Plum Crazy

There is no way to prevent criminals from getting their hands on firearms, whether they be handguns or assault weapons - one has only to know where to look to find them, and they are readily available, legally or illegally. If they are illegal, what does the criminal care - he is, by definition, operating outside the law anyway, what does it matter to him that the handgun or assault weapon he bought off the street is legal or not? Personally, having been through two hurricanes - that you wished on us - in the last few weeks, and narrowly escaping another one, I would prefer all the firepower I can get my hands on in the event I am faced with looters. Defending myself and my family is infinitely preferable to me to the alternative, standing by while they loot our possessions and hoping they will stop at that. Besides, an SKS makes a nice deer rifle in heavy brush with the standard 5-round box magazine, and it can be converted to use a 30-round magazine rather quickly.

I can't tell if you're serious, but assuming you are, I say, sure, let's arm everyone with assault weapons to defend ourselves against the people bent on getting their hands on these weapons no matter what. "Gee, I feel just awful about cutting cousins Bob and Brenda in half with my AK-47, but you know, we weren't expecting them until the morning and when we heard a noise downstairs. . . ."

Ok, an extreme example, but even if you grant that people do need guns to protect themselves, which I don't, why do they need assault weapons that can mow down a city block in seconds? If veteran NYC police officers, trained in street operations, shoot a Bronx man armed only with a wallet dozens of times, do you really think it's a good idea for regular citizens to carry the same amount of fire power?

Do you think it's a good idea to disarm the law-abiding populace so they have no defense when they do need it? Sure, call the police - who can only show up after the crime has been committed, about the time your body goes into rigor mortis. Personally, I prefer the option of self defense, and that as well-armed as possible. It is an option that has not only worked for me in the past, but the mere fact that I, and the law-abiding public in general, have that option and may be armed might be enough to give a would-be criminal pause to reflect on the possibility that he might wind up the victim.

The arguments on both sides can go on ad infinitum. I have my views and opinions, based on my upbringing (with guns, learning how to handle them responsibly) and experience, and you have yours. Personally, I take a live and let live approach - if you choose not to exercise your option to prepare to defend yourself in case it is ever needed, that is your choice; as long as I have the choice to defend myself, I intend to do so, and I would appreciate if you would keep your laws trying to restrict my choices off the books.

Does an assault weapon come in handy with "a live and let live approach"?

Seems ironic.

Certainly. I don't try to force my views on anyone. I spend my money, and no one else's, on my firearms and ammunition and range membership, to keep my proficiency up. When I shot combat courses competitively, I did so on own dime as well, and never forced anyone to go with me or pay my expenses. Though 'live and let live' works fine, it's when others won't 'let live' that they run into problems. I don't go looking for trouble, and I don't advertise that I carry a concealed weapon or keep firearms about the house - I don't 'dare' anyone to give it a try. I grew up with firearms all my life, and was raised on two strict rules - never point at anything you don't intend to shoot, and be sure of your target. I don't think just anyone should be allowed to own any firearm, just as I don't believe just anyone should be given a drivers license; compare firearms deaths and motor vehicle deaths in this country for any given year, and see which one comes out ahead. So would you have everyone deprived of their automobile for the stupidity of a few?

This debate over Guns/Assault Weapons usually has two types involved...those that know about Guns and those who're totally clueless about them.

I've owned Guns for over 20 years, including handguns and "assault weapons"...never had any trouble with either what-so-ever. I never cease to be amazed how so many panic over those black, "ugly" guns with the high capacity magazines, yet feel ownership of High-powered Deer rifles are OK. For those who don't know: High-powered Big Game rifles are far more powerful than an SKS, AK-47, Uzi or AR-15. Police Body-Armor will not stop a bullet from a 30-06 or 7mm.

Clinton's Assault Weapon Ban was useless "feel-good" legislation. The Ban didn't prevent John Mohammed and John Lee Malvo from killing innocent people in Virginia, nor did it stop a couple teenage loosers from killing fellow students at Columbine HS.

As for the statements made by the "security" professional...they should taken only at face-value. Almost anyone can make his claims and most of it was just macho posturing.

Jon, I am curious about one thing: What is it about an individual being able to defend his family/property with a firearm that frightens you so much?

Not to put words in my brother's mouth, but then again what else are big sisters for?

I don't think anything Jon said implied he was frightened of people being able to defend their family and/or property. I think the clear implication was that he was afraid of people going beyond doing those two things. Deadly mistakes in no way implies fear of people protecting their family and/or property. Unless you define either of those things as a mistake, which I know you don't.

Randy, as my sister notes, it’s not an individual using a gun to defend his family/ property that frightens me. It’s the misuse of guns and potential for deadly mistakes, especially with something as powerful as a high-powered gun, that frightens me. I don’t see why someone needs a high-powered weapon to defend family and property. True, I am clueless about guns, but I’d have to think that there are much less powerful guns that people can use to protect themselves and that don’t have the potential to do an immense amount of damage in an instant.

Regarding your point that the ban hasn’t prevented terrible crimes, I have to disagree with that as a rationale for not renewing it, if that’s what you’re saying. People use other deadly things all the time to commit horrible acts. Bombs immediately come to mind, but I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we legalize them because we can’t stop their use.

As far as the ban itself, I wasn’t commenting specifically on its lapse. That was my initial intent, to express my concern that it had lapsed, but I don’t know enough about the law to comment knowledgably on it. That’s why I was doing research on the internet when I came across the letter to the New York Times. It was the attitude in that letter – one that is essentially proposing anarchy and vigilantism in lieu of having the government protect people – that I was commenting on.