Stephen King on US gun contols.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Since your talking about assault rifles, which i'm sure everyone can agree is an Firearm found in the military, then we should probably use the military definition of an Assault rifle. The military definition of an assault rifle is:

1. Fire's an intermediate cartridge
2. Uses a detachable box magazine.
3. Is selective fire. Which, in case your unaware, means it can fire fully automatic. Like a machine gun.

ok..

From my perspective as someone who spend 3 years in military since age at 18 and then doing reserve service every year i must say i never used full auto unless for fun or while shooting types of MGs.
I was never trained to use full auto but the opposite , Military here exercises a lot mostly with real ammo unless doing OPFOR off course.
Im not gun expert just a sort of user yet this definition that somehow turns military rifles into innocent civilian guns i find ridiculous.
From my perspective they are both the same.

I really admire the amount of personal freedom you got there and understand the reasons why it needs to be defended but again , the ease with which anyone can put his hands on all sort of weapons really baffles me.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

The self defense argument is the most potent, I think. If someone were threatening my life or the life of a friend or family member, and I happened to have a loaded gun to hand, I am absolutely sure any principles I may have on the issue would quickly evaporate.

Which is a reasonable assumption for anyone to make. When it's your life, or the one you love, any scruples will most likely disappear.

The firearm as a leveler for the weak against the strong (or the innocent against the criminal). Trouble is, rather than being a leveler, in the end it just substitutes 'the strong' with 'the most heavily armed'.

Well, one could argue that in terms of a life or death struggle where you are in fear for your life, or the life of a family member, I don't think there is any such thing as "fighting fair". You take any advantage you can get, and exploit it to its fullest. In this scenario, this is your life we are talking about. It is all you own, and all you'll ever own, and all you'll ever have. You only get one chance, and second place is a toe tag and a body bag.

That said, I have always felt that the best defense , is to not be there, to extract yourself from the situation entirely. Lethal force should only be used when you have no other choice. In the case of home invasion, I think the situation and response will depend on one's household.

Also the counter argument that unless you sleep with it loaded under your bed, in the case of a home invasion you are likely to be surprised and overwhelmed, is not without merit.

Your right, it is most certainly not without merit. In fact, in the case of home invasion, this is my greatest fear. I am a very sound sleeper. When my head hits the pillow, i am out within 5 minutes, and am effectively dead to the world. To that end, ive put "stop sticks" in all my windows, and make sure the doors are locked. With "stop sticks", the only way to open the window, is to break it. Which will make a lot of noise, and increase the likelyhood of waking me up.

Failing that, I have what i jokingly refer to as my "Early Warning Doggie Detection system".

He sleeps by the bed, and he hears everything. Of course, i realize not everyone has a good dog.

The real question is how do you tell a criminal from an innocent before a crime is committed? Considering that the subjective judgement of criminality will differ depending on the observing individual, and that we may or may not personally agree with some already extant laws. The lady you mention is a case in point.

Well, you can't, unless you want to change the law to where someone is guilty until proven innocent. Which is one reason im having issues with these attempts at gun legislature. It's like we are now all guilty, and we are all suspect. For the horrendous crime at newtown, I and millions of other law abiding citizens are to be punished for a crime we did not commit through legislature? Last I checked, we are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

The best thing we can do, is improve measures to where firearms cannot be acquired by criminals and the mentally ill. On that note, I think doctors pass out way too many drugs that alter the minds chemistry like it's candy. See prozac.

The definition of terms is important though. Arms in the sense of your right to bear arms means weapons in common usage not designed for military use, which is ambiguous in that the only difference between weapons designed for military use and those designed for civilian use is one of marketing.

When it comes to defining type of arms, in this case assault rifles; if your going to apply a military application to it, then i will always use the military definition. In this case: intermediate cartridge, detatchable box magazine, selective fire.

Fact of the matter is, our military does not use the AR-15. I seriously doubt you'll find a single AR-15 in any Military armory, in any branch of our Armed Services.

I'd go as far to say weapons designed purely for civilians may even occasionally end up being better quality and more destructive than their contemporary military counterparts.

Hollow points is a good example. Used accross the nation for self defense because it increases the lethality against your intended target, and decreases the likelyhood that the round fired will penetrate past the first surface it comes in contact with. In an urban scenario, this is important in the lawful defense of self and others, and ironically, is also banned by the Geneva convention.

Currently, my thoughts are along the lines of you should retain your right, but that the majority of people would choose not to exercise it for the lack of need. Unfortunately that's an idea that probably has about as much potential as a bovine bicycle.

Well here's the thing. We have a "Bill of Rights", we do not have a "Bill of Needs". When anyone says, "Well, you don't need a rifle like that!"? They're just not getting it. A counter point would be, "Well, you need a sports car either!" Two completely separate items that have no relationship to each other save one. It's not about what you need, its about your rights. We cannot allow ourselves to get into a situation where people can dictate what common items you can or cannot own on basis of need. That's not what life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is about.

Now if others choose not to exercise their rights, that is their decision; however, they have no moral leg to stand on to infringe on everyone's rights simply because they themselves choose not to use them.

P.S. your link to the video about the M14 was brilliant, thanks for sharing. It consigned me to yet another evening of watching utube videos by gun enthusiasts.

Your welcome. I work from home, and often listen to documentaries and such on youtube on my personal desktop while working on my companies laptop, (go go gadget KVM switch), so i know of a ton of interesting video's on youtube.

Originally Posted by MH

ok..

From my perspective as someone who spend 3 years in military since age at 18 and then doing reserve service every year i must say i never used full auto unless for fun or while shooting types of MGs.
I was never trained to use full auto but the opposite , Military here exercises a lot mostly with real ammo unless doing OPFOR off course.
Im not gun expert just a sort of user yet this definition that somehow turns military rifles into innocent civilian guns i find ridiculous.
From my perspective they are both the same.

Well, ill give you this. When i first got out of the military, I didn't understand why anyone in the Civilian world would need a rifle similar to the one I used the the military, and I know I said as much in the past. In fact, at time when i left active duty, i just assumed never touch a rifle again. I swore to myself, "I never want another job where I have to carry a gun", and wanted nothing more then to live in peace. I still want nothing more then to live in peace, however, my perspective on guns in general has changed.

Mainly because these are uncertain times we live in, our civil liberties have been steadily whittled away. We already have two pieces of legislature that allow gross potential for abuse to haul citizens off without due process, and detain them indefinatly. This is the anti-thesis to freedom, and the principles upon which our country was founded, and this errorsion of our civil liberties cannot be allowed to continue. Our right to bear arms, as are all of our civil rights, is not based on what a person does or does not need. They are god given right's as a human being, guaranteed by the founding fathers of our nation in the bill of rights for a reason.

(EDIT: On a side note, It is not lost on me, that Osama bin Ladin, and anyone his associated with, have quite possibly achieved a long term goal, in a way they couldn't possibly imagine. Since 911, we have been on a downward spiral in every concievable way. In short, we have allowed them to do far more damage to our country then the world trade center by virtue of our own reactions. Destruction of "the great Satan" from within. We are less free, a lot poorer, and no more safer then we were before 911. )

[Sammi79]

@Ducimus

Thank you for an eloquent and well reasoned response. It took me a while to get started in this particular thread as previous responses made me feel decidedly unwelcome (To be clear, my problem, no one else, and I took what I felt was the necessary action to try to avoid such bad reaction from me in the future), and from its inception was not intended as yet another thread arguing about gun controls rather about Mr Kings written views - which is of no interest to anyone else evidently and that is fair enough. I rather expected it to die quietly after the first few negative replies, as there are plenty more threads on the overarching issue.

Instead, here I am, here you are, exchanging views on gun culture etc. and on that note I would like to elaborate the reason I think this is so.

You mentioned the perceived projection of guilt by anti-gun folks upon pro-gun folks for the terrible crimes committed by criminals. To me this is a very unfortunate manifestation of the polarizing effect of shock and tragedy, and a part of the argument that to my mind is quite detrimental to the gun control advocates cause. The media knows this all too well of course, as do the politicians and we all know that their motivations are often less than honorable. However, and this is a clear point in Mr Kings essay and one I agree with completely - The reason that you kindly describe to me your views whether they be pro or anti-gun (for want of better less monochrome terms) is itself an indication of the fact that you care very deeply about the problems in your society, as I do about mine and this is hope inspiring. Particularly since this is an argument you have been having your whole life while outsiders like me tend to only get involved when we are shocked and saddened by unashamedly sensationalist media coverage. Media is too often a pernicious thing I think, and conscientious gun owners/enthusiasts are in no way responsible for the crimes committed by people with either mental disorders or inferior motives.

That said, I will ramble on a bit if anyone would care to read it, and not necessarily about gun controls. /phew...

I understand your definitive separation of rights and needs, which is why I was careful to imply the personal choice inherent in the lack of needs. I know there are many Americans who do not own guns through choice and yet will not like yourself accept any erosion of their right to do so. I do differ in some rhetorical statements in that I choose an atheistic life as is my right, so 'God given rights' means very little to me (and I hope that this does not make you think worse of me). We could debate the exact meaning of the word 'creator' which I would argue should be 'creation' in your constitution but that is another discussion altogether, and not pertinent to the fact that a right is indeed a right. As I have mentioned before I have huge admiration for your constitution and have found it a singularly fascinating document to analyse.

I wander about the right to life in regard to capital punishment, and the right to the pursuit of happiness in regard to life imprisonment with no possibility of parole. Obviously some may feel that criminals forfeit these rights entirely upon committing a crime, I personally can't agree with this, because of human subjective judgement of criminality and peoples propensity to make mistakes. There is I believe always a possibility no matter how slight for change in any and every individual. Don't get me wrong, I think someone like Charles Manson should probably remain incarcerated permanently if only for his own safety, regardless of whether or not he is or was capable of any rehabilitation. I guess that since the words describe rights being endowed by mans creator (or creation) that might be construed or even stated as being inviolate or unlimited since no one man or group of men can endow these rights, neither can they take them away. However, society has a duty to try to mitigate the damage to society that is a result of evolved aspects of humanity, those being opportunism, fear, greed, etc. so in actual fact all fundamental rights should be and are limited. Compromise is a word that does not inspire confidence in people and it is certain that some individuals will lose more than they gain in any sense of it, but compromise is I believe essential to the continued functioning of large societies, and is itself simply another evolved aspect of humanity. Above all, criminals and crazies are unavoidably human aspects too and they are not going to go away. My worry when I discuss the US constitution is a sneaking feeling that some regard the rights as their own exclusively, in the case of prepper groups for example, to me seem to be a move towards division, of different interpretations of constitutional declarations and ultimately between groups, peoples and governments, maybe even the military. A fairly rough analogy here would be the Waco siege, those folks were certainly well prepped, and they couldn't be stopped.

So I digress, my thoughts are not yet completely collected on the various sound points you have made, and I shall stop here until such a time as I can efficiently put them into words.

As an aside, your doggie early warning device is a wonderful looking creature and a very wise precaution that I think all gun owners should consider, along with effective security systems, burglar alarms, etc.

Best regards,
Sam.

Haveing been down the road of a Home invasion?
I can say this.
I wish a Fire arm was in my home at the time!

The Wife and I were in Hawaii when the invasion put my step son and his friend in Hospitals.

My home was trashed.
I never recovered the cost of fixing things.
My step son still owes bills.

I did voice one thing at the sentenceing of the scum.
"I will execute anyone of the scum that even drives by my home upon release from prison! Should they attack anyone of my family after release? I will hunt them down and execute them. Should they send others to do harm to my family? I will hunt down, and then execute, all involved with no regrets."

The Court did not like that but they knew I ment it!

I have one thing I hold so dear that life to me is beyond thinking about.
That's my family.
I can nothing about anything else to that level.
Hurt my family?
I will go postal in a way that no one ever has!

[Armistead]

The gun debate is mostly a political joke to simply outlaw guns, kill the gun party, mostly the GOP. The liberal media harps that there is mass gun smuggling from the US to Mexico, it's mostly garbage. The majority of fully automatic assault weapons in the US come from Mexico and our inner cities are full of them. Most of these weapons are used in gang violence, but thousands die every year, but you here no talk of it because we would have to shut our border down with the military. The Dems will go nuts when a white kid shoots up a white school with a legal semi automatic weapon, but you never hear anything about inner city violence with real assault weapons. Like I said, what would Dems be debating if a person walked into a school with an illegal Uzi smuggled from Mexico? Would they simply call it an illegal act with an illegal gun?

[Armistead]

911 call.....Lady with no gun.



911 call....Lady with gun.




Which would you prefer to be.......Case closed.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Armistead

911 call.....Lady with no gun.



911 call....Lady with gun.




Which would you prefer to be.......Case closed.

At the same time, there is the story of Keith Ratliff.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/us...eath.html?_r=0

If somebody wants to get you they're going to get you, guns or not.