more lethal round.

 

[dreiwhit]

I actually wasn’t referring to CCP. I don’t have a problem with this...guess why?...it’s highly regulated (at least in this state). Ppl have to have background checks & have to take a class AND pass. My dad did this years ago & ppl failed this class b/c they didn’t seem to see eye-to-eye on their right to use the gun. It weeded out the crazies! If all gun ownership was this stringent, I would have no problem. My issue is there is need for more regulation. I would even be ok if AR15 type weapons weren’t banned, but you needed a special license to own one. But, that’s where I feel there is no room for compromise.

A right that is heavily regulated or restricted ceases to be a right and becomes a privilege. In some states and cities, its all about how wealthy you are, who you know, how powerful you are, and how much money you have and that depends on whether or not you can get a permit to carry a firearm. If you are an average Joe or Jane, you are out of luck.

Take a good hard look at all the gun control laws on the books right now. The 2nd Amendment has got to be the most heavily regulated and restricted amendment already. Think about what would happen if the regulations applied to firearms, their purchase and their use were applied to other rights that we hold dear. Would you like to take a test, be licensed, pass a background check to vote, or assembly, to write a letter to the editor? In my state, people scream about the voter ID law even though the state make provision for a free identity card to everyone who can't afford or doesn't want a driver's license. The same people who scream about a voter ID law see nothing wrong with increasing restrictions on firearms and firearms owners.

FWIW, my wife's ancestors were poor white laborers and sharecroppers in Alabama. They, along with ex-slaves, were denied their right to vote by a poll tax. If you couldn't pay the tax, you couldn't vote. Again, a right that is heavily regulated or restricted becomes a privilege.

And, since machine guns are illegal, I would argue that is not just my opinion.

Actually, machine guns are not illegal. They are very heavily regulated, but not illegal. And, they are very expensive, mostly tens of thousands of dollars. To own one, if you have the money, you have to fill out a form, get fingerprinted, have photographs taken of you, and then send all that paperwork to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. You also send them a check for $200 to pay the tax on the machine gun. It takes many months to be approved. Only after you are approved can you take ownership.

Machine guns are illegal when they were manufactured after May 19, 1986, or you are in possession of one without having paid the $200 tax to the Federal Government.

 

[LSUmiss]

A right that is heavily regulated or restricted ceases to be a right and becomes a privilege. In some states and cities, its all about how wealthy you are, how powerful you are, and how much money you have and that depends on whether or not you can get a permit to carry a firearm. If you are an average Joe or Jane, you are out of luck.

Take a good hard look at all the gun control laws on the books right now. The 2nd Amendment has got to be the most heavily regulated and restricted amendment already. Think about what would happen if the regulations applied to firearms, their purchase and their use were applied to other rights that we hold dear. Would you like to take a test, be licensed, pass a background check to vote, or assembly, to write a letter to the editor? In my state, people scream about the voter ID law even though the state make provision for a free identity card to everyone who can't afford or doesn't want a driver's license. The same people who scream about a voter ID law see nothing wrong with increasing restrictions on firearms and firearms owners.

FWIW, my wife's ancestors were poor white laborers and sharecroppers in Alabama. They, along with ex-slaves, were denied their right to vote by a poll tax. If you couldn't pay the tax, you couldn't vote. Again, a right that is heavily regulated or restricted becomes a privilege.

None of those things can harm the public. Freedom of speech has the possibility to harm the public in certain situations & so it has limitations.

 

[dreiwhit]

Freedom of speech has the possibility to harm the public in certain situations & so it has limitations.

Yes, but the limitations are not burdensome or onerous. If you yell fire in a crowded theater, and cause injury and death, you can be punished. However, if you yell fire in a crowded theater, it does not cause me to be punished or place additional restrictions on my freedom of speech when I have not committed that act.

 

[bcla]

A right that is heavily regulated or restricted ceases to be a right and becomes a privilege. In some states and cities, its all about how wealthy you are, how powerful you are, and how much money you have and that depends on whether or not you can get a permit to carry a firearm. If you are an average Joe or Jane, you are out of luck.

Take a good hard look at all the gun control laws on the books right now. The 2nd Amendment has got to be the most heavily regulated and restricted amendment already. Think about what would happen if the regulations applied to firearms, their purchase and their use were applied to other rights that we hold dear. Would you like to take a test, be licensed, pass a background check to vote, or assembly, to write a letter to the editor? In my state, people scream about the voter ID law even though the state make provision for a free identity card to everyone who can't afford or doesn't want a driver's license. The same people who scream about a voter ID law see nothing wrong with increasing restrictions on firearms and firearms owners.

FWIW, my wife's ancestors were poor white laborers and sharecroppers in Alabama. They, along with ex-slaves, were denied their right to vote by a poll tax. If you couldn't pay the tax, you couldn't vote. Again, a right that is heavily regulated or restricted becomes a privilege.

The other rights are effectively limited by the ability of someone to pay for competent legal counsel. These restrictions exist in many ways because it's possible to lose one's rights based on criminal convictions. Someone on probation or parole might be limited in freedom of speech with regards to talking about the victim. You want to write a letter to the editor claiming that the victim lied in court when that's not allowed under the terms of probation? Have fun going back to jail. Someone convicted of a violent crime may lose the right to own a firearm, and a background check or certain limitations exist to ensure that laws can be enforced.

 

[LYSE]

Actually, machine guns are not illegal. They are very heavily regulated, but not illegal. And, they are very expensive, mostly tens of thousands of dollars. To own one, if you have the money, you have to fill out a form, get fingerprinted, have photographs taken of you, and then send all that paperwork to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. You also send them a check for $200 to pay the tax on the machine gun. It takes many months to be approved. Only after you are approved can you take ownership.

Machine guns are illegal when they were manufactured after May 19, 1986, or you are in possession of one without having paid the $200 tax to the Federal Government.

pssh! I'm still waiting on my Trust Form 4 to be approved and I'm going on a year just for an SBR

None of those things can harm the public. Freedom of speech has the possibility to harm the public in certain situations & so it has limitations.

Owning and using an AR15 doesn't harm the public, murdering people harms the public.

 

[dreiwhit]

The other rights are effectively limited by the ability of someone to pay for competent legal counsel.

Sadly true. I learned 20+ years ago that money is the lubricant that keeps the legal system moving.

 

[dreiwhit]

pssh! I'm still waiting on my Trust Form 4 to be approved and I'm going on a year just for an SBR

Sorry to hear that. I've heard a lot is due to the changes made in the summer of 2016.

Owning and using an AR15 doesn't harm the public, murdering people harms the public.

And that is a key point here. I was taught personal responsibility at a young age. It was not the teacher's fault that I got a bad grade, it was my fault. Even if I had a bad or a tough teacher, it was still my fault.

It is not the fault of society or gun owners when someone misuses a firearm no more than its the fault of society or car owners when someone drives drunk. We really need to get back to the idea that PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ACTION, not this or that inanimate object.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I'm not sure about that. An M60 isn't exactly user-friendly, and frankly rather clumsy if used by one person even on a bipod. I thought that in combat it usually required two or even three people in order to carry the ammo, to reload, and to clear jams. I know there's this movie fantasy about Rambo using one by himself, but in such a setting as you describe I'd think a couple of people with modern combat rifles or even submachine guns would be more dangerous. The Bataclan shooting was done with Kalashnikovs.

I've certainly been in situations where there was heavily armed security like the Super Bowl event in downtown San Francisco. I was at an air show where there were Air Force MPs everywhere. I've never been to a football game where there weren't armed police on the field. Heck - you watch an NBA game where a player is ejected, and the scene always involves an armed police escort to the locker room.

I hope you didn't hurt yourself making that stretch

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I actually wasn’t referring to CCP. I don’t have a problem with this...guess why?...it’s highly regulated (at least in this state). Ppl have to have background checks & have to take a class AND pass. My dad did this years ago & ppl failed this class b/c they didn’t seem to see eye-to-eye on their right to use the gun. It weeded out the crazies! If all gun ownership was this stringent, I would have no problem. My issue is there is need for more regulation. I would even be ok if AR15 type weapons weren’t banned, but you needed a special license to own one. But, that’s where I feel there is no room for compromise.

Here's the thing though - an AR15 functions EXACTLY like a handgun. At the same time, the round it fires is significantly LESS powerful than a typical deer rifle.

Even when we had the so-called "assault weapons ban", the law only outlawed cosmetic features of those guns. It had nothing to do with how they actually worked. Ironically, this is how the AR15 rose to popularity. Versions of the AR15 that were compliant with the law hit the market and the popularity soon surpassed that of the AK47, which had previously been much more popular.

 

[LSUmiss]

Sorry to hear that. I've heard a lot is due to the changes made in the summer of 2016.




And that is a key point here. I was taught personal responsibility at a young age. It was not the teacher's fault that I got a bad grade, it was my fault. Even if I had a bad or a tough teacher, it was still my fault.

It is not the fault of society or gun owners when someone misuses a firearm no more than its the fault of society or car owners when someone drives drunk. We really need to get back to the idea that PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ACTION, not this or that inanimate object.

But, many laws don’t allow ppl to have other things that could be dangerous to the public b/c we can’t always trust ppl will act responsibly. You can’t have a nuclear bomb. Bombs are just objects. They don’t kill ppl by themselves unless denonated by a person.

 

[bcla]

I hope you didn't hurt yourself making that stretch

One person competently carrying an M60 is a movie fantasy. Why not a minigun if you're going to give fantasy examples?

Mass shootings with Kalashnikovs and AR-15 style weapons are a reality.

 

[LSUmiss]

Sadly true. I learned 20+ years ago that money is the lubricant that keeps the legal system moving.

To that end, money controls most things...see NRA/lobbyists. IMO, that is the problem I have with all of it. There will never be any real independent non-biased research into what is or isn’t harmful/dangerous. If laws/regulations do happen or do exist, there will always loopholes. There will only be thoughts & prayers.

 

[AnnaFloridaLover]

But, many laws don’t allow ppl to have other things that could be dangerous to the public b/c we can’t always trust ppl will act responsibly. You can’t have a nuclear bomb. Bombs are just objects. They don’t kill ppl by themselves unless denonated by a person.

But what if it's just a hobby, out in a field in the middle of nowhere to blow up targets?