Skip to main content

View Diary: We need to carry a gun at all times. (96 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't think a total ban would happen (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chuco35, boofdah, PinHole

    I could see:

    (1) A ban on large capacity magazines.

    (2) Restrictions or bans on so-called "black guns".  I'm not advocating such a ban, but I view them in the same light as outdoor writer Jim Zumbo.

    (3) A requirement that semi-autos have fixed magazines, or are limited in length, weight, or some other parameter.

    I'm not saying any of the above is technologically rational or make sensible gun control.  However, gun rights do not exist in a vacuum and the Aurora shooting is pretty damned sickening.  Sooner or later the non-shooting public is going to realize they are the majority and when they do, the shooting public is likely to find itself answering for decades of defending the gun industry's excesses.

    When you get right down to it, I'm not really comfortable defending the right to own a .45 caliber Uzi so some clown can win a bowling pin shooting contest.

    "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win". Mohandas K. Gandhi

    by DaveinBremerton on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 03:37:15 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  No, a total ban will never happen and even if it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DaveinBremerton

      did, how could you collect the millions of gun in ownership?  semis and maybe even handguns...yes, maybe

        I am from the south and everyone I knew then had at least one handgun, one shotgun, and a deer rifle.  At least....and that's putting it mildly. My dad had at least 10 guns, at any given time and sat every evening watching tv as he cleaned one of them with all attention to detail.  

      •  You don't collect millions of guns (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        boofdah

        A more rational approach would be to view gun-related violence and mishaps as a public health problem, identify the multitude of root causes, and go after that which is feasible.

        Absent his guns, the nut job in Aurora would still have been a nut job.  Why was he a nut job, and what could have been done to help him not descend into nuttery?

        To what extent does economic despair contribute to violence...not just gun violence, but violence in general?  What can we do to alleviate it?

        What's greater--the public health cost of uncontrolled firearms or the cost of providing secure storage?  Why not give an income tax incentive for private gun owners to buy gun safes, coupled with a financial penalty for failing to do so?

        "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win". Mohandas K. Gandhi

        by DaveinBremerton on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 05:21:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Those aren't assault rifles, though--different. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bailey2001, DaveinBremerton
        one handgun, one shotgun, and a deer rifle
        Those IMO are fine. I don't think anyone's talking about banning hunting and general-use shotguns/handguns/rifles. I can see owning these types of weapons if you hunt or are required to carry them for your job (as salmo indicated above). I can even understand, to some degree, if you are worried, as the diarist's niece is, that someone's gonna steal your stuff or mug you on the sidewalk in Okeechobee, hey, all the power to you. It's not my way, but if you are properly educated about the use of your gun, don't use it to menace or bully people who aren't doing anything to you, and keep it away from kids and pets,  it's all good.

        However, unless you're in the military or police force, there is absolutely NO need IMO for anyone to own an assault rifle like an AR-15 (which I understand is the civilian equivalent to the military's M16).

        Seen on Facebook: "Rich people are not the cause of a robust economy, they are the result of a robust economy."

        by boofdah on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 07:51:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Can't say I disagree about assault-style rifles (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PinHole, boofdah

          But defining such a ban is a large technical challenge--imagine trying to restrict the 30-round AR-15 while not restricting the 5-round Remington Model 740 or the 8-round M-1 Garand.  All are semi-automatic.  The M-740 is a deer rifle from the 1950's and the M-1 Garand was an assault rifle...in WWII.

          If we ban the detachable magazine AK-47, do we keep the fixed, 10 shot magazine SKS?  They are otherwise the same rifle.  Does limiting the Ruger Mini-14 to a 5-shot detachable magazine render it an acceptable hunting weapon?  (It's called a "ranch rifle" for a reason--it makes an excellent varmint gun.)

          Frankly if the thing is a center-fire, semi-auto rifle that has a pistol grip, large detachable magazine, a barrel less than 18 inches long, an effective range under 300 yards, and weighs less than 8 pounds, I question its necessity as a civilian long gun.  However, figuring out how to define "assault rifle" has proven to be a losing endeavor and a political third rail.

          "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win". Mohandas K. Gandhi

          by DaveinBremerton on Sat Jul 21, 2012 at 08:33:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site