Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 09/14/04 8:35 am:
What happens if the burglars have these streets sweepers too?

Timothy Wheeler of the 'National Review' points to a 'National Institute of Justice' Study that reveals that:"Semiautomatic rifles never did catch on in a big way with career criminals, because they are too difficult to carry concealed." He goes on to say :"The firearm of choice for armed criminals has always been the high-quality handgun."

But police chiefs and sheriffs all over the country have called for a renewal of the ban. I usually support the police and their positions on law enforcement.

Clarification/Follow-up by kindj on 09/14/04 8:53 am:
>>:"Semiautomatic rifles never did catch on in a big way with career criminals, because they are too difficult to carry concealed." He goes on to say :"The firearm of choice for armed criminals has always been the high-quality handgun."<<

Hell, I coulda told them that. Of course, they did make a mistake. At least as far as the area that I worked briefly (in a cooperative effort with DEA), the handguns were cheap pieces of crap. In fact, the standard procedure was if the shooting started, wait until the punks had fired three times, then it was safe to proceed, because their firearm malfuntioned at that point. Like the little TEC-9 (which is a wanna-be submachine gun): let it spit out ten rounds, then the firing pin breaks or bends, and again, it's safe to proceed at that time.

As far as trusting the law enforcement officials: I don't. I've seen and heard too many of them that are nothing more than political tools being used by whatever local or state government is pulling their strings. Think about it: If the chief of police in Boston says the ban is useless and ineffective, how do you think his funding might be affected? Don't think it doesn't happen.

I usually ask (if I care what law enforcement thinks) the cop on the street that's been there for a while. He's seen the laws come and go, and has seen firsthand what changes, if any, for good or bad have come around. Much better, more pure source of information. High ranking cops aren't cops anymore, they're politicians, and therefore don't count.

DK

Clarification/Follow-up by Yiddishkeit on 09/14/04 9:30 am:
DK-

Watch dogs such as Schnauzers, Poodles, Collies, etc..when backed into a corner will snap and ocssionally bite. There are two distinct catagories "watch and guard"....as you know the Doberman is a fierce warroir and guard dog.





SanchoPanza-

[concerning your comments]

It's about what I have that can protect my family...by the time you take a survey of what burglars/murderers are stocked up on (legally or illegally) the funeral arrangents have already been planned and the relatives are checking out to see if your life insurance was paid up.



Bobby

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 09/14/04 11:56 am:
SanchoPanza

>>>What happens if the burglars have these streets sweepers too?<<<

In Texas EVERYONE owns a gun... and yet crime is lower there than any place where there is tight gun control.

Why?

Simple: when everyone owns a gun, you treat your neighbor with respect. There are very few burglaries ANYWHERE in Texas because the criminals assume that if they break in, they will be shot... and having a gun doesn't block the bullets coming from someone else's gun. The risk is too high for the payoff, and so the criminals go elswhere.

The more guns that are owned by people, the less crime there will be, and the fewer the violent crimes that will take place.

Criminals ALREADY have street sweepers. Its the innocent who don't have a way to protect themselves. Gun laws don't stop criminals from getting the guns, they only stop innocent people from getting them.

Frankly, I agree with Bobby... the more honest, well-trained, good people who own guns of all types, the less crime there will be... because criminals understand risk and reward, and the risk to their own lives would be too high for them to continue violent crime.

>>>Won't it be more likely that cheap semi automatics end up on the market when gung ho wannabees trade them in for a new hard on?<<<

Yep. So what? If everyone has them, people will be less likely to use them for fear of return fire. These days, criminals in ew York know that if they pull a gun, they can get away with just about anything, because they have the firepower. But if they aren't the only ones with the firepower, don't you think that would change? Of course it would.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 09/15/04 2:37 am:
Elliot;
Perhaps the founders never envisioned nuclear weapons. Assuming your interpretation of intent is correct then I as a citizen would be in my rights to own them. A reasonable person I think would conclude that the founders would not approve of that .I know this is an extreme example but it illustrates that there are exceptions . The question only then becomes ;where is the line drawn. Your SAM example is good . I do not think it necessary for someone to own them ;but for a citizen to defend themselves against our gvt. then that would be necessary .