posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 04:28 PM
1. There ARE a ton of loopholes. Almost anyone, even convicted felons, can easily get a firearm if they please, regardless of the legality of such
actions. Don't even get me started on the transactions that take place on Tor internet. Please show me US statistics that strongly correlate
firearm accessibility with gun crime. You can't find them because the correlation is very very low. There are much much stronger drivers and
metrics of violent and gun related crime. The three strongest are demographic diversity, average IQ (non learned intelligence), and economic
demographics. This also applies in other countries, too.
2. Why the focus on firearms? Arms are described as any man portable personal weapon. Firearms are just one of many. Would you consider an energy
weapon a firearm? We're getting pretty close to that kind of stuff if you keep up with military industry news. What if it wasn't in gun form but
still man portable and a personal weapon? Knives, kitchen pots, spears, crossbows, handguns, regular bows, shovels, rocks, rifles, beer mugs,
shotguns. Any and all objects used as a personal weapon is a legally defined arm.
3. I've said this MANY times on these forums, and I'll say it again. There is a now, just as there was when the bill of rights was authored, a
recognized and legal difference between arms and ordnance. The 2nd Amendment only covers arms, and since there is some overlap with ordinance there
are two subcategories called destructive devices and machine guns, It does not cover any chemical weapons, biological weapons, or nuclear weapons
because those are beyond even ordnance (not necessarily in destructive power, but in nature).
RickM I'm sorry, but you come off as very ignorant to the laws involved here. By the way, don't call your fellow citizens "gun nuts" it's
dismissive and divisive. It also makes you come across as hateful of your fellow citizen. They are reasonable people just like you and me. They're
also on your side whether you like it or not because they're standing up for your rights whether or not you chose to exercise them.
The firearm ownership in the US is staggering. But considering that ownership rate, if you look at the actual violent crime committed with guns,
it's very very low given that rate. The census bureau says there are about 800,000 violent crimes a years are deterred by the brandishing of and not
firing of a firearm on average. That's 1.5 a minute. Those are only incidents that were reported to police. The estimate that includes incidents
not reported is as high as 2.5 million a year. The DOJ states that out of ~12000 deaths by firearm a year in the US, 8900 are due to gang violence.
That's typically criminals killing criminals with almost exclusively illegally purchased firearms. That's 3100 non organized crime deaths by
firearm. That 3100 also includes death by cop as well as legitimate self defense. Take those out and you're in the 2000 range. Lets stick with
3100 though. Using that the US, despite having relatively free access to firearms is one of the safest countries on the planet if taken as a ratio
per 100,000. If you were to significantly decrease gang violence and remove or diminish the two main drivers of violent firearm crime (which access
to firearms isn't one of them), then you'd really be doing something.
As tragic as the school and movie theater shootings were, they are paltry statistical outliers of the smallest order. I'm not willing to ignore any
portion of the constitution for the sake of expediency when the reason for such expediency is a statistic of null value.
There are three reasons why I am a proponent of firearm ownership. I have twice in my life defended myself by brandishing a firearm at home in the
US. Once was an attempted car jacking in a CVS parking lot in a nice area of town. The other was an attempted mugging by a knife late at night
outside of a club while I was with my girlfriend at the time. In both instances the moment I brandished the weapon the perpetrator was gone before I
could say anything. The second reason is that I use firearms as part of my job and am very familiar with them, their operation, and their associated
laws both domestically and internationally. My job often requires the international bit. Three, I hate being wrong. If I were on the wrong side,
I'd be the first to admit it as much as I hated it. I would immediately join the right camp. There isn't a shred of any meaningful statistical
trends that supports further control of firearms beyond what is already in place. In fact quite the opposite. There is only supposition, the
projection of emotion, and the use of opinion and ignorance as though it were fact.