Comments on: Kyle March (FGCU) 2nd Amendment Rights in Jeopardy http://livingtextblog.andosciasociology.net/2009/04/07/kyle-march-fgcu-2nd-amendment-rights-in-jeopardy/ Sat, 19 May 2012 17:23:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: student http://livingtextblog.andosciasociology.net/2009/04/07/kyle-march-fgcu-2nd-amendment-rights-in-jeopardy/#comment-745 student Wed, 08 Apr 2009 02:45:51 +0000 http://livingtextblog.andosciasociology.net/2009/04/07/kyle-march-fgcu-2nd-amendment-rights-in-jeopardy/#comment-745 But the problem is not the people who own these guns legally, it is those people who have them illegally. Believe it or not people collect these guns and only use them at the range. And of course they had no idea that we would have these guns, but I mean it is just technology. The right to bear arms is so we can defend from attackers, and man nowadays criminals carry AK's, whether people want to accept that or not. And by banning these guns you will not affect the flow and possession of guns that are illegally owned. People need to keep up with the times. I am not in organized crime, but I bet I can find you an automatic rifle if I tried. The purpose of these guns is not to kill as many people as possible. I would rather have an AR when facing a gunman then a shotgun which only holds a couple shots, but that is just me. I would love to debate this, but I hate explaining things online. But the problem is not the people who own these guns legally, it is those people who have them illegally. Believe it or not people collect these guns and only use them at the range.

And of course they had no idea that we would have these guns, but I mean it is just technology. The right to bear arms is so we can defend from attackers, and man nowadays criminals carry AK’s, whether people want to accept that or not. And by banning these guns you will not affect the flow and possession of guns that are illegally owned. People need to keep up with the times. I am not in organized crime, but I bet I can find you an automatic rifle if I tried.

The purpose of these guns is not to kill as many people as possible. I would rather have an AR when facing a gunman then a shotgun which only holds a couple shots, but that is just me.

I would love to debate this, but I hate explaining things online.

]]> By: Jonathan R. Jacob http://livingtextblog.andosciasociology.net/2009/04/07/kyle-march-fgcu-2nd-amendment-rights-in-jeopardy/#comment-740 Jonathan R. Jacob Wed, 08 Apr 2009 00:32:41 +0000 http://livingtextblog.andosciasociology.net/2009/04/07/kyle-march-fgcu-2nd-amendment-rights-in-jeopardy/#comment-740 To an extent, your argument holds water, as it is one of the great standbys of such groups as the NRA and other pro-gun groups. True, the constitution does grant the right to bear arms, but at the time of writing, the framers had no knowledge of AR-15s or AK-47s. The technology was limited and the explosion it has experienced needs to be addressed by the US government. Argue home defense all you want, but there is a line between home defense and home offense. Since 1996, violent crimes involving handguns has been dropping, stabilizing around 10%. The majority of these crimes are committed with handguns and other such weapons, not the AR15 that you are so keen to keep handy. As such, it is logical to assume that the criminal breaking into your house, if armed with a firearm, will probably have a handgun. Since the majority of people in this country don't know how to proficiently aim and fire, especially under such tense circumstances, the best weapon for home defense is a shotgun loaded with buckshot. Not only does the sound of the shotgun being cocked act as a deterrent, if they fire they don't need to worry about the bullet traveling through walls and potentially hitting bystanders. So, as there is no need to keep an assault rifle for home defense, the next purported purpose is hunting. Hunting with one has the following effects; (a) damaging the creature so that it's useless as a trophy, (b) making so much noise that it scares off other prey, and (c) putting so many holes that the meat quality is damaged. So, it's much more efficient to use a hunting rifle as opposed to an assault rifle. At this point, I fail to see where it would be necessary for a private citizen to own an assault weapon when there are better choices for hunting and home defense. Since the majority of criminals do not have access to these weapons outside of organized crime which poses little threat to individuals in their homes, why would we not ban assault weapons when their only purpose is to kill many people as quickly as possible? To an extent, your argument holds water, as it is one of the great standbys of such groups as the NRA and other pro-gun groups. True, the constitution does grant the right to bear arms, but at the time of writing, the framers had no knowledge of AR-15s or AK-47s. The technology was limited and the explosion it has experienced needs to be addressed by the US government.

Argue home defense all you want, but there is a line between home defense and home offense. Since 1996, violent crimes involving handguns has been dropping, stabilizing around 10%. The majority of these crimes are committed with handguns and other such weapons, not the AR15 that you are so keen to keep handy. As such, it is logical to assume that the criminal breaking into your house, if armed with a firearm, will probably have a handgun. Since the majority of people in this country don’t know how to proficiently aim and fire, especially under such tense circumstances, the best weapon for home defense is a shotgun loaded with buckshot. Not only does the sound of the shotgun being cocked act as a deterrent, if they fire they don’t need to worry about the bullet traveling through walls and potentially hitting bystanders.

So, as there is no need to keep an assault rifle for home defense, the next purported purpose is hunting. Hunting with one has the following effects; (a) damaging the creature so that it’s useless as a trophy, (b) making so much noise that it scares off other prey, and (c) putting so many holes that the meat quality is damaged. So, it’s much more efficient to use a hunting rifle as opposed to an assault rifle.

At this point, I fail to see where it would be necessary for a private citizen to own an assault weapon when there are better choices for hunting and home defense. Since the majority of criminals do not have access to these weapons outside of organized crime which poses little threat to individuals in their homes, why would we not ban assault weapons when their only purpose is to kill many people as quickly as possible?

]]>