Poll for Gun Control Advocates

[Rarity]

They prefer handguns for the same reason people prefer them for self-defense.

Anyone with an ounce of sense prefers a rifle over a handgun for self-defense. In a self-defense situation, I'm looking to end the threat ASAP. A rifle is, by far, the better tool for this job. Unlike a criminal, I don't need to conceal my weapon of choice.

Yeah, I own handguns. They are for fighting my way back to my rifle should I find myself without it.

That said, training is more important than the tool.

Maybe if your threats are at long range.  Inside a building or at close range (much more likely scenarios for robbery) and you are going to want the handgun because of the advantages in mobility.  

And bottom line, just easier to carry.  You aren't patrolling Baghdad, you can afford to compromise.

[1714771880]

1714771880

[1714771880]

1714771880

[1714771880]

1714771880

[Rarity]

Maybe if your threats are at long range.  Inside a building or at close range (much more likely scenarios for robbery) and you are going to want the handgun because of the advantages in mobility.
 

No, I'm not. I'm going to want my rifle. I'm not risking the lives of my family on the off chance the criminals are smart enough to be wearing armor. I know the dimensions of my house, location of furniture, and I can manoeuvre through it in the dark. The mobility advantage is already mine, the rifle is my first choice.

Did you think mforgeries were unwieldy? Why do soldiers use them in urban combat?

Perhaps I should specify carbine.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion.  Many experts disagree.

A handgun is handy indoors and can be conveniently concealed almost anywhere in the home, ready for use. It is the easiest of all guns to retain in a hand to hand struggle. It can be fired from either hand in an emergency situation. (This is especially true of revolvers). Centerfire pistols and revolvers from approximately 9mm/.38 caliber on up, assuming appropriate ammunition is chosen, offer good stopping power for indoor home defense without the extreme risk of over penetration of a deer rifle or shotgun stuffed with slugs. They are much less likely to severely damage the home you are trying to protect than a shotgun. For all of these reasons handguns are the first choice of the majority of experts for home defense.

http://www.chuckhawks.com/guns_home_defense.htm

In the end of course,  folks paranoid of armed murderous robbers in body armor they have to shoot in the dark strike me as the type more likely to end up accidentally hurting a family member.

CONCLUSIONS:

Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182

[AntiCap]

Well, if I have a gun drawn and aimed at your head, you certainly can't win any fight with me, either. The problem lies not in the fact that you have a device which prevents me from winning any fight with you, but in the fact that the device also threatens everyone within range. A bomb is not a shield.

Assuming that the mugger was using a nuclear hand grenade, yes. But he's not. He's using a firearm. Use proportional force, ie another firearm. You're not just carrying a big gun. You're pointing that gun at everyone in range, and saying, "Better not fuck with me, or I'll blow you all away!"

It's public property. That's where the problem lies. It's his land too. Get your friends out of his shooting range, if you feel they're being threatened.

Again, a loaded gun is fine, as long as it's not being pointed randomly at people. A nuclear device is fine, as long as it's not armed. Armed is not loaded. Armed is hammer cocked and pointed.


A tool is a tool. A nuclear bomb is a tool to make a very large explosion. That explosion can be used for good (say, asteroid mining) or evil (blowing up a city). Guess which category your retributive vest falls under.

1) Assuming you get your gun out. I've taken out the uncertainty. You will lose a fight with me. We both will. You can never win. A threat is not harm. Where's the harm? Threat is also highly subjective.

2) Why proportional force? Where's the rule saying that? You you wish to give the robber a possibility of success? Read Sun-Tsu, he's not a proponent of proportional force either. Yes, there's a risk of collateral damage. Not my problem.

3) We're back to intended use then. Something you were a proponent of earlier iirc. And for the question you ignored. My family IS leaving, it's just that they're not out yet. And he's going to shoot NOW. So, what are my options? He will not listen to my plea.

4) Where's the harm? And that's your opinion. I don't see it like that. Who's correct? Who gets to decide?

5) Thanks Cpt Obvious. I think we all know what a nuke does. Everyone should be allowed to wield that much destructive power in case they want to take up astroid mining?

[myrkul]

Well, if I have a gun drawn and aimed at your head, you certainly can't win any fight with me, either. The problem lies not in the fact that you have a device which prevents me from winning any fight with you, but in the fact that the device also threatens everyone within range. A bomb is not a shield.

Assuming that the mugger was using a nuclear hand grenade, yes. But he's not. He's using a firearm. Use proportional force, ie another firearm. You're not just carrying a big gun. You're pointing that gun at everyone in range, and saying, "Better not fuck with me, or I'll blow you all away!"

It's public property. That's where the problem lies. It's his land too. Get your friends out of his shooting range, if you feel they're being threatened.

Again, a loaded gun is fine, as long as it's not being pointed randomly at people. A nuclear device is fine, as long as it's not armed. Armed is not loaded. Armed is hammer cocked and pointed.


A tool is a tool. A nuclear bomb is a tool to make a very large explosion. That explosion can be used for good (say, asteroid mining) or evil (blowing up a city). Guess which category your retributive vest falls under.

1) Assuming you get your gun out. I've taken out the uncertainty. You will lose a fight with me. We both will. You can never win. A threat is not harm. Where's the harm? Threat is also highly subjective.

Indeed, you have removed the uncertainty. You've drawn your gun, and pointed it at the skull of everyone in range of the explosion, simply by being there with an armed nuclear device. I'm sure you can see how that will lose you friends. And while a threat is not harm, it is aggression. You do not have the right to initiate the use of force, the threat of force, or fraud against another person. This is known as the Non-aggression principle, and it is the guiding concept of libertarianism.

2) Why proportional force? Where's the rule saying that? You you wish to give the robber a possibility of success? Read Sun-Tsu, he's not a proponent of proportional force either. Yes, there's a risk of collateral damage. Not my problem.

But it is your problem, because it's not collateral damage. it's the bomb doing it's job. You nuke a city because a mugger shot you, it's not his fault that you killed everyone else in range.

3) We're back to intended use then. Something you were a proponent of earlier iirc. And for the question you ignored. My family IS leaving, it's just that they're not out yet. And he's going to shoot NOW. So, what are my options? He will not listen to my plea.

Stay off public land, then, and stay in privately owned parks, where the owners are intent upon it remaining a park, and not being used as a shooting range. Public property is public property. You cannot stop someone from using their property in whatever manner they desire.

4) Where's the harm? And that's your opinion. I don't see it like that. Who's correct? Who gets to decide?

Again, you're threatening the use of physical force upon completely innocent strangers. That is the harm.

5) Thanks Cpt Obvious. I think we all know what a nuke does. Everyone should be allowed to wield that much destructive power in case they want to take up asteroid mining?

Yup.

[AntiCap]

1) Assuming you get your gun out. I've taken out the uncertainty. You will lose a fight with me. We both will. You can never win. A threat is not harm. Where's the harm? Threat is also highly subjective.

Indeed, you have removed the uncertainty. You've drawn your gun, and pointed it at the skull of everyone in range of the explosion, simply by being there with an armed nuclear device. I'm sure you can see how that will lose you friends. And while a threat is not harm, it is aggression. You do not have the right to initiate the use of force, the threat of force, or fraud against another person. This is known as the Non-aggression principle, and it is the guiding concept of libertarianism.

2) Why proportional force? Where's the rule saying that? You you wish to give the robber a possibility of success? Read Sun-Tsu, he's not a proponent of proportional force either. Yes, there's a risk of collateral damage. Not my problem.

But it is your problem, because it's not collateral damage. it's the bomb doing it's job. You nuke a city because a mugger shot you, it's not his fault that you killed everyone else in range.

3) We're back to intended use then. Something you were a proponent of earlier iirc. And for the question you ignored. My family IS leaving, it's just that they're not out yet. And he's going to shoot NOW. So, what are my options? He will not listen to my plea.

Stay off public land, then, and stay in privately owned parks, where the owners are intent upon it remaining a park, and not being used as a shooting range. Public property is public property. You cannot stop someone from using their property in whatever manner they desire.

4) Where's the harm? And that's your opinion. I don't see it like that. Who's correct? Who gets to decide?

Again, you're threatening the use of physical force upon completely innocent strangers. That is the harm.

5) Thanks Cpt Obvious. I think we all know what a nuke does. Everyone should be allowed to wield that much destructive power in case they want to take up asteroid mining?

Yup.
[/quote]

1) No I haven't. It's aggression to fight back? I thought that was defense. I haven't initiated anything.

2) I still think that the eventual deaths is a direct result of the muggers actions, not mine. And besides, it's just risk, not real harm. Until there is, but that's not my problem either. I'm vapor by then. Probably. Who knows.

3) But it is a park. Built as a park. Everyone but one has the intent of keeping it a park. He's waving a rifle around, preparing to shoot. Can I  shoot him back first? And wait what? He can shoot his rifle and that's fine but I can't carry my armed nuke around, because you consider that a threat? Either he's a threat to everybody in that park, or I'm not with my nuke. Make up your mind. Neither of us intend to kill anyone. We might put others at risk, but hey... you know the song.

4) See rifle shooting guy in park above. Earlier he wasn't harming anyone, but now he is? Or I'm not. Please be consistent.

5) What do you expect the result to be by giving such power to your local supremacist group, Al-quaeda or similar organization?

[myrkul]

1) No I haven't. It's aggression to fight back? I thought that was defense. I haven't initiated anything.

I'll accept this argument when you tell me what granny down the street did to you to deserve you fighting back against her. To say nothing of the rest of the people in range of the blast.

2) I still think that the eventual deaths is a direct result of the muggers actions, not mine. And besides, it's just risk, not real harm. Until there is, but that's not my problem either. I'm vapor by then. Probably. Who knows.

No, he shot a man (though I use that term loosely). You, on the other hand built (or bought) and armed a nuclear weapon and carried it into a city. And it's not risk, it's a threat. That's the difference.

3) But it is a park. Built as a park. Everyone but one has the intent of keeping it a park. He's waving a rifle around, preparing to shoot. Can I  shoot him back first? And wait what? He can shoot his rifle and that's fine but I can't carry my armed nuke around, because you consider that a threat? Either he's a threat to everybody in that park, or I'm not with my nuke. Make up your mind. Neither of us intend to kill anyone. We might put others at risk, but hey... you know the song.

It's a public park. which means that it is his property, too. He's just using his property as he sees fit. You, on the other hand, are bringing a device which can kill indiscriminately onto someone else's property, and using it to coerce your safety out of him. The target shooter may be putting the other people using their shared property at risk, but you are directly threatening people, on their property.

4) See rifle shooting guy in park above. Earlier he wasn't harming anyone, but now he is? Or I'm not. Please be consistent.

I never said he was. I said you were threatening people. And by carting around an armed nuke, that is exactly what you are doing, threatening people. I am being consistent. You are the one suggesting that property rights change depending on who owns the property.

5) What do you expect the result to be by giving such power to your local supremacist group, Al-quaeda or similar organization?

What do you expect to be the result to be by giving such power to your local government?

EDIT: And if you think such a group can't acquire one now, you gotta be nuts.

[mdude77]

I'm a gun control advocate and yes there were guns in my home growing up and I have used them for alligator hunting.  (delicious, but I'm vegetarian now)

What changed my mind was moving to London.  The culture shift from Florida to London was crazy, but one of the things you noticed was that the police generally don't even need to carry guns.  There is still a lot of criminal violence but it tends to be less deadly.  I'm not at all convinced prohibition in general, and of weapons specifically, can't work.  We have too many examples where they have worked just fine.  Consider the danger of automatic weapons, for example.  Though a weapon like a Tommy gun or a fully automatic AK would be a good tool for mass murder, the long term automatic weapon bans in the US have put such weapons out of reach of casual buyers.  You could still get one if you are a collector and you want to pay out a lot, but they are not the types of weapons commonly used by criminals.  We could do the same thing for other guns if we wanted.

As for military stuff like Tanks and nukes, we have a government of the people and for the people.  The military and police use these kind of weapons in our name and if we don't like the government we vote them out instead of shooting them out.  I'm not a legal scholar so I can't tell you how to interpret the second amendment, but if I had my way all of that junk would definitely remain banned.

The US government is no longer a government of the people.  It's a government of the corporations and control freaks (read: power elite) of the world.  Time and time again out of control governments strip their citizens of the right to bear arms, and then slaughter them.

The most horrendous crimes of humanity have been done by governments against an unarmed population.

Do you trust your government?  You shouldn't.

M

[AntiCap]

I'll accept this argument when you tell me what granny down the street did to you to deserve you fighting back against her. To say nothing of the rest of the people in range of the blast.

No, he shot a man (though I use that term loosely). You, on the other hand built (or bought) and armed a nuclear weapon and carried it into a city. And it's not risk, it's a threat. That's the difference.

It's a public park. which means that it is his property, too. He's just using his property as he sees fit. You, on the other hand, are bringing a device which can kill indiscriminately onto someone else's property, and using it to coerce your safety out of him. The target shooter may be putting the other people using their shared property at risk, but you are directly threatening people, on their property.

I never said he was. I said you were threatening people. And by carting around an armed nuke, that is exactly what you are doing, threatening people. I am being consistent. You are the one suggesting that property rights change depending on who owns the property.

What do you expect to be the result to be by giving such power to your local government?

EDIT: And if you think such a group can't acquire one now, you gotta be nuts.

1) No granny doesn't deserve to get hurt. The mugger should pay restitution.

2) Where's the threat? Please explain why a bomb is a threat but a gun isn't.

3) And I'm using mine as I see fit. No problem then, right? I'm not threatening people. I put them at risk, at their property. Something that's perfectly OK according to you. And you still haven't answered my question about how I should act. Shoot him or wait for restitution.

4) Still not buying it. Being prepared isn't the same as threatening. Having a gun out, even pointing it at people isn't threatening them unless I ask something from them, or have an intent to shoot. I imagine elderly people doing this to compensate for them being slower to react. No law against being prepared, right? How to figure out intent is another matter. I imagine that the "National coalition of elders" puts out a pamphlet or something explaining why elders walk around with a finger on the trigger.
I'm the one believing that democracy is a good thing remember. That means a collective decision about how to use parks, and it includes restrictions even on private property.

5) Just answer the question.
But I'll answer yours just the same. I'd prefer that nobody had them, yes. But there's accountability when most governments have them, something that can't be said for individuals. Nukes in the hands of Pakistan is a nightmare, far worse then Iran imho.
I do think groups can acquire them now actually. That's why I want stricter control and people who take these dangerous toys away from people who shouldn't have them.

[myrkul]

1) No granny doesn't deserve to get hurt. The mugger should pay restitution.

Glad you finally saw reason. He can't do that if he's atomized, and you can't receive it if you are. Nukes are a horrible self-defense weapon.

2) Where's the threat? Please explain why a bomb is a threat but a gun isn't.

A bomb is not a threat. An armed bomb is. Just like a gun is not a threat until it is pointed at someone and ready to fire. An armed bomb is equivalent to a gun pointed at everyone within range of the blast.

3) And I'm using mine as I see fit. No problem then, right? I'm not threatening people. I put them at risk, at their property. Something that's perfectly OK according to you. And you still haven't answered my question about how I should act. Shoot him or wait for restitution.

No, you are threatening people. You have an armed bomb, so anyone within range of the blast is threatened by that weapon. Again, you are more than welcome to have such a device, so long as you keep it far away from anyone or anything that might be harmed by it, or else keep it disarmed while around them. As to what you should do, use your judgment. I am not responsible for your actions, only you are. Understand, though, that you may be held liable for causing him harm, if you act to prevent him from firing.

4) Still not buying it. Being prepared isn't the same as threatening. Having a gun out, even pointing it at people isn't threatening them unless I ask something from them, or have an intent to shoot. I imagine elderly people doing this to compensate for them being slower to react. No law against being prepared, right? How to figure out intent is another matter. I imagine that the "National coalition of elders" puts out a pamphlet or something explaining why elders walk around with a finger on the trigger.
I'm the one believing that democracy is a good thing remember. That means a collective decision about how to use parks, and it includes restrictions even on private property.

But people are not psychic, so if you point a loaded firearm at people, you have to expect them to assume you intend to shoot. Rule one of firearm safety is: Always point the muzzle in a safe direction; never point a firearm at anyone or anything you don't want to shoot. So if you are following firearms safety, you intend to shoot the person you point a gun at. That makes it a threat.

5) Just answer the question.
But I'll answer yours just the same. I'd prefer that nobody had them, yes. But there's accountability when most governments have them, something that can't be said for individuals. Nukes in the hands of Pakistan is a nightmare, far worse then Iran imho.
I do think groups can acquire them now actually. That's why I want stricter control and people who take these dangerous toys away from people who shouldn't have them.

You're right, governments should not have nuclear bombs. they're far too dangerous to trust to such insane organizations. I'm glad we could come to that agreement. I trust the private sellers of nuclear bombs to vet their customers properly before selling them, and not sell to anyone with ties to governments, or other terrorist organizations.

[AntiCap]

Glad you finally saw reason. He can't do that if he's atomized, and you can't receive it if you are. Nukes are a horrible self-defense weapon.

A bomb is not a threat. An armed bomb is. Just like a gun is not a threat until it is pointed at someone and ready to fire. An armed bomb is equivalent to a gun pointed at everyone within range of the blast.

No, you are threatening people. You have an armed bomb, so anyone within range of the blast is threatened by that weapon. Again, you are more than welcome to have such a device, so long as you keep it far away from anyone or anything that might be harmed by it, or else keep it disarmed while around them. As to what you should do, use your judgment. I am not responsible for your actions, only you are. Understand, though, that you may be held liable for causing him harm, if you act to prevent him from firing.

But people are not psychic, so if you point a loaded firearm at people, you have to expect them to assume you intend to shoot. Rule one of firearm safety is: Always point the muzzle in a safe direction; never point a firearm at anyone or anything you don't want to shoot. So if you are following firearms safety, you intend to shoot the person you point a gun at. That makes it a threat.


You're right, governments should not have nuclear bombs. they're far too dangerous to trust to such insane organizations. I'm glad we could come to that agreement. I trust the private sellers of nuclear bombs to vet their customers properly before selling them, and not sell to anyone with ties to governments, or other terrorist organizations.

1) That's not for you to decide. I'll go to heaven. So will granny so it's not really a problem, but the robber or his estate should pay restitution anyway.

2) Says you. What makes your opinion the right one?

3) Again, says you. They're at risk yes, but I'm willing to take that risk.
I'm defending my family by shooting him, so he's the aggressor and I'm the defender, right. Why should I be held liable for defending my family. Don't I have that right?

4) Why do you have to assume that? Screw those rules. You can't tell me what to do. Your perception makes it a threat, not the action in itself.

5) Like how you trust the private sellers of handguns never to sell to a criminal? Heh, good one. But I'm sure the sellers ethics improve when there's more money involved.

[myrkul]

1) That's not for you to decide. I'll go to heaven. So will granny so it's not really a problem, but the robber or his estate should pay restitution anyway.

No, that's not for you to decide. The mugger shot you. If you can fight back against him, that's fine. But granny, and everyone else in range, did nothing to you. You initiated the conflict between you and them, placing you firmly in the wrong. Mugger might have to pay your estate, but you'll have to pay all the others. But then again, what do you care? You're vapor anyway, beyond the help of medical science. Perhaps you might have been saved from the gunshot, but certainly not the nuke.

2) Says you. What makes your opinion the right one?

It's not opinion, it's fact. If I have a gun out, loaded, and pressed to your head with my finger on the trigger, I can kill you without you having a chance of defending yourself. If I have a nuclear bomb armed and ready to go off at the press of a button, I can kill everyone in range of the blast without the chance of them defending themselves. That makes them equivalent.

3) Again, says you. They're at risk yes, but I'm willing to take that risk.
I'm defending my family by shooting him, so he's the aggressor and I'm the defender, right. Why should I be held liable for defending my family. Don't I have that right?

No, they're not at risk, as I just explained, you are threatening them.
And no, you're not defending your family by shooting him. You're attacking him. He is not pointing his gun at your family. Your family is running around on his shooting range.

4) Why do you have to assume that? Screw those rules. You can't tell me what to do. Your perception makes it a threat, not the action in itself.

No, numbnuts. Let me restate that: never point a firearm at anyone or anything you don't want to shoot. That's the most basic rule of firearm safety. You can't say "screw those rules" and expect me to take anything you say seriously.

5) Like how you trust the private sellers of handguns never to sell to a criminal? Heh, good one. But I'm sure the sellers ethics improve when there's more money involved.

Yes, indeed. When the liability of a negligence claim goes up, I most certainly expect that the sellers will do more extensive checks.

[AntiCap]

1) That's not for you to decide. I'll go to heaven. So will granny so it's not really a problem, but the robber or his estate should pay restitution anyway.

No, that's not for you to decide. The mugger shot you. If you can fight back against him, that's fine. But granny, and everyone else in range, did nothing to you. You initiated the conflict between you and them, placing you firmly in the wrong. Mugger might have to pay your estate, but you'll have to pay all the others. But then again, what do you care? You're vapor anyway, beyond the help of medical science. Perhaps you might have been saved from the gunshot, but certainly not the nuke.

2) Says you. What makes your opinion the right one?

It's not opinion, it's fact. If I have a gun out, loaded, and pressed to your head with my finger on the trigger, I can kill you without you having a chance of defending yourself. If I have a nuclear bomb armed and ready to go off at the press of a button, I can kill everyone in range of the blast without the chance of them defending themselves. That makes them equivalent.

3) Again, says you. They're at risk yes, but I'm willing to take that risk.
I'm defending my family by shooting him, so he's the aggressor and I'm the defender, right. Why should I be held liable for defending my family. Don't I have that right?

No, they're not at risk, as I just explained, you are threatening them.
And no, you're not defending your family by shooting him. You're attacking him. He is not pointing his gun at your family. Your family is running around on his shooting range.

4) Why do you have to assume that? Screw those rules. You can't tell me what to do. Your perception makes it a threat, not the action in itself.

No, numbnuts. Let me restate that: never point a firearm at anyone or anything you don't want to shoot. That's the most basic rule of firearm safety. You can't say "screw those rules" and expect me to take anything you say seriously.

5) Like how you trust the private sellers of handguns never to sell to a criminal? Heh, good one. But I'm sure the sellers ethics improve when there's more money involved.

Yes, indeed. When the liability of a negligence claim goes up, I most certainly expect that the sellers will do more extensive checks.

1) I did fight back against him, others just got in the way. If he hurts somebody else as a result of his attack on me, that's not my fault.

2)  Actually in that situation you can't. Ask anyone experienced in hand to hand combat. They might "feel" threatened by my nuke, but that doesn't mean they're actually being threatened. Are those feelings enough to infringe on my right to bear arms? And what kind of weak ass argument is that? "They can't defend themselves against a nuke". That's the point. Or does everyone have to walk around with tiny guns that do minimal damage. What's the point of a weapon people can defend themselves from?

3) I disagree. I'm putting them at risk. I'm ok with that.
Ah, semantics. Ok, so then I'm not shooting at him. He just happens to lie at the exact spot on the ground that I was going to shoot at. He's at fault for lying around in my shooting spot. Problem solved then. No need for defense. Funny thing is, that spot actually moves with him.

4) Says you. The reason that you don't point a gun at anybody is to reduce the risk of accidental shootings. I'm OK with putting you at risk. "Give me your money or I shoot" is a threat. "Bang! Whoopsie, does it hurt" isn't.

5) That. Or hiding the fact that they sold it. Whichever is cheaper. This is supposed to be a totally free market, so I'm assuming there will be people willing to deal only with criminals. I sense a new policy here. Are you going to make somebody else responsible for one mans actions? Is the gun manufacturer/seller at fault for what the buyer does with it? Should the seller pay restitution to a victims family if the robber didn't have enough?

[TheBitcoinChemist]

Furthermore, the 'ban' on importation or manufacture of full-auto weapons are, in fact, not a complete ban.  There are exceptions, some of them notable.  For example, a FN P-90 is on my wishlist, but falls under the aforementioned importation ban.  Except for policemen.  But once it's been imported for a cop, and said cop has owned it for a period of time (2 years, IIRC) then a standard Class III transfer & ATF tax stamp is all that is required for that cop to sell that firearm to any other citizen with the correct permit to buy one.  

I do not believe that such a process is actually legal.  I'm gonna need a link on that.    First off, I do not believe policeman can "own" fully automatic weapons.  They are treated as any other citizen under these laws.  They may be issued one by a department but they do not own it and can not sell it. Second, it is my understanding that no fully automatic manufactured after 1986 can enter the legal market as per FOPA.  I'd be interested if you could provide links to show otherwise.

All this took was one google search for the term "can cops buy automatic weapons?".

This one looks like it's illegal to do this in cali, but the cops do it anyway.

http://calcoastnews.com/2011/12/peace-officers-buying-and-selling-assault-weapons/


I'm not finding directly applicable data on actual full auto weapons, but this is loosely related...

"Q: Are SAWs and LCAFDs marked “Restricted law enforcement/government use only” or “For export only” now legal to sell to civilians in the United States?
Yes. SAWs and LCAFDs are no longer prohibited. Therefore, firearms with the restrictive markings are legal to transfer to civilians in the United States, and it is legal for non-prohibited civilians to possess them. All civilians may possess LCAFDs."

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/saws-and-lcafds.html

I can't find any current data on an import ban for automatic weapons, not even on teh BATF site.  Are you sure you are not thinking of the assault weapons ban?  That has expired.

[myrkul]

1) I did fight back against him, others just got in the way. If he hurts somebody else as a result of his attack on me, that's not my fault.

True. if he hurts someone while attacking you, that's his fault. But if you hurt someone while fighting back, that's on you.

2)  Actually in that situation you can't. Ask anyone experienced in hand to hand combat. They might "feel" threatened by my nuke, but that doesn't mean they're actually being threatened. Are those feelings enough to infringe on my right to bear arms? And what kind of weak ass argument is that? "They can't defend themselves against a nuke". That's the point. Or does everyone have to walk around with tiny guns that do minimal damage. What's the point of a weapon people can defend themselves from?

Seriously, you're just making yourself look like a fool here. They don't "feel" threatened, they don't even know you're there. That's the point. You're threatening with death people who don't know you, haven't met you, and certainly aren't threatening you.

3) I disagree. I'm putting them at risk. I'm ok with that.
Ah, semantics. Ok, so then I'm not shooting at him. He just happens to lie at the exact spot on the ground that I was going to shoot at. He's at fault for lying around in my shooting spot. Problem solved then. No need for defense. Funny thing is, that spot actually moves with him.

No, you are threatening them. I've explained that already.
Sorry, but then you can't say you were defending your family, since that spot on the ground didn't do anything to threaten them. Either way, you're responsible for your actions.

4) Says you. The reason that you don't point a gun at anybody is to reduce the risk of accidental shootings. I'm OK with putting you at risk. "Give me your money or I shoot" is a threat. "Bang! Whoopsie, does it hurt" isn't.

Likewise, "Don't fuck with me or I'll blow you away" is a threat. And that is the stated purpose of your vest. Thus, it is a threat. Keep digging that hole.

5) That. Or hiding the fact that they sold it. Whichever is cheaper. This is supposed to be a totally free market, so I'm assuming there will be people willing to deal only with criminals. I sense a new policy here. Are you going to make somebody else responsible for one mans actions? Is the gun manufacturer/seller at fault for what the buyer does with it? Should the seller pay restitution to a victims family if the robber didn't have enough?

Everyone's responsible for their own actions. That includes making sure you don't sell something to someone who will misuse it.

[AntiCap]

1) I did fight back against him, others just got in the way. If he hurts somebody else as a result of his attack on me, that's not my fault.

True. if he hurts someone while attacking you, that's his fault. But if you hurt someone while fighting back, that's on you.

2)  Actually in that situation you can't. Ask anyone experienced in hand to hand combat. They might "feel" threatened by my nuke, but that doesn't mean they're actually being threatened. Are those feelings enough to infringe on my right to bear arms? And what kind of weak ass argument is that? "They can't defend themselves against a nuke". That's the point. Or does everyone have to walk around with tiny guns that do minimal damage. What's the point of a weapon people can defend themselves from?

Seriously, you're just making yourself look like a fool here. They don't "feel" threatened, they don't even know you're there. That's the point. You're threatening with death people who don't know you, haven't met you, and certainly aren't threatening you.

3) I disagree. I'm putting them at risk. I'm ok with that.
Ah, semantics. Ok, so then I'm not shooting at him. He just happens to lie at the exact spot on the ground that I was going to shoot at. He's at fault for lying around in my shooting spot. Problem solved then. No need for defense. Funny thing is, that spot actually moves with him.

No, you are threatening them. I've explained that already.
Sorry, but then you can't say you were defending your family, since that spot on the ground didn't do anything to threaten them. Either way, you're responsible for your actions.

4) Says you. The reason that you don't point a gun at anybody is to reduce the risk of accidental shootings. I'm OK with putting you at risk. "Give me your money or I shoot" is a threat. "Bang! Whoopsie, does it hurt" isn't.

Likewise, "Don't fuck with me or I'll blow you away" is a threat. And that is the stated purpose of your vest. Thus, it is a threat. Keep digging that hole.

5) That. Or hiding the fact that they sold it. Whichever is cheaper. This is supposed to be a totally free market, so I'm assuming there will be people willing to deal only with criminals. I sense a new policy here. Are you going to make somebody else responsible for one mans actions? Is the gun manufacturer/seller at fault for what the buyer does with it? Should the seller pay restitution to a victims family if the robber didn't have enough?

Everyone's responsible for their own actions. That includes making sure you don't sell something to someone who will misuse it.

1) Yeah, that does sound reasonable. I might have to actually pay a few relatives then. I wonder if that brings the dead back.

2) So threat isn't subjective? Really? When an armed man enters a room, everyone will perceive this the same?

3) No, you've told me what you think. I don't accept your premise. I assume you wouldn't accept my view that any armed man in my vicinity threatens me. That's why I have my vest. I'm pointing my gun back at them.
I just want to empty my clip at a specific spot. He's at fault for lying around exactly where I want to do that. Same idea as the one you sported. He should just move if he doesn't want to get hit.

4) That the same thing you say with a "desert eagle" on your hip. So a gun is a threat now in your opinion?

5) Unless you don't care what they'll use it for as long as you get paid, in which case you'll sell to anyone who wants one. Free market and all. There are plenty of criminals, so I'm sure you can make a good living catering their needs.

[myrkul]

1) Yeah, that does sound reasonable. I might have to actually pay a few relatives then. I wonder if that brings the dead back.

No, it does not. That's why a nuclear bomb makes such a horrible self-defense weapon. I'm glad we've come to that agreement.

2) So threat isn't subjective? Really? When an armed man enters a room, everyone will perceive this the same?

No, threat is not subjective. Being armed is not a threat. Pulling that weapon and pointing it at someone is a threat.

3) No, you've told me what you think. I don't accept your premise. I assume you wouldn't accept my view that any armed man in my vicinity threatens me. That's why I have my vest. I'm pointing my gun back at them.
I just want to empty my clip at a specific spot. He's at fault for lying around exactly where I want to do that. Same idea as the one you sported. He should just move if he doesn't want to get hit.

No, if you hit someone when you empty your clip at a specific spot, that's on you. If he hits someone when he shoots at the targets across the park, he's liable for that. You're not "pointing your gun back at" the little old lady down the street, or any of the other people in the vicinity who don't know you're even there, or even anyone in the vicinity not actually pointing a gun at you. You're just pointing your gun at them. It's not granny's fault you're afraid of a piece of metal in someone's pocket.

4) That the same thing you say with a "desert eagle" on your hip. So a gun is a threat now in your opinion?

As I have said numerous times, a holstered pistol isn't threatening anyone. Nor is a disarmed bomb. An armed bomb, or a drawn and pointed pistol, however is threatening people. Are you tired of digging, yet?

5) Unless you don't care what they'll use it for as long as you get paid, in which case you'll sell to anyone who wants one. Free market and all. There are plenty of criminals, so I'm sure you can make a good living catering their needs.

Oh, certainly. Until you get tracked down by people ready and willing to hold you accountable for those actions. Then you're in trouble.

[Explodicle]

5) Unless you don't care what they'll use it for as long as you get paid, in which case you'll sell to anyone who wants one. Free market and all. There are plenty of criminals, so I'm sure you can make a good living catering their needs.

Oh, certainly. Until you get tracked down by people ready and willing to hold you accountable for those actions. Then you're in trouble.

If tracking them down was easy, then the Armory would still be in business.

[FreeMoney]

SoaB, I messed up, I'm no gun control advocate.

Gun control is impossible and gun control advocates aren't even striving for that. They want a subset of the population to control things with guns.

[myrkul]

5) Unless you don't care what they'll use it for as long as you get paid, in which case you'll sell to anyone who wants one. Free market and all. There are plenty of criminals, so I'm sure you can make a good living catering their needs.

Oh, certainly. Until you get tracked down by people ready and willing to hold you accountable for those actions. Then you're in trouble.

If tracking them down was easy, then the Armory would still be in business.

I never said it would be easy. But your statement just proves a point I made earlier. We can't stop it from happening now. If the bad guys can get them, why prevent the good guys?

[myrkul]