Which is a more important right?

[Lothal1]

When one is directly mentioned in the bill of rights (guns) while one is indirectly
(10th and 9th amendments). Both are technically roghts.

[dead0man]

People can have rifles and shotguns, but handguns and assault weapons cannot be bought or sold to civilians.

Does that mean I can or cannot keep my gun? It happens to be a rifle and an "assault weapon" simultaneously.

You expect a gun control nut to be knowledgeable about guns?  They aren't, and they've even argued that they don't have to.  They know what's right...damnit....facts are meaningless to them.  (like the fact that more Americans die from fists than from rifles)

[mencken]

Are these mutually exclusive?

One does not have the right to fly on a plane, but one certainly ought to be able to fly on a plane with the permission of the airline. It is certainly convenient for the airline industry that the federal government chose to take over security theater, rather than force the airline themselves to take the necessary precautions to ensure the security of their own vehicle. Of course, the easiest way to do that would be to arm the cockpit, which due to infringements on the latter right was not possible when those on expired student visas chose to change the itinerary to an office building.

While being able to commute across the country in a matter of hours is certainly a great convenience, the ability to defend one's life when placed in mortal danger is much more appreciated in the hopefully rare instances when it is needed. I notice that those who perpetrate mass shootings tend to take that into account when deciding where to perpetrate their atrocities.

[Mr. Smith]

Right to not get shot.

[RaphaelDLG]

People can have rifles and shotguns, but handguns and assault weapons cannot be bought or sold to civilians.

Does that mean I can or cannot keep my gun? It happens to be a rifle and an "assault weapon" simultaneously.

You expect a gun control nut to be knowledgeable about guns?  They aren't, and they've even argued that they don't have to.  They know what's right...damnit....facts are meaningless to them.  (like the fact that more Americans die from fists than from rifles)

I knew what an assault rifle was before your patronizing, semantic comment (that was not at all a logical refutation of my argument above,) but thanks, though.

Those statistics you quoted from breitbart are oblique and meaningless and fail to mention that

1) WAY more Americans die from overall gun deaths than from fists:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls#disablemobile

2) there's an obvious difference in lethality between a hunting rifle and an AK-47 or even an AR-15

[Mr. Reactionary]

2) there's an obvious difference in lethality between a hunting rifle and an AK-47 or even an AR-15

Indeed.



The cartridge on the left is from an AR-15 (.223). The cartridge on the right is from a deer hunting rifle (.30-06). If I was going to be shot, I'd much rather it be by the man-sized bullet instead of the one used on 500 lb moose.

[NeverAgain]

2) there's an obvious difference in lethality between a hunting rifle and an AK-47 or even an AR-15

Indeed.



The cartridge on the left is from an AR-15 (.223). The cartridge on the right is from a deer hunting rifle (.30-06). If I was going to be shot, I'd much rather it be by the man-sized bullet instead of the one used on 500 lb moose.

Well, an AR-15 has a much higher fire rate/per minute than a deer hunting rifle. I'd much rather be shot once with a larger bullet and be able to get away then be shot ten times with smaller bullets. I guess it's personal preference.

[RaphaelDLG]

2) there's an obvious difference in lethality between a hunting rifle and an AK-47 or even an AR-15

Indeed.



The cartridge on the left is from an AR-15 (.223). The cartridge on the right is from a deer hunting rifle (.30-06). If I was going to be shot, I'd much rather it be by the man-sized bullet instead of the one used on 500 lb moose.

And what's the rate of fire on the hunting rifle?  Can the magazine hold more or less than 100 rounds?  I suppose you'd say that the cannonball is the most lethal (read: effective for killing human targets) round?

Blah blah blah obvious trolling argument is obvious

[dead0man]

People can have rifles and shotguns, but handguns and assault weapons cannot be bought or sold to civilians.

Does that mean I can or cannot keep my gun? It happens to be a rifle and an "assault weapon" simultaneously.

You expect a gun control nut to be knowledgeable about guns?  They aren't, and they've even argued that they don't have to.  They know what's right...damnit....facts are meaningless to them.  (like the fact that more Americans die from fists than from rifles)

I knew what an assault rifle was before your patronizing, semantic comment (that was not at all a logical refutation of my argument above,) but thanks, though.

but that's not even what you said.....this must be very confusing for you

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have no idea where breitbart came into this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

and I never suggested otherwise

You must be logged in to read this quote.

is there?  A 30.06 does much more damage than an AR-15, and can be fired nearly as fast.  But that doesn't really matter here, what matter is that ALL rifles, including the scary ones, kill just a few hundred Americans a year.  I know it seems wrong, what with all the talk of banning AWB and the crying over the AR15, they just don't kill that many people.  Sorry if that's disappointing to some of you.



and did someone really just say a "hunting rifle" fires 10 times slower than an AR15?   uggggg, you guys are SOOOOOO not good at this.

[RaphaelDLG]

People can have rifles and shotguns, but handguns and assault weapons cannot be bought or sold to civilians.

Does that mean I can or cannot keep my gun? It happens to be a rifle and an "assault weapon" simultaneously.

You expect a gun control nut to be knowledgeable about guns?  They aren't, and they've even argued that they don't have to.  They know what's right...damnit....facts are meaningless to them.  (like the fact that more Americans die from fists than from rifles)

I knew what an assault rifle was before your patronizing, semantic comment (that was not at all a logical refutation of my argument above,) but thanks, though.

but that's not even what you said.....this must be very confusing for you

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have no idea where breitbart came into this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

and I never suggested otherwise

You must be logged in to read this quote.

is there?  A 30.06 does much more damage than an AR-15, and can be fired nearly as fast.  But that doesn't really matter here, what matter is that ALL rifles, including the scary ones, kill just a few hundred Americans a year.  I know it seems wrong, what with all the talk of banning AWB and the crying over the AR15, they just don't kill that many people.  Sorry if that's disappointing to some of you.



and did someone really just say a "hunting rifle" fires 10 times slower than an AR15?   uggggg, you guys are SOOOOOO not good at this.

I haven't seen very many 30.06s with a magazine size larger than 4.  Also, even though I know there are semiautomatic rifles of that size, having shot one on several occasions i also think the jump from that gun would make it pretty hard to just stand in one place and quickly and accurately mow people down.

The point that your making is very tedious and not in conflict with my original argument, which is that there are guns for hunting and shooting that we don't need to worry about that much, because they are too cumbersome to quickly murder people in enclosed spaces, and guns that have a track record of being very efficient for committing homicide (mostly handguns, because they are more common, but also, less commonly, certain types of rifles and shotguns). 

Also if you look in the data statistics section you reference, there are a large number of gun homicides where the type of weapon used is not reported.

[dead0man]

Yeah, maybe there are 400 people killed by rifles in the US each year.  Which still makes them a tiny fraction of all murders.  1/4 of the people killed by sharp things.  Half as many as are killed with body parts.

Rifles, even the scary looking ones, don't kill that many people, it doesn't matter how much you might want them to.  Banning a fraction of those to make some of you feel better is a bad idea, just like it was in the 90s.

[Mr. Reactionary]

https://www.gunpartscorp.com/ad/700450.htm

There's a sale on 30 round .30-06 magazines. 5 magazines for $60.

[RaphaelDLG]

Yeah, maybe there are 400 people killed by rifles in the US each year.  Which still makes them a tiny fraction of all murders.  1/4 of the people killed by sharp things.  Half as many as are killed with body parts.

Rifles, even the scary looking ones, don't kill that many people, it doesn't matter how much you might want them to.  Banning a fraction of those to make some of you feel better is a bad idea, just like it was in the 90s.

Wait, why was it a bad idea in the 90s?  Are you saying that the lives of "only" a few hundred people who are killed every year with assault rifles are acceptable as a trade for people have the freedom to own such devices every once in a while?  I too think the Brady bill was weak, but for a totally different reason - it didn't include a buyback, so it didn't actually do much to solve the problem, which is efficient killing weapons in circulation.

And setting aside the rifle argument, do you support a ban on handguns?  They DO incontrovertibly kill a ton of people in this rich, developed country.

And back to my original point - what is the purpose of the state if not to protect people from dying?  Is a stateless world where protection is left up to individuals (Somalia) preferable to one where the officers of the law take care of protection (Japan)?  Which one would you rather live in, thinking logically?

[Mr. Reactionary]

And back to my original point - what is the purpose of the state if not to protect people from dying?  Is a stateless world where protection is left up to individuals (Somalia) preferable to one where the officers of the law take care of protection (Japan)?  Which one would you rather live in, thinking logically?

I'd rather live in America where I can call the police OR fight back.

[dead0man]

And back to my original point - what is the purpose of the state if not to protect people from dying?

that's not the purpose of the state and I find it a little odd you think that it is.  Is this a normal theory on the left?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So it's an either or?  We can't strive for something in the middle?


(you do get bonus points for bringing up Somalia as a horrible example in a thread that hasn't mentioned "libertarian"...that's a new one!)

[RaphaelDLG]

And back to my original point - what is the purpose of the state if not to protect people from dying?

that's not the purpose of the state and I find it a little odd you think that it is.  Is this a normal theory on the left?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So it's an either or?  We can't strive for something in the middle?


(you do get bonus points for bringing up Somalia as a horrible example in a thread that hasn't mentioned "libertarian"...that's a new one!)

I don't think there should be a 50-50 compromise between the group of people who want the freedom to own and only occasionally shoot a weapon designed solely to efficiently and quickly kill human beings and the group of people who want the freedom to walk down the street without worrying that anyone else might show up with one of these weapons.  One freedom is very trivial and the other is not.  We should preserve gun owners' liberties when we can, and certainly I see nothing wrong with allowing hunters and sportsmen to continue their traditions, but the second freedom is much more paramount for the state to try to preserve, obviously.

I don't think a lot of fellow Americans (even on the left wing) share my idea of the state, unfortunately - for most in our highly Lockean-influenced country, the state exists to protect arcane, rarely used, unimportant "God given uninfringeable liberties" at the expense of the more basic, fundamental rights to not be shot.

I do think my theory of the state is super-logical, though, and I'd like to hear yours.