Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Inflammatory Post

  1. #1
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066

    Inflammatory Post

    Machine guns vs. "if they outlawed guns only criminals would have them"

    I've always hated the "if they outlawed guns only criminals would have them" defense of our right. One, I find it to be a weak argument, if you substitute other words for guns you'll understand. Two, the best defense is much simpler. It's our right, 'nuff said. Three, my belief is that the Second Amendment is the final check and balance, that's all you need.

    On that third thought and thinking about United States v. Miller and "military-type" weapons I questioned the legality of restricting me from owning machine guns. I believe it is our right to own them. Then I started thinking about the "other guy" who exercises that right and if we'd start seeing 20's era Al Capone Tommy gun stuff happening all over.

    Then the inflammatory, nay, heretical thought crossed my mind. Since gun control does not work, where are all the illegal machine guns. Since the criminal element does not care about the law any way why aren't they all carrying full auto? Where are the roving bands of criminals with machine guns out gunning everyone else? I know the illegal guns are out there. They just don't seem to be as widespread as you might expect.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    Machine guns vs. "if they outlawed guns only criminals would have them"

    I've always hated the "if they outlawed guns only criminals would have them" defense of our right. One, I find it to be a weak argument, if you substitute other words for guns you'll understand. Two, the best defense is much simpler. It's our right, 'nuff said. Three, my belief is that the Second Amendment is the final check and balance, that's all you need.

    On that third thought and thinking about United States v. Miller and "military-type" weapons I questioned the legality of restricting me from owning machine guns. I believe it is our right to own them. Then I started thinking about the "other guy" who exercises that right and if we'd start seeing 20's era Al Capone Tommy gun stuff happening all over.

    Then the inflammatory, nay, heretical thought crossed my mind. Since gun control does not work, where are all the illegal machine guns. Since the criminal element does not care about the law any way why aren't they all carrying full auto? Where are the roving bands of criminals with machine guns out gunning everyone else? I know the illegal guns are out there. They just don't seem to be as widespread as you might expect.
    Yes, the quote is rather weak in that form. It's better stated as "outlawing guns only prevents those who are inclined to follow the law from having an effective means to self defense." That can be followed up with "those who are already committing one or more serious crimes are unlikely to be dissuaded from carrying just because the law says not to."

    As for machine guns, there are a number of reasons. One, size: most automatic firearms are rifles, and most crimes are committed with small guns. Two: why bother? Semis are so much easier to acquire and are good enough. One need only look to Mexico to see what total prohibition does.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    923
    The "Al Capone Tommy Gun stuff" you mention was more a symptom of the 18th amendment and Volstead Act, then just the fact that those guns were legal.
    Last edited by END_THE_FED; 02-10-2011 at 08:38 AM.
    A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.- Thomas Jefferson March 4 1801

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Gaylord, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    28
    Cost, I believe also plays a role. Auto's are expensive. Not that the BG's don't have money but with the expense of autos being high especially when you factor in the expense of the license on top of the gun itself, the common LAC isn't going to have one. If most of the illegal guns are stolen then they are stolen from those same LAC's and are going to be readily available firearms that are common among the citizenry. Just my .02.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    I've always hated the "if they outlawed guns only criminals would have them" defense of our right. One, I find it to be a weak argument, if you substitute other words for guns you'll understand.
    Nope, I don't understand. What words were you thinking of that might reveal the problem with this argument?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Dearborn Heights MI, ,
    Posts
    88
    [QUOTE=sharkey;1464461]Machine guns vs. "if they outlawed guns only criminals would have them"

    I've always hated the "if they outlawed guns only criminals would have them" defense of our right. One, I find it to be a weak argument, if you substitute other words for guns you'll understand.

    Yes it may be a worn out trump card, but as a fact is it wrong, NO, Take a look at the U.K., guns have pretty much been outlawed there, and gun crime has gone up 50-70% depending on which news report you watch/read. In fact the Bobbie's as of 2 yrs ago carry side arms and sub machine guns in the cars they never did that before they took the guns away. Things are outa hand there, now they want to ban steak knife's--- even in your home, if you are mugged and you defend yourself you could and probably WILL go to jail, especially if you lay the smack down on the person that tried to rob you, and that person stand a real good chance of being let go, while you get a nifty set of bracelets and a free car ride.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasher View Post
    In fact the Bobbie's as of 2 yrs ago carry side arms and sub machine guns in the cars they never did that before they took the guns away.
    This is a fact. The police were quite happy being generally disarmed in the era of the armed British citizen.

    Now, it might seem, the streets are no longer that safe.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Hilton Head, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    524
    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    Machine guns vs. "if they outlawed guns only criminals would have them"

    I've always hated the "if they outlawed guns only criminals would have them" defense of our right. One, I find it to be a weak argument, if you substitute other words for guns you'll understand. Two, the best defense is much simpler. It's our right, 'nuff said. Three, my belief is that the Second Amendment is the final check and balance, that's all you need.

    On that third thought and thinking about United States v. Miller and "military-type" weapons I questioned the legality of restricting me from owning machine guns. I believe it is our right to own them. Then I started thinking about the "other guy" who exercises that right and if we'd start seeing 20's era Al Capone Tommy gun stuff happening all over.

    Then the inflammatory, nay, heretical thought crossed my mind. Since gun control does not work, where are all the illegal machine guns. Since the criminal element does not care about the law any way why aren't they all carrying full auto? Where are the roving bands of criminals with machine guns out gunning everyone else? I know the illegal guns are out there. They just don't seem to be as widespread as you might expect.

    Most criminals have not found full auto fire a necessity for their crimes, so they don't bother. They almost always use handguns, as handguns best suit the needs of the their job. Furthermore, most criminals lack the knowledge and the means to reliably convert semiauto long guns to full auto.
    Last edited by Hef; 02-10-2011 at 04:21 PM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Nope, I don't understand. What words were you thinking of that might reveal the problem with this argument?
    Any existing crime or word.

    If you outlaw murder only criminals will murder.

    If you outlaw soda only criminals will have soda.

    I wasn't questioning the legitimacy of the statement. Only that it's a weak argument. Think about it this way. If I said we could reduce the number of violent criminals by making armed robbery legal would you think the change in law was effective? Crime will technically go down but violent events will rise.

    The correct argument (in my opinion) is that gun ownership is a right. Nuff said.

  10. #10
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by karlmc10 View Post
    but with the expense of autos being high especially when you factor in the expense of the license on top of the gun itself, the common LAC isn't going to have one.
    Unfortunately, that kind of backs up my original thought process. By making it harder for LAC to own you make it harder for criminals to own too.

    So while the UK, Australia and other places may be going through violent "growing pains" in 50 or 100 or 1000 years they may have virtually no firearms left for the criminals.

    I fully understand the criminals will then just use other weapons and people of lesser physical stature and athletic skill will be at there mercy of others. I'm not debating the morals of gun control (which I oppose), only that it may actually be able to virtually eliminate guns from the citizenry given enough time. I had never actually thought that possible (given how prohibition laws, current and past, have largely failed) until I asked where are all the machine guns.

    If elimination of firearms were to actually be achieved in any of these countries it subjects the populace to enormous danger from their government. The criminals are actually providing a service by keeping guns available should the populace need them for something other than the citizen criminals. It's amazing how much good criminals and outlaws do for societies while at the same time doing such bad to people. I think I even heard that someone wrote a book about it.

    I also considered the other reasons you guys mentioned. Size, cost, better tools for the job, and I'll add, concealment (which goes back to size).

    Mexico was mentioned. They and many other third world countries have no problems getting machine guns, grenades, RPG's, etc. I believe that is because of their corrupt governments and military, yet, it still surprises me we don't commonly see criminal gangs in the country fighting it out with war weapons. Hell, maybe it's more a culture thing than anything else.

    I still think we have the right to own "military-style" weapons.

    Sorry for rambling and I hope that made sense.

  11. #11
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
    It's better stated as "outlawing guns only prevents those who are inclined to follow the law from having an effective means to self defense." That can be followed up with "those who are already committing one or more serious crimes are unlikely to be dissuaded from carrying just because the law says not to."
    While not as easy to say or catchy that is a much better statement. It explains the point much better and invokes critical thinking.

    +1
    Last edited by sharkey; 02-10-2011 at 07:55 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    Machine guns vs. "if they outlawed guns only criminals would have them"

    I've always hated the "if they outlawed guns only criminals would have them" defense of our right. One, I find it to be a weak argument, if you substitute other words for guns you'll understand. Two, the best defense is much simpler. It's our right, 'nuff said. Three, my belief is that the Second Amendment is the final check and balance, that's all you need.
    The homily "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is effective as a counter to the attempt to make guns illegal. It is accurate. As for it being a 2A supporting statement, others are better. It is a statement that simply shoots a large hole in the argument that gun bans will be effective at reducing crime.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by sharkey View Post
    If you outlaw soda only criminals will have soda.
    The difference is, soda doesn't give criminals an advantage over the law-abiding. Firearms do.

  14. #14
    Regular Member sharkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,066
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Well....you need to think about that "unarmed" chick in the Pepsi commercial during the Super Bowl.

    LOL, that's the first thing I thought too.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX7oYAygWOQ
    Last edited by sharkey; 02-11-2011 at 04:00 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    The actual saying is "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." It is meant to be ironic, not literal that today's bad guys will be the only ones with them. Those of us who don't turn them in will then become 'outlaws.'

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    The actual saying is "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." It is meant to be ironic, not literal that today's bad guys will be the only ones with them. Those of us who don't turn them in will then become 'outlaws.'
    I disagree. It is also literal.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    I disagree. It is also literal.
    I agree. It is also literal.




  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    184
    Why are machine guns restricted/banned? Post NFA, crimes involving machine guns were absurdly rare occurrences. It's because of power. Statistically speaking, the most deadly/dangerous firearm (i.e. most used for criminal intent) doesn't even fall under the various stupid 'assault weapon' bans: you know, the lowly .38 special snubnose revolver. It's easy to conceal, and it doesn't leave pesky shell casings, and there are millions of them floating around.

    We all know James Brady and his family want to go after 'assault weapons'--why? After all, he was shot in the eye with a .22LR revolver, hardly an assault weapon by anyone's standard, you know, unless the particular firearm is one used in an assault. The answer? Incrementalism. You can't ban everything unless you start higher in the food chain and work your way down.

  19. #19
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Well....you need to think about that "unarmed" chick in the Pepsi commercial during the Super Bowl.
    But, she was NOT unarmed. She had a weapon. I acknowledge that until she THREW the can it was a beverage container, but once launched at a target--- It became a weapon.

    And she was careless with the girl beyond her intended target!
    Last edited by JoeSparky; 02-12-2011 at 03:05 AM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    I disagree. It is also literal.
    I didn't say it wasn't literal as well, just that it's original intent was to be ironic. Things have changed since it came out in the late '60s or so.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •