Read this please...It will make you wonder

[barry]

The following dialogue took place on the Facebook page of a "friend" and it got me to thinking that I may need to rethink his friend "status"!
Pay attention to the replies of Person B.

Friend: Do we REALLY need military assualt rifles on the streets or other types of mass murder weapons. What kind of society have we become?

Person A: If you try and ban guns then you give us normal Americans no right to defend ourselves against the ones that won't listen to the law anyhow

Person B: No one can justify owning an assault rifle for personal use.

Person A: Where do you draw the line on "mass murder weapons" and "military rifles"? How is that defined? Many, many more lives are saved each year by the legal use of those firearms. It is estimated that firearms are used over 2.5 milion times per year to protect. Not all are high capacity firearms. We only hear about the illegal use. Drunk driving is FAR WORSE IMO and claims about the same number of lives per year and yet people know it is wrong but will continue to do it. That says something about human behavior doesn't it.

Me: The best way to curb crime in this country is for more private citizens to have a "Conceal & Carry" permit. @ Person B, what do you consider to be an "Assault Rifle"?

Person B: The 2.5 million number that is commonly cited is highly suspect. It comes from a 1992 phone survey of 5000 people, then extrapolated to then 200 million adults in the US at the time. However, at least two separate studies of this survey find the methods and results of the survey highly suspect. The problems included no validation for false-positive results, uneven sampling across the United States as a whole and other issues. Their survey didn't even accurately return the commonly accepted percentages of homes with guns or the percentage of the black population of the U.S.

Further, there are suggestions as well that if more private citizens were actually carrying concealed weapons, it would result in more violent crime being committed because more criminals would be utilizing guns in the act of committing crimes where they traditionally haven't. I doubt it would curb anything.

That aside, I for one don't care to live in a society where everyone is carrying deadly weapons. I don't believe that's a free society by any definition.

Apart from that, if 9 people can be injured by fragments or bullets from two trained police officers in broad daylight, imagine what would have happened in a dark, crowded, smoky movie theater. In the end, no one would know who was shooting at who and who killed who.

As for what I consider an assault rifle, I think the Smith & Wesson M&P15 used by the Aurora shooter would be a good start, don't you? I notice Smith & Wesson's website categorizes it as a "Tactical Rifle". Can anyone explain to me why a private citizen should have a "Tactical Rifle" with a 100 bullet magazine?


Me: So if the guy had taken a vehicle and drove it into the crowded lobby at the theater would it be classified as an "Assault Weapon"? I take it you don't own any gun of any kind and that's your choice, me I'm gonna invoke my right given to me by the 2nd Amendment

Person B: That's another tired argument a lot of people make. Vehicles have functions that don't involve being used as weapons. A gun's primary purpose is to inflict harm or take life. So no, it would not be classified as an assault weapon. It's ridiculous to even suggest such an idea.

As far as the Second Amendment goes, it says the right to bear arms. Not guns. So by that logic I should be able to have my own nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, correct? If not, why? Second Amendment says I can. But if you agree that there should be limitations on personal ownership of certain types of arms, then we can discuss what limitations there should be and there's no reason that can't include certain types of firearms.

Lastly, I'll note that no one has yet to still explain to me why a private citizens needs a semi-automatic rifle with a 100 round magazine for any purpose.

Me: Tired argument? Do you NOT think that man was going to harm people even if he had no gun? Yes I know what a guns purpose is as I have many but I have yet to take a human life with one of them and since when are guns not "arms"? By the way, did you watch the Olympics? They had shooting sports and if I remember correctly no harm was inflicted or lives taken at those events either. No, I don't think a 100 round clip is necessary, but it's not my place to tell someone else they can't have one.  Even if outlawed there would still be ways to get one. Drugs like Cocaine, heroin and pot are illegal but yet they are readily available to those that want them. Let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Person B: If he had not had such easy access to the weapons he used, he MAY not have harmed people in the end. Or he may not have been able to harm and kill as many as he did. Unfortunately, it's one of those things that can't be answered. You cannot say definitively that he would have and I can't say that he wouldn't. But I'm willing to be open to the possibility that restricting access to such weapons might in fact have a positive effect. Too many people seem to be saying lately "Oh well, it's always going to happen, so why do anything about it." Meanwhile, scores of people will continue to be slaughtered by people who can get them easy as pie.

Murder, robbery, theft are all illegal too, and yet they still happen also. Would you like to say that we shouldn't have any laws or restrictions against them since they still happen? Or would you admit that such laws are a positive thing for society? I've actually seen people make the argument that people with histories of mental illness were always going to be able to find weapons too, so why restrict them from gun ownership as well!

Yes, there are shooting competitions in the Olympics and elsewhere. That is still a secondary purpose for a firearm. And they also weren't using AR 15s or 100 round magazines in the Olympics either.

This discussion stemmed from the idea that certain types of firearms don't belong on the streets. No one ever said anything about banning all types of guns or rescinding the Second Amendment.

Me: "Murder, robbery, theft are all illegal too, and yet they still happen also." EXACTLY!!! You just made my point for me!!! Thank-you!


Person B: So your attitude is that we should just stop trying to prevent any crime because it's always going to happen? Nice.

Me: Uhh..those were YOUR WORDS not mine! Of course we should try to prevent crimes, it's just that *we disagree on which is the best method of prevention.

[captin_hook]

Person B makes me sick.

[lightsoutcalls]

"History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject
to moral decay have not passed into political and economic decline.
There has been either a spiritual awakening to overcome the moral lapse,
or a progressive deterioration leading to ultimate national disaster."

- General Douglas McArthur


The issue goes far beyond "assault rifles".  Anti's just want to treat the symptoms while they deny the real problem.

[savduck]

"History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject
to moral decay have not passed into political and economic decline.
There has been either a spiritual awakening to overcome the moral lapse,
or a progressive deterioration leading to ultimate national disaster."

- General Douglas McArthur


The issue goes far beyond "assault rifles".  Anti's just want to treat the symptoms while they deny the real problem.


Cant say it any better.

[Hognutz]

Bravo to you, Barry.. The only problem is, these opinions will never be swayed by what the other has to say. Never. You don't have enough air to convince a person with that mentality, that gun laws do not affect crime. They are as set in their ways as you and I are, and they will never convince me to change my stance. It is not logical to think that crime will stop if guns are outlawed. It's also not logical to think gun assults will cease if hi-cap. mags. are outlawed. Total and complete nonsense..But you will never, ever, ever convince the anti's of that fact..Sad really..

[frank1969]

ppl who want to take a life will with a gun or not person b better look at other countrys poison gas , bombs  ect there is allwase a way

[Kywoodsman]

Good job Barry on your defense of the second amendment. Speaking of the Colorado shooting I watched an interview on CNN the day after the shooting and they were talking with a lady and her daughter that were watching the movie the night of the shooting and when asked if there needed to be tighter gun control she gave a response that brought a smile to my face. She said that she was not a gun owner and had no problem with anybody who was and that this was not an issue of gun control, it was an issue of a pure evil individual who gun or no gun would have tried to kill as many people as possible with whatever means he could have. She even made the point we already knew from his rigging of his apartment that he knew how to make bombs and had he not used guns he would have probably just attempted to rig it up with explosives. She even went on to say that guns don't kill people they just even the odds for the average individual that has no intent on harming others pointlessly by not leaving them at the mercy of some evil individual that is hell bent on destruction. I wish I'd had that interview on tape.

[sixbird]

Liberal arguments regarding firearms are almost always framed in the context of a utopian society. Gov't will protect us from criminals and the gov't itself. Both ludicrous ideas in the real world...My thinking brings me to this point when I hear libs. arguing gun control...What if social chaos broke out?  Would you still hold that same opinion? I know what the answer would be, but what would you REALLY do? Would you ask me, as a firearms owner with expertise, to defend you? Would you bow and die? Would you allow yourself to be herded and shot into a trench you dug yourself? Just how strong are your convictions?

[Eric Gregg]

Great defense of our Second Amendment right.

This past Saturday night my wife and I had our youth group over for pizza and what we call "Saturday night Uno fight night" because it turns into utter chaos.
We are sitting in our den laughing and cutting up when one of the youth that is coming later text messages a young lady that is already there that the cops have pulled someone over down the road from us and the person decided to bail and run. My teens were scared to death. So I go and get my 20 gauge and a couple of shells of #6 Hevi-shot and put it in the corner of the room where we are sitting. No one was afraid anymore...
I have the right to defend my home and protect the lives of the people that are within these walls. That person may have been armed, but more importantly I was.
We went back to playing cards and knew that all was ok because I could defend us if needed.

[tomstopper]

Person B is an idiot. My response to his question on who needs a 100 rd magazine is ME.. When the crime in this country gets way out of hand and our government collapses, I will have enough ammo and assault weapons to protect my family and what is ours. If criminals want weapons they will find them. I am not giving anything up without a fight. That is my right and person B will be wishing he had the same mind set as all of us when the s**t starts to hit the fan...

[coyotetrpr]

I have a use for 100 round magazines. Deer drives.

[Turkey Beard]

At least the whole conversation sounded civil.  People that have their heads in the sand tend to continue to keep their heads in the sand.  Attorneys are living proof that you can find "facts" to back up any side of any argument.  It's just inconcievable to me that people can't see that without concealed carry, the crowds of people are sitting ducks for the criminals who WILL carry.

[lmbhngr]

If you give the government an inch then they`ll take a foot.
You take all the guns away then another country will invade us.
The bad guys will always have guns because they`re not doing anything legally anyway.

Guns don`t go off by themselves!! Tighten up the laws. Why do we even have a trial for these people who get caught red- handed? Just so some defense attorney can get a pay check?

That guy needs to get his head out of his a$$!!

[barry]

At least the whole conversation sounded civil. 

Trust me it took all I had to stay civil.