Obama and the Left....Excell as Salesmen for Firearm Manufactures

[Altfish]

What do you mean by "free for all on gun ownership"? Be specific please.

Still ducking the question you know full well what I mean, I'm comparing the USA laws to the UK laws on gun ownership and then making the point by quoting the 40 times higher death rate.

Please tell me why the UK have got it wrong and the USA have it right.

 

[Mycroft]

Because of my DNA. (see post to explain DNA) and I was being facetious

I saw it. It simply dismissed it as childish. The sort of thing I would expect a teenager to say.

 

[Underhill]

Isn't using an AR-15 to hunt something of an overkill? Surely all you need is a good hunting rifle.

The AR-15 is actually considered by many to be a bit light for deer hunting, although it will definitely do the job. This is one of those things I agree with conservatives on, sort of.

The mistake a lot of people who don't know better is assuming that an AR-15 is a dangerous assault weapon when in reality it is just a bad *** looking small caliber hunting rifle that can hold larger clips.

The problem is, the definition of an "assault rifle" is all over the place. AK's (both semi and full automatic), AR's and all kinds of military rifles all are lumped together. The difference boils down to intent. An assault rifle is designed for combat. But many of them shoot the same rounds with the same (or often less) accuracy.

It's a bit of silliness on both sides however. Because while NYS has banned AR-15's, I can go buy a .223 semi auto rifle any day of the week. The only real world difference is the AR can hold a larger mag. But gun guys go nuts because they like to carry a black AR around and feel tough, and anti gun people want to ban assault rifles on principle without any real, logical rationale in many cases.

This is why it would be nice if these 2 groups could actually reason this stuff out without the absurd nonsensical bickering.

 

[esmith]

Still ducking the question you know full well what I mean, I'm comparing the USA laws to the UK laws on gun ownership and then making the point by quoting the 40 times higher death rate.

Still am confused. We do not have "free for all gun ownership". There are laws that govern who may purchase a firearm, there are laws that prevent ownership of certain weapons without a special license. What you fail to understand is that here in the US we have always valued our rights. Of which is allowing the common citizen, with stipulations, to own firearms. We have a history of firearm ownership whereas you do not. We may be considered cousins but we differ in a lot of respects. One of these is our desire of some of us to own firearms. Let me ask you a question. Why in your country were weapons not common in say the middle ages. Look at the difference between what is now the US and Great Britain during the colonization of the "New World". Your area of the world was considerably safer than the New World. The expansion of the US was met by dangers from both man and animal. So, I guess the answer is we "grew up" with weapons whereas you didn't.

Please tell me why the UK have got it wrong and the USA have it right.

The UK didn't get it wrong and the USA right. Difference in societies is the best explanation I have. We started out having firearms and our founders determined that the civilian population had the right to have firearms (which is being disputed by those that disagree with that premise). You don't understand the issue no more than we understand your taste in certain foods and warm beer.

 

[Altfish]

Still am confused. We do not have "free for all gun ownership". There are laws that govern who may purchase a firearm, there are laws that prevent ownership of certain weapons without a special license. What you fail to understand is that here in the US we have always valued our rights. Of which is allowing the common citizen, with stipulations, to own firearms. We have a history of firearm ownership whereas you do not. We may be considered cousins but we differ in a lot of respects. One of these is our desire of some of us to own firearms. Let me ask you a question. Why in your country were weapons not common in say the middle ages. Look at the difference between what is now the US and Great Britain during the colonization of the "New World". Your area of the world was considerably safer than the New World. The expansion of the US was met by dangers from both man and animal. So, I guess the answer is we "grew up" with weapons whereas you didn't.


The UK didn't get it wrong and the USA right. Difference in societies is the best explanation I have. We started out having firearms and our founders determined that the civilian population had the right to have firearms (which is being disputed by those that disagree with that premise). You don't understand the issue no more than we understand your taste in certain foods and warm beer.

Again you flirt round an answer but I must pick up on one phrase...
"What you fail to understand is that here in the US we have always valued our rights."
We, of course in the UK have no rights!!! I hate to inform you but we have the right to not fear a mass murder of our kids/churches/medical centre by some nutcase armed to the teeth with legally bought weapons.
You talk of history, how far back do you want to go...what about the Vikings, the Romans they were not the most peaceful peoples. Anyway, what I think you are saying is that we are more advanced than the US in that your unsafe world was more recent. Thus in 200-years or so you will have grown up and realised that guns are dangerous and not a 'right'. Until then the US remains cowboy country.
You obviously don't understand beer drinkers either, we do NOT like warm beer, we just don't like it chilled/extra cool - when it is treated like that it is called lager.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The mistake a lot of people who don't know better is assuming that an AR-15 is a dangerous assault weapon when in reality it is just a bad *** looking small caliber hunting rifle that can hold larger clips.

The AR-15 has a magazine, not a clip.

The problem is, the definition of an "assault rifle" is all over the place. AK's (both semi and full automatic), AR's and all kinds of military rifles all are lumped together. The difference boils down to intent. An assault rifle is designed for combat. But many of them shoot the same rounds with the same (or often less) accuracy.

The definition isn't all over the place. They are designed for military use, have full-auto/select fire, magazine fed, and have an effective range of about 330 yards. The StG 44, AK-47, the less common AK-74, M16, AMP-69, Colt C7, AR-18, FAMAS, or SAR-21. The letters "AR" do not even stand for assault rifle, but rather ArmaLite Rifle, the name of the arms manufacturer that makes the AR-numbered rifles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assault_rifles
By strict definition, a firearm must have the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:[2][3][4]

• It must be an individual weapon;
• It must be capable of selective fire, which means it has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire.
• It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
• Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine;
• And it should at least have an effective range of 300 metres (330 yards).

 

[esmith]

Again you flirt round an answer but I must pick up on one phrase...
"What you fail to understand is that here in the US we have always valued our rights."
We, of course in the UK have no rights!!! I hate to inform you but we have the right to not fear a mass murder of our kids/churches/medical centre by some nutcase armed to the teeth with legally bought weapons.
You talk of history, how far back do you want to go...what about the Vikings, the Romans they were not the most peaceful peoples. Anyway, what I think you are saying is that we are more advanced than the US in that your unsafe world was more recent. Thus in 200-years or so you will have grown up and realised that guns are dangerous and not a 'right'. Until then the US remains cowboy country.
You obviously don't understand beer drinkers either, we do NOT like warm beer, we just don't like it chilled/extra cool - when it is treated like that it is called lager.

Well I guess I should have said What you fail to understand is that here in the US we have always valued our rights to own firearms. Make you happy?
No guns are not dangerous, people are dangerous. A gun is an inanimate object that is incapable of doing anything without human interaction. Cowboy country? Nah the majority of the US young males are a bunch self-centered metrosexuals. They wouldn't make a pimple on a cowboys a*s

 

[metis]

No guns are not dangerous, people are dangerous. A gun is an inanimate object that is incapable of doing anything without human interaction.

Both can be "dangerous".

Remember about two years ago when a madman in China went to an elementary classroom and stabbed 22 children, all of whom survived? Now, if that man had gone in with an AR-15 or an AK-47, do you seriously think the results would have been the same?

My former neighbor, who was a police officer that eventually became chief-of-police, was stabbed 17 times over the years and lived to talk about it. Had he been shot 17 times, do you think he would have talked about that?

Let's be real: guns make killing much easier than stabbing or hitting one with an object.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well I guess I should have said What you fail to understand is that here in the US we have always valued our rights to own firearms. Make you happy?

That is not an accurate statement. In ages past we had much more strict gun control and regulations, and there were even some cities that did not allow people to carry them. Even the OK Corral gunfight started over the outlaws breaking a local carrying ordinance. What we know of today as being "pro-gun" simply does not match our nation's history, and today we support gun ownership in a way that previous times have not.

No guns are not dangerous, people are dangerous. A gun is an inanimate object that is incapable of doing anything without human interaction. Cowboy country? Nah the majority of the US young males are a bunch self-centered metrosexuals. They wouldn't make a pimple on a cowboys a*s

And real cowboys do not even come close to living up to their contemporary legends. And I doubt most young American males are "self-centered 'metrosexuals.'"

 

[Revoltingest]

It's fear of both that drive sales. Fear of danger is a given, and sales see a spike after mass shootings, but they also increase when someone grabs a bullhorn and starts screaming that the government is going to take the guns away.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/04/gun-sales-new-legislation-sales/71703118/
Renewed calls for more restrictive gun laws, following a succession of fatal shootings in the United States, immediately appear to be generating a boost for the gun industry.
Actually it is irrational because gun regulations have been generally relaxed.

It's not just pro-gun types who talk of taking them away.
Anti types also call for this.
Bernie advocates banning all guns designed to kill people (eg, my Glock #22).
http://truthinmedia.com/bernie-sand...-that-would-outlaw-all-self-defense-firearms/
He is one of many.

 

[Sapiens]

I own one .22 caliber pistol. That's hardly an assault weapon. My two sons-in-law conceal carry. My wife just got her conceal carry permit. She doesn't own a gun yet. While I don't feel the need to conceal carry, I do feel a little more safe when I'm with my sons-in-law. I'm hardly a right wing nut with massive weapons and ammo stored in my basement in preparation for the day of reckoning. However, I feel very strongly that all law abiding citizens have an inalienable right to self defense, which includes gun ownership. The fact that I know that I "can" get a gun if and when I want one, is important to me. I plan to buy a shotgun sometime in the next year or two. But if I think that it will be more difficult over time, because of anti-gun ownership legislation, then I'm motivated to buy it now. The same goes for ammo. This is not irrational or fearful behavior. It makes perfect sense when our government leaders threaten to restrict or remove what I consider to be a basic and important right as a U.S. citizen.

I am a gun owner. I favor more restrictive gun laws, even if that means I have to give up my guns. My read of the Second Amendment is that a right of gun possession is extended to an official militia, not to anyone who want a gun.

There is way more chance that you will be shot with your own gun or one that belongs to one of your relatives than by a "bad guy" with a gun.

Let me try and explain it this way using my current experience and feedback from others. I have wanted a certain firearm and have held off purchasing it due to financial reason. Others that I know and are acquainted with others have also been wanting to purchase various firearms. When the Obama made his no substance speech on Sunday along with the Hillary's comments and his on anti-gun regulations, it basically woke us up. Could you call it fear that drove us to making purchases at this time? To be honest, the answer is yes. For most of us it was not the fear of "bad guys", but the fear of our own government making it harder or impossible to obtain a firearm. We know that the Obama and others of his ilk want to introduce more restrictions on firearms.. Now as long as the Republicans hold the Congress along with sensible Democrats (like Bernie) when it comes to firearms, no laws will be passed that further restrict our rights or drives up the cost of firearms and ammunition. However, we have seen that the Obama likes to use executive orders to achieve his agenda. Now the Obama could attempt to push his agenda with an executive order and it would take a court action to nullify his end run around Congress, but that could take time. Therefore, many of us decided to make our purchases now, vice waiting in fear of the Obama's stance on gun-control or the price going up (for various reason beside the Obama possible attack on firearms). Additionally with the understanding that when people are scared (which the Obama did not alleviate) leads people to think, and rightly so, there is a possibility that they or there family's safety might be at stake come to the conclusion that they might have to protect themselves or their family rush out and by firearms. I posted a link about a sheriff in upstate NY that basically said arm yourself. Now one of our liberal forum members seemed to be upset about this, or was it the other article , and said it was boring. Well, if you lived in that county or any other place that local law enforcement implied , or actually said, arm yourself wouldn't one do so? Now I don't know how many of those purchasing firearms were first time buyers or experienced shooters, it doesn't matter, these purchases made firearms more difficulty to obtain due to a eventual shortage. Thus the asking cost of the firearms will go up (good capitalistic move) and I for one and others would rather purchase at the present cost vice an inflated cost. Now, back to our first time buyers. Most of them will purchase the firearm and a box of defensive rounds, take it home and never use it or even practice with it. Now, I and others fear these people more than a "bad-guy". Why you ask? Simple, most of them do not have a clue on the basic operations and/or safety procedures associated with the firearm. They, mishandle it and shoot themselves, or leave it around where an unauthorized person gets it and either shoots themselves or someone else, thus lending more ammunition to the anti-gun crowd. Do, I feel sorry for those people or the ones that are killed or injured? The answer is yes, I feel sorry for them but I do not feel responsible for their actions. I am not my brothers keeper.

Do you have actual figures to back that up, it is my understanding that there is way more chance that you will be shot with your own gun or one that belongs to you or one of your relatives than by a non-related newbie or bad-guy.

No, the NRA is the only organization that stands up for the million of legal, law-abiding gun owners in the US. We have to have an organization that speaks for us. We individually do not have a chance against the onslaught of anti-gun groups, we have to have a united voice and that voice is the NRA. Which as a Proud Life Member I support in all respects.

I am a legal, law-abiding gun owner and the NRA DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ME.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is way more chance that you will be shot with your own gun or one that belongs to one of your relatives than by a "bad guy" with a gun.

This is often said.
But among people I know with guns (some used in self defense), it doesn't wash.
Evidence?

 

[Sapiens]

This is often said.
But among people I know with guns (some used in self defense), it doesn't wash.
Evidence?

https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home

Hemenway D. Private Guns Public Health. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2006. - https://www.press.umich.edu/158723/private_guns_public_health

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2586792/

I have never used any of my guns to threaten anyone or to defend my self or my property, though I have called the police to deal with trespassers and in one case someone who attempted to assault me.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Bernie advocates banning all guns designed to kill people (eg, my Glock #22).
http://truthinmedia.com/bernie-sand...-that-would-outlaw-all-self-defense-firearms/
He is one of many.

Nope.
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-gun-policy/

Overall, Bernie Sanders believes in a middle-ground solution in the national gun debate, saying in a recent interview:

“Folks who do not like guns [are] fine. But we have millions of people who are gun owners in this country — 99.9 percent of those people obey the law. I want to see real, serious debate and action on guns, but it is not going to take place if we simply have extreme positions on both sides. I think I can bring us to the middle.”
Bernie believes that gun control is largely a state issue because attitudes and actions with regards to firearms differ greatly between rural and urban communities. Nevertheless, Bernie believes there are situations where the federal government should intervene. He voted in favor of requiring background checks to prevent firearms from getting into the hands of felons and the mentally ill, passing a federal ban on assault weapons, and closing loopholes which allows private sellers at gun shows and on the internet to sell to individuals without background checks.
The state of Vermont, which Bernie represents as senator, is the most gun-friendly state in the nation, while at the same time it boasts the absolute lowest rate of gun-related crime.

Other than the "assault weapon" lingo (I agree that true assault rifles should be banned for civilian possession), I tend to agree with his positions. Of course he gets an F rating from the NRA, but at least Sanders holds the position that manufactures should not be held liable for product misuse.

 

[Revoltingest]

https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home

Hemenway D. Private Guns Public Health. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2006. - https://www.press.umich.edu/158723/private_guns_public_health

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2586792/

I have never used any of my guns to threaten anyone or to defend my self or my property, though I have called the police to deal with trespassers and in one case someone who attempted to assault me.

Some problems with those articles.....
- They don't address the utility of having a gun for concealed carry. Naturally, the gun will be in the home when the owner is there. But the benefits accrue when outside the home. The full picture requires considering the in-home risks balanced against the outside benefit.
- They presume the household is prone to domestic disputes & suicides. Statistics will greatly differ in homes like mine.
- Per Kleck, guns are used in self-defense on the order of a million times per year. His critics say it's a tenth of that. Taking the most conservative approach, this would mean 100,000 cases of self defense, which is far more than the number of murders.
- They don't take storage methods into account, eg, lying around vs in a safe.
- What would the consequences be of having fewer guns for self-defense? Would violent crime increase because people are less able to defend? Would our statistics approach those of Brazil, which has much stricter gun control, but much higher violent crime rates?
- One wonders what other mistakes a medical researcher would make in analyzing gun deaths, compared to a criminologist.

Such studies don't give any useful info about how to conduct one's own affairs, or to guide public policy.
A conclusions such as eschewing guns is simplistic because storing them in a safe, & using them outside
the home could be more beneficial.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nope.

I heard his speech.
To ban guns designed to kill people is the kind of anti-gun crazy which inflames the pro-gun crazy.
(I carry a gun designed just for this purpose. What's the point of having one which can't?)
Whether he mis-spoke or meant what he said, it's the kind of rhetoric we don't need.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

To ban guns designed to kill people is the kind of anti-gun crazy which inflames the pro-gun crazy.

"Guns meant to kill people" is a rather vague way of putting it. We can assume some specific guns, as he did support the federal assault weapons bans, but you can't exactly draw many inferences from words he gave. Considering Glocks have some popularity in law enforcement I would doubt they get banned, but again the wording is too vague.

 

[Revoltingest]

"Guns meant to kill people" is a rather vague way of putting it. We can assume some specific guns, as he did support the federal assault weapons bans, but you can't exactly draw many inferences from words he gave. Considering Glocks have some popularity in law enforcement I would doubt they get banned, but again the wording is too vague.

The nature of a government ban is to apply it to ordinary citizens, while exempting gov employees (eg, cops, soldiers).
Bernie did expressly advocate banning most now legal guns.
So the common cry that no one wants to ban guns is patently wrong.
It just isn't close to happening....yet.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The nature of a government ban is to apply it to ordinary citizens, while exempting gov employees (eg, cops, soldiers).
Bernie did expressly advocate banning most now legal guns.

His voting record just does not support that.
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/12/06/bernie-sanders-devastates-republicans-common-sense-guns.html

I was just at a press conference the other day talking about the need for increased gun control. I don’t think anybody believes that it’s a magic formula. Clearly, though, there is an obvious common sense consensus, though, John, in this country that guns should not be falling into the hands of people who should not be having them.

And obvious, that goes without saying, I don’t think this is very hard to understand that terrorists, or potential terrorists, should not have guns. People who are being barred from flying on airplanes should not have guns.
I believe we must improve and expand instant background checks. I believe we’ve got to do away with this gun show loophole. About forty percent of the guns in this country are sold outside of the purview of the instant background check process. I think we need. I agree with The New York Times. I think it does not make sense to me that we have guns designed for military purposes that can kill enormous numbers of people in a very short period of time being sold and distributed in the United States, and I support a ban on assault weapons.
I think we need to do away with the strawman provision so that people can legally buy guns and then give them to criminals. And I think we need a revolution in mental health. And that revolution is about making sure that the many thousands of people who are walking the streets of America today who are suicidal or homicidal get the help they need, and they get it now, not two months from now.
...
No one is talking about destroying the Second Amendment or taking away everyone’s guns. Sen. Sanders also defended his one vote against a gun control bill, but by this point in the campaign, it should be clear to everyone that Bernie Sanders is not a friend of the NRA.

 

[Revoltingest]

His voting record just does not support that.
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/12/06/bernie-sanders-devastates-republicans-common-sense-guns.html

I'm not arguing what he'd actually do in office.
I'm only pointing out what he said.
It addresses the issue that politicians really do threaten to ban guns.