Thread: Whats your opinion on automatic weapons?

Sheajohnw:
You make some very interesting observations. I wonder what the FBI's stats are on this.

I was in Manhattan for the re-dedication of the Statue of Liberty years ago. All of lower Manhattan was closed off to traffic and there were cops everywhere. As we all know Manhattan has some very strict gun laws then and now. I remember thinking to myself how pleasant everyone was that weekend and how low crime rates were. Then as I was driving back home to upstate NY I heard on a NY radio station (1010 WINS I think) that some nut job went crazy on a NY ferry w/ a machete. That's when I remember thinking that it doesn't matter what laws are in place, someone will find a way to harm as many people as possible even if it is w/ rocks.

Originally Posted by thebigspendur

So I have a question to ask all of you be you pro or anti gun.

You wake up tomorrow morning and every firearm in the U.S is gone (yes Obama was busy last night like an anti Santa Claus) so what will be the effect in this country? Will Mexico suddenly invade us? Will you hear about mass murders where some guy used a knife to kill 30 people? Will the Elk and Deer rejoice? Will the crime stats go up or down? Will the sale of Louisville Sluggers increase causing a massive employment increase that brings the country out of recession?

So what will happen?

I believe violent crime would remain the same, however deaths from violent crime would be vastly reduced.
Incidents involving firearms (accidental) would cease to exist, however injuries amongst the people who would have been injured would remain fairly constant, again deaths would be reduced.
The wildlife would initially proliferate until people became proficient with arrows, or traps.
I doubt anybody would be invaded, although immigration to the USA may increase because it would become a more desirable place to live.
People may begin to value life more done it would be much more difficult to take it away.
People who want gun's would be pissed lol.

Look at what the world was like with respect to crime before firearms were invented and Sam Colt made all men equal. There would be killings by other means with large strong men having the edge, women would be at a defensive disadvantage if court orders and the police were ineffective. My daughter lost a friend to a hammer wielded by that person's abusive boy friend. Persons having revolutionary intent in countries where private firearms are illegal still get firearms and cause significant casualties by other means such as suicide vests and roadside IEDs, just ask any veteran of Iraq or Afghanistan. Unarmed civilians flee in terror and too often die. There are no guarantees of safety whether civilians are armed or unarmed. When conflict occurs, the good guy winning is not guaranteed, but I would at least want the chance to defend myself if the authorities fail. I believe that having a chance to defend one’s life is one of those fundamental inalienable rights from the creator (rather than men) indicated by the US Declaration of Independence and noone has the right to insist that the law abiding public be rendered defenseless.

Actually yes they do have the right to insist that law abiding public be rendered defenseless, isn't that your first amendment?

Originally Posted by sheajohnw

Look at what the world was like with respect to crime before firearms were invented and Sam Colt made all men equal. There would be killings by other means with large strong men having the edge, women would be at a defensive disadvantage if court orders and the police were ineffective. My daughter lost a friend to a hammer wielded by that person's abusive boy friend. Persons having revolutionary intent in countries where private firearms are illegal still get firearms and cause significant casualties by other means such as suicide vests and roadside IEDs, just ask any veteran of Iraq or Afghanistan. Unarmed civilians flee in terror and too often die. There are no guarantees of safety whether civilians are armed or unarmed. When conflict occurs, the good guy winning is not guaranteed, but I would at least want the chance to defend myself if the authorities fail. I believe that having a chance to defend one’s life is one of those fundamental inalienable rights from the creator (rather than men) indicated by the US Declaration of Independence and noone has the right to insist that the law abiding public be rendered defenseless.

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

Actually yes they do have the right to insist that law abiding public be rendered defenseless, isn't that your first amendment?

You're failing to apply the 9th Amendment into your conclusion.

Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus

Go to your local library and check out the book, although I imagine it's not too popular in U.K. You could probably find a copy for sale online somewhere, like Amazon or eBay. It is a series of newspaper articles that have been collected into one volume entitled The Federalist Papers.
Sorry, I'm really old-fashioned that way.

Can find an ebook version for free on pretty much any device or Google books

Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus

You're failing to apply the 9th Amendment into your conclusion.

Crickets chirping...he must be looking it up on Wikipedia.

Originally Posted by bharner

Can find an ebook version for free on pretty much any device or Google books

I wasn't aware of that. I'm not all that tech-savvy. Like I posted, I'm more old-school. Thanks, though!

My comments in bold:

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

I believe violent crime would remain the same, however deaths from violent crime would be vastly reduced.
Crime, injury and death involving edged weapons would increase, just like in the UK. Did you know that at close distance (0-6 ft.), a knife is statistically more lethal than a gun? Chance of fatality in a gunfight at that distance is 65%, in a knifefight it's 85%.
Incidents involving firearms (accidental) would cease to exist, however injuries amongst the people who would have been injured would remain fairly constant, again deaths would be reduced.
The wildlife would initially proliferate until people became proficient with arrows, or traps.
That would not take very long >:-) A lot of us are already pretty proficient with their bows, both modern and traditional. Over the millennia, homo sapiens has hunted many species to extinction without the benefit of firearms, but with cunning and inhumane technique such as staked pit-traps, or simply driving entire herds of tasty animals over the edge of cliffs... Of course PETA might have something to say about that these days...
I doubt anybody would be inaded, although immigration to the USA may increase because it would become a more desirable place to live.
Seriously? It seems we're already quite a desirable place to live. We've had a steady stream of a million or so people who become legal permanent residents in the US every year (12.5 million between 2000 and 2011), besides an undocumented immigrant population which is currently estimated at 14 million.
People may begin to value life more done it would be much more difficult to take it away.
What an amazingly inane statement. You really do need to get out more. Perhaps read up on homicide statistics worldwide, notably in countries with a far lower proliferation of guns than the US, watch a few youtube videos on knife attacks, then come back and tell me how hard it is to kill without a firearm. Murder starts in the mind of man, not in the knife, sword, gun, baseball bat or bomb that he uses to commit it.

People who want gun's would be pissed lol.

Nah, we would just get them from Mexico...