Debunking Some Gun Myths

[Papa John]

The why does the Alaska State Troopers use it? Why do law enforcement across the country use it?

 

Please don't speak when you don't know. Just because you can't think of a reason doesn't mean there isn't one.

 

Except that is the exact opposite to what I wrote, I said private citizens have no reason to use it, law enforcement and military agencies use it all the time. The difference is night and day between people trained and employed by the state / government and any citizen going out and buying one. They have regulations and mandates the are require to follow, private citizens do not. If your going to criticize what I am saying at least read what I wrote before you respond.

Edited February 2, 2013 by Papa John

[Jake]

Fine, its a novelty item and does serve no practical purpose. AR-15's may not be used in crimes, but semi-automatic rifles certainly are. You will never use an AR-15 as a private citizen other than for sport (which could easily be rented and used only on certified ranges) and to show off to the rest of your friends at ranges. It serves no other purpose, I defy you to name another one.

 

Owning a sports car serves no practical purpose either. It's illegal to speed. But we still have them.

[Kigen]

Law enforcement are citizens with a government job. The AR-15 is a rifle. Rifles are useful for range and also penetrating body armor.

 

So to give you a situation it would be useful for people who live in rural places. Or basically large plots of land.

 

Also, AR-15s would be useful for defense against armored criminals. And yes, criminals use body armor sometimes which does stop pistol rounds. A good example is the 1997 North Hollywood shootout. Which is why law enforcement uses the AR-15.

[Papa John]

Owning a sports car serves no practical purpose either. It's illegal to speed. But we still have them.

 

The practical purpose is transportation, what exactly are you talking about? It functions perfectly at 10 mph as it does 100 mph, which is viable. No one purchases a sports car to run people over in one.

 

Law enforcement are citizens with a government job. The AR-15 is a rifle. Rifles are useful for range and also penetrating body armor.

 

So to give you a situation it would be useful for people who live in rural places. Or basically large plots of land.

 

Also, AR-15s would be useful for defense against armored criminals. And yes, criminals use body armor sometimes which does stop pistol rounds. A good example is the 1997 North Hollywood shootout. Which is why law enforcement uses the AR-15.

 

Ok, except (usually) they don't take the AR-15's home and they are functioning in a governmental capacity. Which doesn't make them private citizens, again like I stated. When someone robs a farmer in body armor you give me a call, but until then I highly doubt you need to worry about someone bringing body armor to a home invasion. In all situations where this would be viable you wouldn't be carrying your AR-15, likely in the city and probably for a bank robbery.

Edited February 2, 2013 by Papa John

[Nipple]

thank you kigen, clark, and zidian.. you three have been absolutely spot on this whole time.

For those of you saying, "the gun laws in chicago don't work because people can just easily get the guns from neighboring towns and cities". Alright, ban all guns from the united states. guess what..? do you think the US borders are secure? i hope you don't. that means tons of imported weapons especially from mexico and central america/carribean regions. Even in canada there are plenty of guns. All you're going to do is create black markets and criminals will hide the guns away while all the law abiding citizens loose them. Yes i know i was exaggerating with "all guns" but the argument still holds soundly if you're banning types of weapons as well. I just don't understand why people don't understand that criminals are criminals and they will find a way to break the law and get these guns. By no means is anyone saying "arm everyone". thats just as bad, (even worse) than completely banning guns. heres what needs to happen..

1. much stricter enforcement of CURRENT laws.

2. A better background checking system on people wanting to buy/owning guns

3. more frequent and improved psychological tests on people who own guns/ want to buy guns. (or something of the sort).

the fact is the people that end up committing these crimes have something wrong with their brain. you have to treat the source of the problem..

also i believe at a lot of shootings if there was a trained, responsible gun owner on the scene he/she could have stopped the shooter before as many victims were injured/killed. If the criminal is shooting up unarmed people at random, the trained person could have easily seriously wounded/killed the criminal and stopped him.

[Kigen]

The practical purpose is transportation, what exactly are you talking about? It functions perfectly at 10 mph as it does 100 mph, which is viable. No one purchases a sports car to run people over in one.

 

 

 

Ok, except (usually) they don't take the AR-15's home and they are functioning in a governmental capacity. Which doesn't make them private citizens, again like I stated. When someone robs a farmer in body armor you give me a call, but until then I highly doubt you need to worry about someone bringing body armor to a home invasion. In all situations where this would be viable you wouldn't be carrying your AR-15, likely in the city and probably for a bank robbery.

 

You know that LAPD command staff were saying the exact same thing you were saying just instead of private citizens for their patrol officers. "Oh, patrol doesn't need rifles. They'll never run into a situation were they need it."

 

Like the old saying "better to have it and not need it than not have it and need it."

 

Do a lot of people have AR-15s? No, but give the people the freedom of choice. The founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment when both muskets (rifles) and pistol muskets (hand guns) existed. They didn't exclude either.

 

Also, there are quite a few police officers who do privately own AR-15s.

[Papa John]

thank you kigen, clark, and zidian.. you three have been absolutely spot on this whole time.

For those of you saying, "the gun laws in chicago don't work because people can just easily get the guns from neighboring towns and cities". Alright, ban all guns from the united states. guess what..? do you think the US borders are secure? i hope you don't. that means tons of imported weapons especially from mexico and central america/carribean regions. Even in canada there are plenty of guns. All you're going to do is create black markets and criminals will hide the guns away while all the law abiding citizens loose them. Yes i know i was exaggerating with "all guns" but the argument still holds soundly if you're banning types of weapons as well. I just don't understand why people don't understand that criminals are criminals and they will find a way to break the law and get these guns. By no means is anyone saying "arm everyone". thats just as bad, (even worse) than completely banning guns. heres what needs to happen..

1. much stricter enforcement of CURRENT laws.

2. A better background checking system on people wanting to buy/owning guns

3. more frequent and improved psychological tests on people who own guns/ want to buy guns. (or something of the sort).

the fact is the people that end up committing these crimes have something wrong with their brain. you have to treat the source of the problem..

also i believe at a lot of shootings if there was a trained, responsible gun owner on the scene he/she could have stopped the shooter before as many victims were injured/killed. If the criminal is shooting up unarmed people at random, the trained person could have easily seriously wounded/killed the criminal and stopped him.

 

You are absolutely correct, we should enforce the laws we have right now, only there is a few minor problems...

 

The ATF (Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms) is in charge primarily of their regulation (along with Alcohol & Tobacco obviously) and only has less than 2,000 active agents for which to enforce the federal laws (the agents are also responsible for Alcohol and Tobacco).

Until recently the ATF also lacked a dedicated director, so they couldn't effectively pursue illegal weapons and suppliers.

They are further restricted from using computers to trace weapon information, limited inspections on weapon dealers, prohibited from creating weapon databases, and disallowed from tracking weapon sales or requiring weapon dealers to turn of sale records, among a multitude of other restrictions.

 

The are unable to fundamentally execute their mandate because the NRA lobbies Washington to ensure their is next to no regulation on guns and they maintain the support of their base. Upon the ATF's inception their restrictions were put in place by senators who received an "A" ranking from the NRA and even when to claim the NRA vetted the proposal.

 

You know that LAPD command staff were saying the exact same thing you were saying just instead of private citizens for their patrol officers. "Oh, patrol doesn't need rifles. They'll never run into a situation were they need it."

 

Like the old saying "better to have it and not need it than not have it and need it."

 

Do a lot of people have AR-15s? No, but give the people the freedom of choice. The founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment when both muskets (rifles) and pistol muskets (hand guns) existed. They didn't exclude either.

 

Also, there are quite a few police officers who do privately own AR-15s.

 

Ok, I will say it one last time. Law enforcement and law enforcement alone I have no issue with utilizing those weapons for their work. I have issue with private citizens, who have no relationship with law enforcement, should not be owning these types of weapons. They should not be owning them because they have no reason to own them, and they pose a greater risk being out on the market then they do being restricted for sale. When they are no longer officially operating in a law enforcement capacity they have no reason to be using the weapons as well.

Edited February 2, 2013 by Papa John

[Kigen]

Federal agents only have jurisdiction over Commerce and Inter-state affairs.

 

Its the local police who enforce most gun laws.

[Papa John]

Federal agents only have jurisdiction over Commerce and Inter-state affairs.

 

Its the local police who enforce most gun laws.

 

Ok, again, as I said, I was referring to the sale of weapons and the inability of the ATF to regulate it. The laws, I was pertaining to were related to commerce as is the ATF's mandate. But I would also agree at a state level a much more concerted effort must be made to enforce gun laws. Unfortunately, it also falls into the same problem. States who favor lean gun laws elect governors who support lean gun laws and the cycle continues on that level.

[Cookie]

America really doesn't need any new gun laws, just the attitudes towards guns needs to change. Look at smoking from 1965 to 2006 smoking in the US almost dropped by 50%, there wasn't really any new laws that prevented cigarette companies from selling their toxic nor any to shorten their barrel length. It was changed through social movements, not mandates. I think the same could and should be done for guns.

[Iron Chef]

Its stuff like gun laws that make me feel like I'm more of a democrat instead of a Republican. You mess with people's guns and they go crazy. I don't own a gun and I still feel perfectly safe. Gun owners need to realize that there are negatives to owning guns, which i don't think most gun owners understand.

 

The second amendment also only says that civilians are able to carry guns to be soldiers as part of a militia. Not just a bunch of random people fighting against the enemy.

[Papa John]

America really doesn't need any new gun laws, just the attitudes towards guns needs to change. Look at smoking from 1965 to 2006 smoking in the US almost dropped by 50%, there wasn't really any new laws that prevented cigarette companies from selling their toxic nor any to shorten their barrel length. It was changed through social movements, not mandates. I think the same could and should be done for guns.

 

Sure there was no new smoking laws, except they were required to not legally sell to minors, required to put labels stating "smoking can lead to cancer/death" on their products, and prevented from disguising their products in any misleading way. Furthermore, a multitude of sponsored ads on television (which continue to run) tell about the effect of smoking and required school drug programs teach kids about the effect of smoking. And it is still a fairly large problem among teens.

 

Its stuff like gun laws that make me feel like I'm more of a democrat instead of a Republican. You mess with people's guns and they go crazy. I don't own a gun and I still feel perfectly safe. Gun owners need to realize that there are negatives to owning guns, which i don't think most gun owners understand.

 

The second amendment also only says that civilians are able to carry guns to be soldiers as part of a militia. Not just a bunch of random people fighting against the enemy.

 

Exactly the right to bear arms doesn't mean you get to have tanks, or fighters, or drones, or machine guns, or napalm. Why? Because the average citizen has no reason to use any of them and to those who mean to do harm they are dangerous. And you also have no reason to use an AR-15 or any semi-automatic rifle.

Edited February 2, 2013 by Papa John

[Cookie]

Sure there was no new smoking laws, except they were required to not legally sell to minors, required to put labels stating "smoking can lead to cancer/death" on their products, and prevented from disguising their products in any misleading way. Furthermore, a multitude of sponsored ads on television (which continue to run) tell about the effect of smoking and required school drug programs teach kids about the effect of smoking. And it is still a fairly large problem among teens.

well even as of right now, you cannot sell a gun to a minor anyways so that point is quite invalid, and the labels can be printed on guns saying they are dangerous too... But with the sponsored ads and tv and the school programs is what i'm talking about with the social change.

[Papa John]

well even as of right now, you cannot sell a gun to a minor anyways so that point is quite invalid, and the labels can be printed on guns saying they are dangerous too... But with the sponsored ads and tv and the school programs is what i'm talking about with the social change.

 

As hilarious as a label "May Cause Death" would be on a weapon, something tells me that isn't going to happen...

 

As far as the social aspect I don't really see how you made the connection. Smoking got traction because it was actually killing people just by smoking, its not the same connection that you can make with guns.

[Kigen]

Its stuff like gun laws that make me feel like I'm more of a democrat instead of a Republican. You mess with people's guns and they go crazy. I don't own a gun and I still feel perfectly safe. Gun owners need to realize that there are negatives to owning guns, which i don't think most gun owners understand.

 

The second amendment also only says that civilians are able to carry guns to be soldiers as part of a militia. Not just a bunch of random people fighting against the enemy.

 

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you. They've recently struck down gun bans as unconstitutional. DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago held that it was an individuals right to own guns.

[Papa John]

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you. They've recently struck down gun bans as unconstitutional. DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago held that it was an individuals right to own guns.

 

I don't think he meant all guns, but if he did then you are correct. Anyways, you have the right to own guns but the federal government and state government can still dictate which weapons you can and can't own. Worth noting the former case specifically only mentioned handguns.

Edited February 2, 2013 by Papa John

[Iron Chef]

They disagree with me on what? I'm not a fan of gun banning all together. Just unnecessary guns that were mentioned above by papa john

[CantBeFaded]

[Papa John]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1a4-1C_HtQ Edited February 2, 2013 by Papa John

[Kigen]

So I have a question for those who want to ban the AR-15?

 

What kind of impact to society do you expect such a ban to achieve banning one rifle?

[Kigen]

-video of piers morgan-

 

Please don't post Piers Morgan videos. That dude just interrupts people anytime they start winning a debate against him. Even going so far as to throw papers or insults at them.

[Papa John]

So I have a question for those who want to ban the AR-15?

 

What kind of impact to society do you expect such a ban to achieve banning one rifle?

 

None, because the ban isn't on one rifle. Everyone for some unknown reason is using it as an example, so I used it as well. Actual ban should be on all semi-automatic weapons, high capacity magazines, and accessories which make the weapon more lethal or viable as a weapon (Ex. suppressors)

 

Please don't post Piers Morgan videos. That dude just interrupts people anytime they start winning a debate against him. Even going so far as to throw papers or insults at them.

 

I won't disagree Piers Morgan isn't the greatest newscaster in the world, but he gets points for deciding to interview someone who wanted to actually deport him. Then just sit there and listen to the guy ramble on for for I believe 20 minutes in a completely incoherent manner. Also just about everyone does, I mean Bill O'reilly does it all the time (not to say you like him either, just proving a point), it is the whole point of owning your own show. As a single anchor you want to ensure your point comes across because you speak for your audience, you have to be right or your audience believes you were soft on them.

Edited February 2, 2013 by Papa John

[CantBeFaded]

[Kigen]

None, because the ban isn't on one rifle. Everyone for some unknown reason is using it as an example, so I used it as well. Actual ban should be on all semi-automatic weapons, high capacity magazines, and accessories which make the weapon more lethal or viable as a weapon (Ex. suppressors)

 

So basically you want to ban all weapons? Semi-automatics are the most common guns in existence. Banning those would ban 70-90% of the guns used by people. Limiting the size of a magazine just means having to reload. And it will do nothing to deter crime involving guns (as criminals won't care).

 

I won't disagree Piers Morgan isn't the greatest newscaster in the world, but he gets points for deciding to interview someone who wanted to actually deport him. Then just sit there and listen to the guy ramble on for for I believe 20 minutes in a completely incoherent manner.

 

One interview out of many. There are nuts on both sides of this argument. He just tries to find them to interview so he can push his argument.

[CantBeFaded]