On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 04:53:58 GMT, Adam Smith wrote:
In article ,
Gunner wrote:
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 04:24:41 GMT, Adam Smith wrote:
Adam, don't you realize that a well aimed shot from a muzzle loader
can be equally as effective as the fire power of any semi-automatic
weapon. (The problem is is that relatively few people today are
excellent marksmen.)
Yes, I can't argue with that, the stopping power of the large caliber
muzzle loaders was impressive to say the least. What they lacked in
muzzle velocity they certainly made up with in projectile mass. But
these weapons differ considerably from modern assault weapons in their
repeat rate. Muzzle loaders can get you what, like 3 rounds a minute if
you're good under pressure? I think the discrepancy is great even before
you consider that people can modify their semi-auto weapons for full
auto. But this is all a moot point when you consider my opinion on your
next question below.
Then too, the Framers of the Constition believed that the real risks
stemmed from a government that had abandoned the will of the people
and became too powerful.
Ask yourself this question: What weapons are in use by the government
forces today, and what weapons would be required today to neutralize
this advantage?
150 years ago, I would have agreed with you. But with the present
capacity of the US military, "too powerful" has already happened, and
this argument has become a red herring, a way for gun fanatics to get
combat weapons for other purposes. The big issue here that of INTENT. Do
the majority of assault weapon owners have their weapons for the sole
purpose of being ready to challenge the government with their militia,
or are they just fans of big guns? Be honest, what do you really see
happening here? When a person chooses to identify himself to the world
as a gun owner first and foremost (e.g. by calling himself "Gunner"), I
*seriously* doubt his intent to uphold the true meaning of the 2nd
amendment.
-Adam
DANGER! DANGER! DANGER!
THE AB0VE STATEMENT MAY CAUSE BULL**** DETECTORS TO SPONTANEOUSLY
DETONATE. IF ANY BULL**** DETECTORS ARE STILL IN OPERATION, PLEASE
REMOVE THE BATTERIES, DISCONNECT ALL CABLES, AND TAKE THEM COMPLETELY
OUT OFOPERATION. IF A FARADAY CAGE IS AVAILABLE, PLACE THE BULL****
DETECTOR IN A WELL-GROUNDED FARADAY CAGE UNTIL ALL DANGER OF EXPOSURE
IS PAST.
Adam..a hint. My nym is short for Gunner Asch.
OK, fair enough. I presumed too much. I was assuming, given your
interest in the topic, that "Gunner" was not an homage to a fictional
character, but rather "one who fires guns". I misunderstood your intent
in choosing your alias, for which I apologize.
Accepted.
While you may be a man
of the world..it may behoove you to ease off the self rightiousness a
smidge as you look very very silly at this moment. Btw..I suggest you
google on Gunner Asch. Read the three books. Take a break from your
dismal life and enjoy some good literature with some interesting
insights about Government, totalitarians and the military. See if you
can find which charector you most closely resemble, Sargent..er
Adam....chuckle....
In the interest of understanding your points, I will do so.
You will enjoy. Equally as pragmatic but far less surreal than Catch
22 and the good guys win in the end.
Your opinion and your doubts are interesting. Fatally flawed, bogus,
riddled with ignorance and dreck, but interesting non the less.
The big issue Adam..is not Intent, but the Constitution, the Law and
the desires of the Founders. They were some really smart people for
old dead white guys.
I agree with you there. One cannot really blame them for not being able
to predict the future of weaponry.
Nor does the type of weapon make much difference.
And on a serious note, Sargent..er Adam..whats Wrong with big guns?
What exactly is wrong with the firearms (incorrectly) described as
"Assault weapons"?
Very good question. I concede to the validity of your arguement at this
point, because when owned and used in the ways you're outlining, I would
imagine that these weapons are not a societal problem; certainly much
less than the smaller "household gun", which intended for defense is all
too often used to solve arguments, provide summary divorces, or a factor
in unfortunate accidents.
Such arms are used in a tiny fraction of one percent of crimes or
accidents. Other types of firearms..hummm you do realize that if you
own a swimming pool, you are 1000 times more likely to have a death or
maiming than if you own a firearm?
I realize as I type that most of what I'm bothered by regarding assault
weapons "on the streets" pertains to those individuals who are _illegal_
owners of the weaponry, rather than card-carrying NRA. My personal
experience with assault weapons is primarily from hearing and witnessing
urban violence, but that's not really going to be helped by gun
legislation, is it? I'll re-read the Kerry proposal again with this in
mind and rethink it. I'm leaning towards agreeing with you if you're
concern is that it deprives well-meaning citizens of their 2nd amendment
rights.
Laws only effect those whom are willing to obey them. Criminals by
definition do not care one way or another if something is illegal.
Drugs for example have been illegal for many many years, yet they are
easily obtained on virtually any street corner.
There are an estimated 1.5 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses in the US
every year. These DGUs seldom involve a shot being fired.
# In 1997, a total of 32,436 persons died from firearms in the U.S.
# Firearm suicides accounted for 54% (17,566) and firearm homicides
40% (13,252) of the total number of firearm deaths. There were 981
unintentional firearm deaths and 367 for which intention was
undetermined.
# In 1996, a total of 34,040 persons died from firearms in the U.S.
# Firearm suicides accounted for 53% (18,166) and firearm homicides
41% (14,037) of the total number of firearm deaths. There were 1,134
unintentional firearm deaths and 413 for which intention was
undetermined.
# In 1995, a total of 35,957 persons died from firearms in the U.S.
# Firearm suicides accounted for 51% (18,503) and firearm homicides
44% (15,835) of the total number of firearm deaths. There were 1,225
unintentional firearm deaths and 395 for which intention was
undetermined.
Source: 1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Report of Final
Mortality Statistics, 1996. Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 45,
No.11, Supplement 2. June 12, 1997. p 10, 55.
Now you will notice the term Homicide used above. Homicide is defined
as the killing of a human being for any reason, be it legal or
illegal. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being.
The numbers above reflect murders AND the lawful killing of criminals
by police and citizens totaled together.
The population of the US is around 290,000,000 with the number of
firearms estimated to be around 300,000.000 arms of all types.
So a simple exercise in math will show you that firearms homicides etc
involve a minute fraction of the population and of the number of
firearms in private hands. However if you believe Hollywood or the
media, we are knee deep in bodies. One should further note that if
the homicides of minitory males between the ages of 13 and 25, BY
minority males between the same age range, are removed, the homicide
rate of the US falls to within a couple points of that of the UK,
where firearms are virtually banned for all intents and purposes.
Those deaths of course are gang killings over honor, territory or
rights to sell drugs on the streets.
One should further note..that firearms deaths and injuries, by all
types has been steadily falling for the last 13 years and are now
lower than the totals of the early 60s. In addition, 42 States now
have "shall issue" Concealed Weapons permit systems, which tends to
explain the also rapidly falling crime rate (of all types).
I believe that in 2002, legal assault weapons were involved in 5
homicides. ( 5) Five. And there are an estimated 30 million of them
in the US at present. The crime rate before the Assault Weapons Ban
was equally as low.
You might not be aware of it..but do you know that in most US states,
fully automatic machine guns are quite legal for citizens to own? A
$200 Federal tax stamp and a background check are all that is required
to own, collect, and shoot one. That and the huge price that they now
cost as a result of the 1984 restrictions caused.
Know how many legal machine guns have been used in homicides since
1934? (1)one. A cop fired up his cheating wife with his department
issue weapon.
So they are not much of an issue either, with an estimated 250,000 in
private hands.
The Knob Creek shooting event is a wonderful and fun place to go visit
http://www.machinegunshoot.com/ Check the photo gallery G
However..I digress. Please do reread Kerry's platform with an open and
informed mind. Also try to keep an open mind when reading or watching
the spew from both the antigun fanatics and the media and Hollywood.
They have only one agenda..and thats to take firearms away from the
citizens and make the Government the only entity with the ability to
defend itself..and when that happens..sooner or later...this happens:
http://www.jpfo.org/deathgc.htm
Gunner Asch
-Adam
"In my humble opinion, the petty carping levied against Bush by
the Democrats proves again, it is better to have your eye plucked
out by an eagle than to be nibbled to death by ducks." - Norman
Liebmann