My Recent Online Gun Control Conversation

[gdcleanfun]

I actually had this conversation online yesterday. I've taken off the lady's name, it's immaterial. The conversation could have occurred at any time between any one of us and someone who is anti-carry, or anti-firearm. It's a pretty standard stance on her part. I think I pretty much held my own, but, I'm wondering, what else I can use next time for defense of our defensive position?

---

Her: The point I've been trying to make is that the second amendment should not be carte blanche for gun ownership. There needs to be reasonable controls put in place

Me: Of course. I agree.

Her: Someone commented about cars being used as weapons. Not the point. Cars are made for transportation, guns are made for shooting at things or people, but they are specifically made to do damage or cause harm. Other than hunting and military or police use�there is no real purpose for them.

Me: Not so. Everyone has the right to self defense. Carrying a pistol on ones person gives everyone at least that minimum ability for self defense against criminals who carry those "assault weapons." "Normal" people who have passed the background checks and investigations and who carry on their persons for self defense don't carry "assault weapons." They carry pistols and revolvers. Revolvers WERE around when the Second Amendment was written.

Concealed-carry reform reaffirms the basic idea that citizens have the right to defend themselves against criminal attack. And since criminals can strike almost anywhere at any time, the last thing government ought to be doing is stripping citizens of the most effective means of defending themselves. Carrying a handgun in public may not be for everyone, but it is a right that government ought to respect.
Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right to Carry a Handgun

Her: And there certainly is not purpose for Joe Public to own AK47s or Ouzies [sic] or assault weapons of any kind

Me: Of course not. We agree on that.

Her: No constitutional amendment is without interpretation by people, infallible people. And none are in concrete and yes, it is a living document which subjects it to change when change is needed.

Me: At least we agree on that, too. (She has said previously that the Second Amendment no longer applies in today's world, that it only pertained to militia-owned firearms. My argument was that if the Second Amendment is no longer valid, then none of the other amendments are valid. That would mean that the First Amendment didn't apply to things on the internet, simply because the internet was not "around" when it was written. Therein was one reason that her argument was invalid.)

Her: The NRA has bought off more politicians than is imaginable,

Me: I have no idea.

Her: their lobbiests [sic] are some of the most powerful people in Washington.

Me: yup, that's their job. Most lobbyists are poserful.[sic] ( I meant to write powerful.)

Her: They don't want controls of any kind. That is a thoughtless, insane approach to any amendment.

Me: I don't know where that idea comes from but it's not true. Check out the following: re: Congressional bill HR 2640;
“In a deal brokered by former NRA-board member Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) and blessed by the National Rifle Association, a bill introduced earlier this year by gun control advocate Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) to improve the NICS was modified at the last minute and passed by the House with much fanfare and little outside analysis.” --Josh Sugarmann, “Mental Health Gun Bill Has Hidden Problems,” The Huffington Post, July 26, 2007...With the NRA on board, the bill, which fixes flaws in the national gun background check system that allowed the Virginia Tech shooter to buy guns despite his mental health problems, has a good chance of becoming the first major gun control law in more than a decade.” --“NRA, Democrats Team Up To Pass Gun Bill”, CBS News - Breaking News Headlines: Business, Entertainment & World News, June 13, 2007 " What others are saying about HR 2640


Her: There is a mother in Las Vegas who had to bury her 12 year old son, he committed suicide with one of the many guns his idiot father kept out all over the house. Time and time again this poor woman warned the courts that this house was not safe, the this jerk ex husband of hers had guns out and continued to refuse to put them safely away, she was ignored and the courts allowed the children to visit the father even though they knew it was an unsafe environment, and his 2nd amendment rights were being challenged. Well, the boy is dead and I hope to God the jerk is in prison. > The 8 year old boy in Arizona, his father thought he was doing the right thing by showing his son how to handle a rifle, WOW, now wasn't that a great move,l he's dead and his friend is dead and the kid will never be the same. If there were stricter controls on gun ownership there are 3 people who would still be alive. > And what about the massacre at Virginia Tech, that young man bought the damn guns legally in Virginia, he had a history of mental illness, more dead people. I don't think this is what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the 2nd amendment.

Me: For every story you write about how firearms are miss-used, I can provide one that tells about how a firearm was used correctly and well for self defense: even up to hundreds of thousands of times. One study cites up to 2 million uses of self-defense uses or defensive gun uses (SDUs or DGUs.) The media never tells us about these, they are not "fantastic" news stories and will not sell help to sell the papers or make the general public tune into the 5 o'clock news reports. They are incidents where people have defended themselves or their loved ones. No glory there, and afterward, they just go about their lives.

Check out the following site: GunCite-Gun Control-How Often Are Guns Used in Self-Defense?;

"How Often Are Firearms Used in Self-Defense? ... There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.

"Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.

"There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. Why the huge discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others?..."

This is why: "...88% of the violent crimes which respondents [Rs] reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions, the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee."

Me again: We can go back and forth forever and never agree. Can we just agree to disagree? I can. I'll be moving on from here.

[HK4U]

Her: And there certainly is not purpose for Joe Public to own AK47s or Ouzies [sic] or assault weapons of any kind

Me: Of course not. We agree on that.

This is one area I would differ with. The 2nd amendment was written to protect a God given right that already existed so that we the citizens would be able to defend ourselves from aggressors both foreign and domestic. It was to guarantee we had the best guns available at the time. If Ak of Uzies were around then they would be included. When we start trying to limit or define just which class of firearms is o.k. to own then we are headed down a slippery slope so to speak.

[gdcleanfun]

Good point. Where WOULD any restrictions cease? I'm not totally in agreement, but I've not quite made up my mind on this one. But that's okay, because it means my mind is open. I'm usually willing to listen to other sides. I can't say always, that's like saying never, and most times there are lots of exceptions to everything.

[HK4U]

Good point. Where WOULD any restrictions cease? I'm not totally in agreement, but I've not quite made up my mind on this one. But that's okay, because it means my mind is open. I'm usually willing to listen to other sides. I can't say always, that's like saying never, and most times there are lots of exceptions to everything.

Exactly. You kind of have to draw a line in the sand and make a stand. Other wise what happens is you keep drawing another line and backing up and another and another and pretty soon you have backed into a corner with no way out. Remember anytime we forfit a right it is very hard to get it back.

[boyzoi]

Exactly. You kind of have to draw a line in the sand and make a stand. Other wise what happens is you keep drawing another line and backing up and another and another and pretty soon you have backed into a corner with no way out. Remember anytime we forfit a right it is very hard to get it back.

+1, and not only that, but forfeit one right it more often than not will lead to the forfeiture of another and another first the 2A then the 1st.....
lossing the 2A, the one that in reality prevents us from loosing the others, is not an option.

[gdcleanfun]

Next time I could say, "If we don't want to then it's perfectly okay that neither you or I own them," and leave it at that.

[KimberPB]

Her: And there certainly is not purpose for Joe Public to own AK47s or Ouzies [sic] or assault weapons of any kind

Me: Of course not. We agree on that.

This is one area I would differ with. The 2nd amendment was written to protect a God given right that already existed so that we the citizens would be able to defend ourselves from aggressors both foreign and domestic. It was to guarantee we had the best guns available at the time. If Ak of Uzies were around then they would be included. When we start trying to limit or define just which class of firearms is o.k. to own then we are headed down a slippery slope so to speak.

Plus one to that. Like HK said the second amendment is to protect a God given right that already existed so that we the citizens would be able to defend ourselves from aggressors both foreign and domestic. I forget were I read it (I'll see if I can look it up again) but it was a quote from a top ranking Japanese general during WWII. When asked why they didn't invade the US he said that they new that there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. Knowing that he would not only have to deal with our military but also the vast majority of Americans was a determining factor in not trying to invade our soil.

Also AK47's (semi auto) and AR15's are not assault weapons. They are not fully auto. My neighbor brought over a new hunting rifle he just bought the other day. It was a semi auto mag feed .270. But because it has a one piece stock and no pistol grip it’s considered a "hunting rifle" but its rate of fire is no different then my AR. My ar holds a few more rounds but his 270 is a more powerful round and with a few extra mags could keep up well with the AR.

Lastly, Even if "assault weapons" were banned we all know that it only takes them out of the hands of the law abiding. Criminal will still get them. We've had a ban once already and can anyone show stats were this made any kind of impact on crime? Once the ban sunsetted did we have an increase in shootouts were assault weapons were used?

[KimberPB]

Next time I could say, "If we don't want to then it's perfectly okay that neither you or I own them," and leave it at that.

I just came back from TN were I was able to do some long range shooting with my AR. It was a blast shooting at 250 - 300 yards with iron sights trying to stay on paper and something I really enjoyed. My AR has never killed anyone and I pray that I never have to defend myself with it. I own it becase its something I enjoy shooting. I'm sure that you and her both have hobbies that I either don't agree with or would not find fun to do. But with saying that I'm not going to tell you just because I do not find them fun I'm not going to make you stop doing it either.

[Glockster20]

You are correct KimberBP! Semi auto AK's and AR-15's are not true "assault weapons". They fall under Title 1 weapons which are: Rifles, shotguns and handguns.

True assault weapons are categorized as Title 2 and are as follows: Machine guns, silencers, Destructive devices, i.e hand grenades, etc, Short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns and any other weapon.

[gdcleanfun]

I know that ARs aren't true assault rifles - they are not automatic, only semi. Even though the J.Q. Public things they are, they aren't. I own one. Duh! I was thinking of M16s. Now, that was fun to shoot! But, I failed to do my research. I thought that AKs were. I'm headed back online to "bone up." Thanks for the heads up.