Embarrassed by my own state today

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by LittleBlueLW

What if it were the reverse? The Federal Govt wanting to go to war with 'guns nuts'? And please define that term.

My definition of a gun nut is a person who believes that he has the right to engage in armed resistance to the Government's attempt to enforce laws which he belives are contrary to his rights.

We are a nation of laws. In our society one has the ability to vote for those who shares your views and/or to ask for relief from the courts. One does not have the right to reject those peaceful, democratic means to influence policy and instead engage in an armed struggle.

There is a word for people who reject the democratic process and instead engage in violence as a means to bring about political change, we call them terrorists.

Terrorists end up either imprisoned for the rest to their lives or die a violent death, and that's a good thing.

Gun nuts = sovereign citizens = Branch Davidians = terrorists = a bad ending.

[helix139]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

So you think you should be able to own any type of arm, right?

Didn't say that, but any restriction should be able to pass the test for strict scrutiny. Explosives, destructive devices, crew served weapons, etc can be justifiably restricted.

[helix139]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Only in your mind....

And those of the court system, which are the ones that count.

[gatorchris]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Actually I do have some idea, I was in the infantry, if they are well supplied and well fed (i.e. "beans and bullets"), soldiers will follow orders, and if those orders are to stop a bunch of gun nuts who want to go to war with the Federal government they'll do it and it won't end well for the gun nuts.

I believe you oversimplify what any soldier would do when faced with suppressing the populace of his own country. There are plenty of soldiers that would side with the "gun nut" side of the country and even more would struggle with any "lawful" order from an officer to shoot civilians. I served as well, I still work amongst soldiers regularly, and I can honestly say that Ive never heard anyone take the position you do here.

I also laugh at your argument that it only takes 8 rounds for anyone to defend their home, while reading a story about cops (trained to fire weapons) that unload multiple magazines (excess of 100 rounds) at a slow moving vehicle and not kill either occupant (luckily). The ability to put 3 in the black on a paper target on a range is nothing like waking up and shooting a weapon cold. Not every scenario has an intruder 10 feet away, or ones that run away at the first noise they hear.

Magazine laws wont stop someone from shooting up a school or mall if no one else is armed to stop them. You know how much time it would take to cycle through 5 magazines, 8 rounds still equals 40 lethal rounds in less than a minute. Magazine laws wont remove the millions of HC magazines that are already on the street, nor will it deter a criminal from using them (Anyone else find it comical that a murder charge is somehow less intimidating than an illegal magazine charge?). Its political grandstanding, nothing more.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by helix139

Didn't say that, but any restriction should be able to pass the test for strict scrutiny. Explosives, destructive devices, crew served weapons, etc can be justifiably restricted.

Add semi-automatic assault weapons to your list and you are moving in the right direction.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by helix139

Didn't say that, but any restriction should be able to pass the test for strict scrutiny. Explosives, destructive devices, crew served weapons, etc can be justifiably restricted.

So the right to own arms should be infringed, just whenever you decide it should be. Nothing wrong with that position, but stop trying to pretend you are on some sort of higher moral ground here because you draw the line at all individual firearms while other people draw that line at different positions.

[helix139]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Add semi-automatic assault weapons to your list and you are moving in the right direction.

Nope. Those can be safely stored, armed, and operated with minimal danger to others in the case of an accidental or negligent discharge. The aforementioned weapons will almost certainly destroy anything or anyone in the blast radius, and crew-served weapons are not in line with the individual right to bear arms as they require multiple operators and generally have great destructive capability.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by helix139

Nope. Those can be safely stored, armed, and operated with minimal danger to others in the case of an accidental or negligent discharge. The aforementioned weapons will almost certainly destroy anything or anyone in the blast radius, and crew-served weapons are not in line with the individual right to bear arms as they require multiple operators and generally have great destructive capability.

They're all arbitrary distinctions, ultimately the democratic process and the courts will sort it all out.

[helix139]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

So the right to own arms should be infringed, just whenever you decide it should be. Nothing wrong with that position, but stop trying to pretend you are on some sort of higher moral ground here because you draw the line at all individual firearms while other people draw that line at different positions.

Did you not see the strict scrutiny part? What is the compelling governmental interest in restricting semi-automatic "assault rifles?" Looking scary isn't a compelling government interest, and there isn't a compelling public safety issue as they simply aren't used in crimes with any remotely statistically significant frequency.

[helix139]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

They're all arbitrary distinctions, ultimately the democratic process and the courts will sort it all out.

Arbitrary? Hardly. They meed the standard for a compelling governmental interest in their restriction, and as far as the courts and the democratic process, they pretty well have already been sorted out. Read up on the National Firearms Act of 1936.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by helix139

Did you not see the strict scrutiny part? What is the compelling governmental interest in restricting semi-automatic "assault rifles?" Looking scary isn't a compelling government interest, and there isn't a compelling public safety issue as they simply aren't used in crimes with any remotely statistically significant frequency.

But they sure are really good at killing a bunch of kindergarteners.

[gatorchris]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

But they sure are really good at killing a bunch of kindergarteners.

So are cars...

[helix139]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

But they sure are really good at killing a bunch of kindergarteners.

I don't believe it has actually been settled that the AR-15 was even used in the shooting. Either way, a standard Remington 870, a 1911, or a S&W revolver would have done just as much damage in that situation seeing as everyone he was shooting at was unarmed.

IIRC, the terrorists in 911 did a lot more damage with planes, and I don't see a push to ban those, despite far less constitutional protection.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by helix139

Did you not see the strict scrutiny part? What is the compelling governmental interest in restricting semi-automatic "assault rifles?" Looking scary isn't a compelling government interest, and there isn't a compelling public safety issue as they simply aren't used in crimes with any remotely statistically significant frequency.

Actually, it appears that assault rifles make up about 1% of all guns and about 2% of all gun crimes, so they are used far more frequently per capita in violent activity than other guns.

As I pointed out earlier, states with assault rifle bans have lower per capita violence than states without assault rifle bans. It is possible there is an endogeneity issue here (people in states without assault rifle bans are more violent than those in states with assault rifle bans), but the aggregate numbers showing a greater number of violent crimes committed per assault rifle than for guns in general seem to provide some additional evidence.

[neisgator]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Only in your mind....

Wrong. Those of us who know how to read.

Second amendment is simple stuff.

Bone up on it.

[helix139]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

Actually, it appears that assault rifles make up about 1% of all guns and about 2% of all gun crimes, so they are used far more frequently per capita in violent activity than other guns.

As I pointed out earlier, states with assault rifle bans have lower per capita violence than states without assault rifle bans. It is possible there is an endogeneity issue here (people in states without assault rifle bans are more violent than those in states with assault rifle bans), but the aggregate numbers showing a greater number of violent crimes committed per assault rifle than for guns in general seem to provide some additional evidence.

The statistics above don't reach the level of statistical significance to make a correlation, much less establish causation. Not to mention you don't cite a source, how they even define an "assault rifle" and whether the statistics are referring to "assault rifles" specifically or (as in the case of FBI statistics) :assault weapons" which include pistols with a certain magazine capacity.

[mdgator05]

More evidence, this time from Australia:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/201...provide_a.html

What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.

There have been some contrarian studies about the decrease in gun violence in Australia, including a 2006 paper that argued the decline in gun-related homicides after Port Arthur was simply a continuation of trends already under way. But that paper’s methodology has been discredited, which is not surprising when you consider that its authors were affiliated with pro-gun groups. Other reports from gun advocates have similarly cherry-picked anecdotal evidence or presented outright fabrications in attempting to make the case that Australia’s more-restrictive laws didn’t work. Those are effectively refuted by findings from peer-reviewed papers, which note that the rate of decrease in gun-related deaths more than doubled following the gun buyback, and that states with the highest buyback rates showed the steepest declines. A 2011 Harvard summary of the research concluded that, at the time the laws were passed in 1996, “it would have been difficult to imagine more compelling future evidence of a beneficial effect.”

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/201...provide_a.html

So there is certainly evidence of a compelling state interest in the restricting of certain guns.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Looks like good legislation to me.

Why does one need a 30 round magazine? Going to shoot an entire herd of deer?

The defense of one's self and others.

[helix139]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

More evidence, this time from Australia:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/201...provide_a.html



http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/201...provide_a.html

So there is certainly evidence of a compelling state interest in the restricting of certain guns.

And as the gun control folk like to point out when those of us who are pro 2A look at Switzerland or another location with high firearms ownership and low crime, the populations and demographics are different and far more diverse here.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by helix139

The statistics above don't reach the level of statistical significance to make a correlation, much less establish causation. Not to mention you don't cite a source, how they even define an "assault rifle" and whether the statistics are referring to "assault rifles" specifically or (as in the case of FBI statistics) :assault weapons" which include pistols with a certain magazine capacity.

http://www.salon.com/2012/12/26/bann...weapons_works/

The single formal assessment of the ban, as required by Congress in passing the law, was conducted by criminologists Christopher Koper, Jeffrey Roth and others at the University of Pennsylvania (Koper is now at George Mason). The National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the Department of Justice, paid for the evaluation, which was first conducted in 1999 and updated in 2004, and looked at everything from homicide rates to gun prices.

A few key findings emerged. Overall, banned guns and magazines were used in up to a quarter of gun crimes before the ban. Assault pistols were more common than assault rifles in crimes. Large-capacity magazines, which were also prohibited, may be a bigger problem than assault weapons. While just 2 to 8 percent of gun crimes were committed with assault weapons, large-capacity magazines were used in 14 to 26 percent of of firearm crimes. About 20 percent of privately owned guns were fitted with the magazines.

But even though assault weapons were responsible for a fraction of the total number of gun deaths overall, the weapons and other guns equipped with large-capacity magazines “tend to account for a higher share of guns used in murders of police and mass public shootings,” the study found.

So is the murder of police and the lowering of mass public shootings a compelling state interest?