“We need automatic guns so to defend against the military. ” - What???

Voyger, most of your posts on firearms related threads over the last 6 months have had those exact same images plastered everywhere with a small quip about guns. You keep posting them regardless of whether your position, or arguments, are proved untenable by other members. Your numbers do not apply to machine guns and do not add to this topic. It smells of... shill. End the charade.

OP. Every single society whose citizenry had at least some access to modern firearms was able to resist the yoke of tyranny, even against military hardware like jet aircraft, tanks, artillery, and other force multipliers. Fighters in Afghanistan have little more than small arms, yet have repelled two superpowers almost consecutively. Right or wrong, the access to modern small arms gives people the ability to project force which they otherwise wouldn't. The number of times a disarmed populace has been able to become self determined is only a handful of times in human history. The number of times an armed populace has become self determined is almost every decade.

As far as machine guns go... only two murders have actually happened due to legally owned machine guns, that is to say NFA title II weapons. One by a police officer in 1988 in Dayton Ohio, the other in 1992 or 1994, by a former police officer.

Legally owning a machine gun takes a lot of time, money, and patience with the FBI and ATF. I had the opportunity to a little while ago. Bottom line, it would cost me almost a year of waiting and over $10,000. I decided the novelty wasn't worth it.

a reply to: voyger2

You can use a Taser to do that:

Why do cops still carry guns?

It takes time, but in the end the majority of guns would be off the street

1) Who would volunteer to take these weapons from citizens? You? or Cops with Guns?
2) Firearms are old technology they can be manufactured in a simple machine shop.
3) What happens someday when the government becomes tyrannical? Ask them nicely to play nice?

Mass shooting/killing have increased

The incidents of mass shooting with 4+ victims have remained steady since 1976.
Almost all mass shootings occurs in "Gun Free" Zones ... proving that a sign saying "No Guns", do not deter a person with intent to commit evil.

Here's an interesting number, according to "National Crime Victimization Survey" there are at least 100,000 Defensive Gun Use every year. That's a low estimate considering the source, that figure is probably around 250,000 and 370,000 a year.

a reply to: swanne

Instead of worrying about guns,shouldn't you instead look deeper into the issue of why American citizens feel the need to try and 'take out' as many innocent people as they can? This is why DESPITE the gun laws we already have that SHOULD protect us, we are seeing an escalation of gun deaths. And recently you had a kid that couldn't get to any guns,so he came with 2 knives and did a number on school kids. If you really want to stop this insanity you have to look much deeper at the real cause.Guns have been here since the beginning for Americans and you didn't have these slaughters. But now we have all these kids and adults trying to make a name for themselves by going out in a blaze of so called glory taking as many with them as they can.That is the real issue. Until we can figure out why this is and what to do about this issue it WILL continue. So far as I have seen almost every one of them have been involved with psych drugs and snapped.

Perhaps you're unaware automatic weapons are not legal for general ownership, so you're point is rather moot.

a reply to: joemoe

I would like to add to your figure, as I think it's germane. The census bureau estimates that brandishings and not firing a firearm to prevent violent crime (robbery, assault, battery, rape, murder, manslaughter, arson etc.) is around 800,000 times a year. These are only instances where the brandishing has been reported to the police.

a reply to: swanne

Shouldn't this be in the "Rant" forum?

a reply to: swanne

While I do not believe our rights extend to bombs, tanks etc and automatic weapons are questionable I do believe that semi-auto should be legal.

Regarding the OP. I do not remember any school shootings involving automatic weapons. I cannot remember any of the high profile shootings that involved automatic weapons. But then again, I cannot remember what I had for breakfast a few days ago lol.

Although legal, the hoops one has to jump through to be approved to purchase an automatic (machine gun) weapon creates a situation where most people wont even attempt to get approval for an automatic weapon.

When you arm the people you are also arming the criminals, its a never ending discussion that has no solution.

You can be a legal owner of a gun but you become a criminal when you use it the wrong way, so the legal owner is also a potential criminal, letting people having guns is just a useless solution.

The possible solution...Fix society, though you can never really protect yourself against the guy/girl who suddenly goes mental.

a reply to: bbracken677

It's not a matter of belief, our right's explicitly do not apply to bombs or tanks. Those are known as ordnance. There is a distinct difference recognized now as then when the 2nd amendment was written, between ordnance and arms. Only arms (personal weapons that are man portable, such as baseball bats, rifles, knives, bows and arrows, spoons, frying pans, shovels, axes, shotguns, stones, crow bars, pistols etc. etc. etc.) are covered.

a reply to: swanne

Why do you suppose these high profile shootings are taking place?

What is the basic cause?

I ask, because being 60 years old my high school days were never interrupted by a school shooting...anywhere. I never worried, never feared a school shooting. There were pickups in the parking lot that had rifles mounted in the rear windows (remember those days?).

Weapons were more accessible and yet we didn't have to worry about gun violence.

Why is that? I doubt there is something inherent in the internet that drives people to committing mass violence. I doubt it is is video games or movies. There is something at the core of our culture, our society, that is creating situations whereby individuals seek to commit these bizarre acts.

Parenting? Mood altering prescription drugs? These seem the most likely to me...

a reply to: Mianeye

Unfortunately I do not think you can take the evil out of all humans. Modern humans have been on this earth for about 200,000 years and during all that time we have been killing each other. Until we evolve out of these violent tendencies, a gun will at least even the playing field.

Taser ? Good luck with that. People have been known to take multiple hits and keep coming. There's a reason cops don't carry just those.

It takes time, but in the end the majority of guns would be off the street

MAJORITY of guns. Meaning criminals still have them. And in the meantime? You don't care about all the innocent law abiding people who turned theirs in being gunned down, raped, beaten and robbed by criminals who didn't? What is the solution for defense against a bad guy with a gun, when you don't have one? I've noticed that the people who want to replace firearms with tasers have never been in harm's way, never had to face an attacker with a weapon or had to defend their lives. They think it's just so cut and dried. Shock'em and Drop'em. Tell ya what. Take a taser, go find someone on Meth, Bathsalts or other drug of that type, that wants a fix and is willing to do whatever it takes to get your money and let's see how it works out for ya. We'll be waiting.

originally posted by: Galvatron
a reply to: bbracken677

It's not a matter of belief, our right's explicitly do not apply to bombs or tanks. Those are known as ordnance. There is a distinct difference recognized now as then when the 2nd amendment was written, between ordnance and arms. Only arms (personal weapons that are man portable, such as baseball bats, rifles, knives, bows and arrows, spoons, frying pans, shovels, axes, shotguns, stones, crow bars, pistols etc. etc. etc.) are covered.

This is not supported in the commentaries and arguments made in regards to the 2nd amendment written by the men that established them. In fact the term "any weapon" is used in the Federalist Papers to establish a broad range of "the protection of freedom".

As well the 2nd amendment is a states rights amendment which certainly means cannon ect.

a reply to: Galvatron

Ordnance does not equal tanks.

Besides...This is the definition for "arms":

arms
ärmz/
noun
1.
weapons and ammunition; armaments.
"they were subjugated by force of arms"
synonyms: weapons, weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, artillery, armaments, munitions, matériel More
2.
distinctive emblems or devices, originally borne on shields in battle and now forming the heraldic insignia of families, corporations, or countries.
synonyms: crest, emblem, coat of arms, heraldic device, insignia, escutcheon, shield More
Origin

Middle English: from Old French armes, from Latin arma .

lol do NOT get me wrong. I am NOT advocating legal possession of artillery LOL. (I say this with caps simply because there are idiots on ATS that seem to have severe problems with reading comprehension)

Common sense must, absolutely, come into play with this subject. Something that, unfortunately, DC and our govt in general seems very short on.

I am all for weapons to be owned for personal defense. I am ok with concealed carry provided the licensed individual has to pass significant training and testing to get it, not just walk in off the street and fill out a form.

By weapons, of course, I refer to rifles, shotguns, pistols and the like up to and including the semi-auto variety.

a reply to: bbracken677

Parenting? Mood altering prescription drugs? These seem the most likely to me...

No, as these "problems" are visible in other countries too, and they don't have the amount of mass killings as in the US, the widely available guns are the problem, together with the broken society.

Getting a fully automatic weapon is one of the hardest, most drawn out processes you can think of as far as purchasing a weapon goes. Each one you get you have to go through the same process EVERY time. They can take up to a year to finally acquire a license to own a single weapon of this type. I know....I did it TWICE in Mississippi when I lived there AND had to do the same for a suppressor on two weapons. All four times I had to have the signature of a county AND state official on the documents in order to get them, and they don't just give their John Hancock away for things like this.

The chances of a person that goes through the trouble to do this, suddenly becoming a violent criminal, are SO slim it may not even register.

The OP is WAY off on the assessment of the ease with which someone could even get their hands on an automatic weapon. There are also laws on how these weapons have to be stored and locked down. Granted that would be hard to enforce, but those that would take the time to go through what it takes to purchase a weapon like that are likely to take care of the weapon(s) like a collector or professional gunshop would.

Oh....and don't even get me started on the COST of getting a license and the FEES associated with owning a weapon of the sort mentioned above....now THAT is outrageous.

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: bbracken677

Parenting? Mood altering prescription drugs? These seem the most likely to me...

No, as these "problems" are visible in other countries too, and they don't have the amount of mass killings as in the US, the widely available guns are the problem, together with the broken society.

No they aren't. In fact violence involving firearms is down dramatically in the US from 1993 to present day:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: swanne

I've never seen anyone here on ATS advocating owning machine guns, tanks or nuclear weapons unless they are being humorous or sarcastic.

But there are plenty of people out there who DO own such items legally. There are lots of responsible private collectors who amass a amazing amount of firepower. Most times, those who own tanks/artillery open private museums so supplement their income because as a collector, it can be quite expensive.

BTW, most such collections are DeMilled, meaning the weapon has been rendered inoperable.

You say you know you're going to get flamed...I think that's because you just wanted to push a few buttons today.

I will just say this.
I have guns to protect my home form all enemy’s both foreign and domestic.
No one has yet relived me of the oath I took many years ago, and as far as I know there is NO expiration date on said Oath!
They are also fun to shoot, be it targets/tin cans/water jugs..etc....
Does it really matter what a sane, legal person owns and shoots?
If we cracked down on crime with guns far harder than we do, and stop holding the scums hands things may change….
If you choose not to own a gun fine...just remember.
Don’t come running and stand behind me when your life or your family’s life is in danger.

a reply to: projectvxn

But you still can't deny that it's not a problem in other countries, because guns aren't available, and it still isn't Prescription drugs as a lot is trying to blame.

Statistic doesn't help the "8000" killed( I know not all are murders ).

Giving people guns is a bad idea when some people can't handle it, then there will always be some who fall victims, even though you arm the people to protect them self.