I am not pro or anti gun more ambivalent if anything,
After reading the rest of your post, I regret to inform you that your arguments are the same as presented by the anti-gun lobby groups.
except that I don't think we need automatic assault type guns.
These have been banned since 1934. You have to have a class 3 Federal Firearms License (finger prints, background check, etc.) and then only some states allow these class 3 FFL holders to have an automatic weapon or any parts that may make a weapon fire automatic within their states.
The democrats and the media have been very busy training ignorant persons that if a gun looks similar, they ARE the same, regardless of their function, which is disingenuous at least, if not outright lying. It a classic "bait and switch" scam.
BTW, there is a very good reason for having the semi-auto version of these guns. They are extremely reliable and robust designs. If you need it to go bang when you pull the trigger, these will do it every time, even if abused.
Personally I have little interest in them now but had them when I was younger. I have lived in the inner city in Minneapolis for 30 years now and have never had the need for one.
That is wonderful for you. I hope I never need one either. But, that is not the same thing as saying no one, or even you, will ever need one. But, I'm struck with the thought....
Isn't it easy to give up a right that you don't exercise but someones else needs?
Would you be so quick to surrender your right to speak your mind freely? Assuming you hadn't done so for 30 years, of course? Would you also be willing to never speak your mind? Or, that others speak their mind?
Are there any other amendments in the Bill of Rights that you haven't needed and would allow to go away or be legislated ineffective?
I know someone who was robbed an gunpoint awhile back and this brings up an interesting point for discussion. Before he could even react there was a gun pointed at him. The thug has the drop on you what to do? He gave him the $15 in his wallet and that was the end of it. If my neighbor had a gun and pulled it out the situation instantly escalates. One or both may be wounded or killed. There is also the chance that the thug might shoot anyhow. Unless you have your hand always ready to pull your gun at slightest threat, real or perceived, in many instances how effective is it? Unless you have police or military training do you really have the training, the experience, and the judgment that comes with it to make split second decisions on the level of threat, the use of deadly force, and the danger to innocent bystanders? I have my doubts.
If your sole argument is that a gun is not a guarantee against crime, I'd have to agree. Insurance, yes, guarantee, no. Most people who have a gun also get training (87% according to a Police Foundation report). Certainly you can create a no win scenario which makes having a gun foolish. I'm guessing your information sources haven't told you much about defensive gun uses (DGUs) and their frequency. There are three main studies of this:
a) The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS); "On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a firearm to defend themselves or their property. Three-fourths of the victims who used a firearm for defense did so during a violent crime; a fourth, during a theft, household burglary, or motor vehicle theft."
b) "According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds." - Gary Kleck & Marc Gertz
c) 1994 National Survey of Private Ownership of Firearms (NSPOF); Reports "1.5 million defensive users".
A gun kept in the house is more likely to be used against you or a family member by someone you know or a family member than it is to be used against a criminal entering your house. We see it time and time again.
This really is a fable manufactured by the anti-gun lobby groups. The slogan is quite catchy and oft repeated, however the statistical source for the slogan had been debunked thoroughly. Can you back up the statement with reliable data? Was Kellerman the source? Certainly the DGUs posted above would further seem to make the slogan invalid.
I am not arguing to ban guns but just pointing out that having them in the home does not make you safer.
But, you ARE using the same arguments the anti-gun lobby group is forwarding with the help of the liberal media. And again, the DGU numbers would seem to indicate contrary the later part of your statement, don't you think?
The argument about protection against tyranny is a phony one. What separates a democracy from a dictatorship is that a democracy is set up under the rule of law not of men. No one is above the law.
I disagree with the first proclamation. With small arms, you can acquire larger ones. The Romanian government overthrow began using small arms. We have a Republic, not a democracy. And, they ARE above the law if they can destroy the evidence, or suppress testimony. Remember Vince Foster? Whitewatergate? Travelgate? Filegate? One of the principles involved is now our Secretary of State!
That is why the so many of us take offense at the last 8 years.
I'm no primary advocate of the last 8 years. But, the 8 years before that was a disgrace, too, and an attack on our rights as well. Just a different aspect. The current admin will do the same, I expect. It's sad, really, what we stand to lose.
Regards,
Poll