Prayers For Las Vegas Nevada

Agree to disagree on the gun-question.

 

The reason why many are hesitant to get rid of high-capacity rifles is because they believe that it will lead to all guns being banned. AR-15's and AK-47's were designed to kill many people as quickly and efficiently as possible. I do not believe they are necessary for self-defense. The average self-defense scenario lasts roughly 10 seconds. You don't need 30 bullets for self-defense and I've yet to hear of a civilian needing to shoot 30 times in self-defense. Pistols and shotguns are more than enough for self-protection.

While you may not be able to walk into a gun store here in the US and buy a fully-automatic weapon off the shelf, anybody with a few tools and some knowledge of firearms can convert a semi-automatic weapon into full-auto. This is what the shooter in Las Vegas did with an assortment of high-capacity rifles that were legal at the time of purchase.

The only other use for an automatic weapon would be in a militia. The problem is that Americans haven't assembled a militia in over 200 years. I doubt that anybody in this country is going to be assembling a militia anytime soon.

I don't think high-capacity rifles are necessary for civilians and I wouldn't mind seeing them go. I do believe that people should be able to own guns for hunting, self-defense, and sporting purposes. With America having more guns than people, it would be impossible to confiscate all of them. Our best course of action would be to discourage the use of guns in a violent manner.

 

its not the people causing all the confusion and debate over gun laws. Its just the NRA and gun manufaturers who get rich off selling fear and death to make $$. All these people are just repeating lines the gun companies fed them to keep selling guns. They dont care at all about saving lives they only care about lining their pockets with blood money. "guns are good for you, they save your life.. thus guns give life." They all are repeating the same thing fed to them by the gun companies.. its like when they used to have doctors on tv say cigaretts make you healthy and good for you..

 

That's fine. I'm not here to convince anyone or have a debate. But your original statement was pretty ignorant.

 

I think part of the argument, for some people, is the original purpose of the second amendment, which is to make it possible for civilians to fight back against government if government were to go crazy or something. Therefore, some would say that if the army has weapons like that, civilians need to be capable of leveling the playing field.

I'm not saying I 100% agree with that, but I think that's an important part or the debate, and it's a valid point, in my opinion, whether I agree with it or not.

 

How so?

 

I find cars to be pretty boring, so I treat them as tools to get from A to B. I never intentionally break a speed limit.

A person who finds cars exciting will drive them more often, and for entertainment as well as necessity. I'm pretty sure they'll be more likely to break the speed limit too.

Maybe a similar, "boring" attitude towards guns would help.

 

Well you made a bold blanket statement that you "can't see anything good coming from weapons." But there are plenty of instances in which someone has had their life saved due to someone else having a weapon on hand, so that's just false and an ignorant statement to make.

 

Then I'm guessing that giant bombs that are capable of blowing up cities would be protected by the second amendment because the military has them. At least an AR-15 can be used in competitive shooting. A big bomb has no use outside of destruction.

I'm not against civilians being armed, but I do think there should be limits.

 

I agree

 

I think there's some truth to what you're saying here, especially in pointing out the economic interests involved in the issue. However, I don't think you should label any large group of people with terms like "puppets," "clowns," "suckers," and "parrots." Whenever you do, you're bound to be wrong about many individuals within that group. Such talk does nobody any good; it merely fuels the petty factionalism I mentioned in my previous post.

 

You are right. I will deleat my post

 

Please don’t, it’s part of the conversation, and you are gracious about being corrected.

 

There's No Correlation Between Gun Ownership, Mass Shootings, and Murder Rates

https://mises.org/blog/theres-no-correlation-between-gun-ownership-mass-shootings-and-murder-rates

 

I saw a watch with retractable garrote wire in a catalog. I guess its legal, but I can’t see any legal use for it. Premeditated self defense maybe?
Also, Oklahoma City was bombed in 1995 by a van full of explosives. Took out much of a federal building. No guns needed.
Changing people’s thinking is all that will work, but no government can legislate that.

 

I think the big point of the 2nd admendment was yes to liberate us from a tyrannical goverment, however at that time it was a controlling (foreign) government. I still strongly believe worse come to worse our armed forces are made up of our own people, living in our country fighting for us.

I don't think we need the same level weapons of armed forces or civil servants(police), we do have the rights to personal guns for hunting and protection (shotguns and rifles) but semi and full autos i think are unnecessary.

 

Amendment II (1791)
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Like it or not the United States of America was founded by men who had first hand experience of government overreach and so they made an amendment to ensure that this would never be able to happen again, at least not unwillingly.

Whether you agree with this or not doesn’t matter. It’s part of US Constitution and the spirit in which our country has been founded on. It is also a spirit which has helped other people from across the pond fight an oppressive monarchy *cough England cough* so they could have their own independence *cough Ireland cough*.

Anyway, I continue to live in this country knowing full well that with this right comes the possibility of encountering those who will abuse this right. If I didn’t want to live in this country and accept its constitution then I would seek to immigrate to a country that doesn’t espouse these beliefs.

I’m not happy over what happened in Las Vegas but two wrongs don’t make a right. Removing the freedom from the people because someone abused their freedom, doesn’t make it right.


“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”—Benjamin Franklin

 

The main (and only) purpose of a gun is to discharge a bullet to the intended target. The intent to kill with a gun is solely based on the operator of the gun. Many people use guns for target practice and never kill a thing in their lives. I own many guns, and I've never killed anyone. Am I misusing the guns since I'm not putting them towards their only purpose?

 

Last July, an ISIS sympathizer killed 86 people by driving a cargo truck into a crowd in France.

 

Please describe the gun control law that you think would have prevented what happened in Las Vegas.