Thread: NYS Gun Laws
View Single Post
      01-28-2013, 10:46 AM   #95
Mr Tonka
Tonka.... Mr. Tonka
United_States
43
Rep
1,204
Posts

 
Drives: Exceptionally well :)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Tampa, FL

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BKsBimmer View Post
I don't know of anyone who has claimed guns are not good security tools. I believe without question they are, or at least they can be. That's not what's in question. What's in quesiton is whether all types of guns and features/accessories are appropriate for personal use by civilians.



I don't understand your statement. Please help me out. What's the scenario you invision where you might need firearms for protection from the president?
Yes. All currently legal types of guns are appropriate for personal use. I don't see the need for any rifle magazine capacity being more than 30 rounds and don't see a need for any hand gun magazine being any larger than the grip of the hand gun it goes into. I think law abiding citizens would be on board with that.

2nd statement wasn't directed at you. But what i mean is i currently do not believe i have to physically fear the government coming to my house to enforce a law that for the past 200 years has not been a law. But i would not be surprised if this was a legitimate fear at some point during my life time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BKsBimmer View Post
Do you believe gun-related violence is a problem in this country? If so do you believe it is a solvable problem? If so how do you believe it can be solved?
I would like to hear your opinion on how banning semi-automatic rifles and 30 round magazines are going to curb gun-related violence in this country.

I believe we have a violence problem in America. It fascinates people. It sells movie tickets, video games, TV commercial spots and many event tickets in this country. In a country with a violence problem, that has as many illegal and legal guns in it; violence from the muzzle of a firearm is inevitable. No one will argue that pulling a trigger isn't easier than driving a sharp object into someone or beating them with a blunt object or beating them with bare hands. So obviously, if guns DIDN' T EXIST there would be a portion of homicides reduced. Any by didn't exist, i mean anywhere, in the world; no cops, not military, etc... Because if there are guns somewhere there will be homicides committed with them.

Since violence is acted out in many other ways that exclude firearms i don't think it's a solvable problem. I do believe it can be reduced. In fact homicides, violent crimes as well as firearm related crimes have been decreasing over the past decade. I"m not going to go into how it can be reduced because it's been said by others as well as myself in this thread and several others.

Now this is where the point is and since it's be made several times perviously in this thread and others i'll ask you to read carefully....

Hand guns are responsible for more than 99% of firearm homicides in this country, "gun-related violence" as you said. Long guns (rifles and shotguns) are responsible for less than 1% of firearm homicides in this country. Why does the government seem intent on banning the weapons and accessories that are responsible for the least, less than 1%, amount of "gun-related violence" in this country?

And by all means, ask another question if you wish, but please answer ours as well.
__________________
-Joe


"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." — Frédéric Bastiat