How do you feel about guns?

[Sher Khan]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

This isn't me being reactionary, this is just my stance on gun control. I'm not talking about a specific event, I'm not talking about the issue of mental health and all of that. The thread is how do you feel about guns, and I am discussing that.

Now, if you would like to have a thread about how to promote public safety, how we may better profile for the incidents like what happened at Sandy Hook, or how our mental health system is a crap shoot, feel free.

Alright, based on that then fine. You're welcome to your opinion. But you were using your opinion and asserting it as fact. Saying that a semi-auto is a combat weapon is not a fact, and saying that they have only one purpose is not a fact, and saying that civilians should not have them is an opinion and your welcome to it, but preferencing it with non-facts is just creating misinformation.

If it is all your opinion, then I'm fine with that.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by Sher Khan

That does nothing to reduce the current numbers, make their use less likely, reduce gun deaths overall, or enhance public safety overall. So what does it accomplish other than to make you feel good?

If you just don't like guns, then that's a valid opinion. Just say so and let it go at that. Duly noted. However, the entire issue is about resolving the incident or incidents we've all just witnessed.

I own over a dozen firearms, this is not about me hating firearms. I go out shooting just about every weekend. Now, while the type of gun control I propose would not affect the numbers out there currently, it would stop the flow. Those that get worn out won't be replaced. Those that are looking for one would have a harder time because those with them will hold onto them more. Just because it wouldn't have a huge affect in the short term does not negate any long term benefits.

Also, you are wrong. The issue is how we feel about guns. That was the question posed.

[WhoDeyJon]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

I own over a dozen firearms, this is not about me hating firearms. I go out shooting just about every weekend. Now, while the type of gun control I propose would not affect the numbers out there currently, it would stop the flow. Those that get worn out won't be replaced. Those that are looking for one would have a harder time because those with them will hold onto them more. Just because it wouldn't have a huge affect in the short term does not negate any long term benefits.

Also, you are wrong. The issue is how we feel about guns. That was the question posed.

Where exactly does your proposal for gun control stop?

Are pump shotguns ok?
Are semi-auto pistols ok?
What is your proposal?

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by Sher Khan

Alright, based on that then fine. You're welcome to your opinion. But you were using your opinion and asserting it as fact. Saying that a semi-auto is a combat weapon is not a fact, and saying that they have only one purpose is not a fact, and saying that civilians should not have them is an opinion and your welcome to it, but preferencing it with non-facts is just creating misinformation.

If it is all your opinion, then I'm fine with that.

You're misrepresenting what I said. I said that weapons designed for the military are designed to kill humans in an offensive manner. Not self-defense, not hunting. That's fact. Killing humans offensively is illegal for a civilian. Fact. So why is there a tool designed for something illegal for civilians to do, that is legal for civilians to own?

Now, I have said there is zero need for semi-automatic weapons in civilian hands overall, yes. Which is true, there is zero need. Do some prefer them? Yes, but there is zero need.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by WhoDeyJon

Where exactly does your proposal for gun control stop?

Are pump shotguns ok?
Are semi-auto pistols ok?
What is your proposal?

We're on page 10, I've stated it several times. Have at.

Edit: Ok, that sounded crass, sorry.

Essentially, my opinion is that weapons designed for military/LE use should not be legal to purchase as a civilian. This does knock out a lot of weapons, and variants on some others. But that's the easiest way to explain it. I see no need for any semi-automatic, but I would not propose legislation that overarching.

[WhoDeyJon]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

We're on page 10, I've stated it several times. Have at.

I didn't want to misrepresent. So you are against all semi-autos.

I'm just curious how a 10 round pump shotgun is ok to you but a semi-auto 9mm is not?

[Sher Khan]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

I own over a dozen firearms, this is not about me hating firearms. I go out shooting just about every weekend. Now, while the type of gun control I propose would not affect the numbers out there currently, it would stop the flow. Those that get worn out won't be replaced. Those that are looking for one would have a harder time because those with them will hold onto them more. Just because it wouldn't have a huge affect in the short term does not negate any long term benefits.

Also, you are wrong. The issue is how we feel about guns. That was the question posed.

It would partially stop the flow but only temporarily. You are not taking into consideration American Democratic politics. What happend to the last gun ban?

Right, it expired. Why? Because a Republican Presidential Administration allowed it to. What do you suspect will happen to any current ban inacted today? It shouldn't take more than one guess.

So it is only a temporary measure. And I would submit that the assault weapons in circulation now, will not wear out because parts are not going to be banned just as they weren't banned before so it won't draw down the existing numbers. Not to mention criminals, I mean real criminal elements will still bring in the far more dangerous automatic assault guns just as they always have. But even so, less than 2% of gun fatalities are due to assault guns. So where is the practicality in such a ban?

And like I pointed out, long term benefits is a wish not a practical likelihood due to American politics.

A assault gun ban doesn't effect me one way or the other. I really could care less, what I'm not in favor of is putting laws on the books for feel good reasons as opposed to laws that actually have a practical application to resolve a particular problem. No matter what the subject is. Not just assault guns. The Nation is repleat with feel good laws which resolve nothing except to criminalize a part of our society which only makes things worse for everyone. They are laws that just made someone feel good but accomplished very little or actually had the opposite effect and made things worse. Like for example, Prohibition. Which had a good purpose, but miserably failed in reality since it created a far worse problem. And was never accepted in the first place, by the very politicians who were more than happy to create a feel good law to get their picture in the news.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by WhoDeyJon

I didn't want to misrepresent. So you are against all semi-autos.

I'm just curious how a 10 round pump shotgun is ok to you but a semi-auto 9mm is not?

I've never come across a 10 round one, mine can hold 8, I know, but yeah.

15 rounds can mean 15 dead in a matter of seconds, with no break in between shots. As fast as you can pull the trigger. Reloading takes 5 seconds or less. Not so with a pump shotgun. The time taken to work an action or reload a firearm without the availability of a pre-loaded magazine can make the difference between actions being taken to end the killing or not.

[WhoDeyJon]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

I've never come across a 10 round one, mine can hold 8, I know, but yeah.

15 rounds can mean 15 dead in a matter of seconds, with no break in between shots. As fast as you can pull the trigger. Reloading takes 5 seconds or less. Not so with a pump shotgun. The time taken to work an action or reload a firearm without the availability of a pre-loaded magazine can make the difference between actions being taken to end the killing or not.

8 rounds from a shotgun in a small room like a school where this took place with certain types of ammo would do just as much damage as a 9mm semi-auto. Yes reloading would be slower, but I have watched people reload a shotgun in a matter of seconds.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by WhoDeyJon

8 rounds from a shotgun in a small room like a school where this took place with certain types of ammo would do just as much damage as a 9mm semi-auto. Yes reloading would be slower, but I have watched people reload a shotgun in a matter of seconds.

That can be the difference in stopping the killing spree. That's all I'm saying. There is no perfect solution because anything can be used to kill. I just think making it more difficult to rack up a kill count like that is something to be considered.

[WhoDeyJon]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

There is no perfect solution because anything can be used to kill.

I think this is where we have to say that responsible gun owners aren't out killing people. Law abiding citizens aren't out killing people. Criminals are. And criminals are going to do what it takes to break the law the way they want to.

It has been said in this thread. There are law's against driving drunk, driving wreckless, etc. But it isn't the car. We don't ban certain kinds of cars. The laws are for the idiots who break the law using that car. Same with guns.

[Sher Khan]

Originally Posted by WhoDeyJon

8 rounds from a shotgun in a small room like a school where this took place with certain types of ammo would do just as much damage as a 9mm semi-auto. Yes reloading would be slower, but I have watched people reload a shotgun in a matter of seconds.

Actually, more damage. What about the auto-load shotgun. FN makes a six round autoload. Just boom boom boom. That would do far more damage than a handgun. And anyway, gasoline and matches could do far more damage than that. No law of any kind is going to stop those who are determined to commit such acts. Nope, it takes more than some easy to do law and good feelings. And no one wants to pay more taxes I suppose...

So, does the country actually do something, or just feel good. I mean I get what is being said about the carnage. No sane person would feel otherwise than to want it stopped, and that is an entirely appropriate desire. But a solution is not going to be quick, easy, or cheap. And taking away something that was legal before it was illegal, then legal again, illegal again, and likely as not will be legal once again in time, is not going to resolve the problem or help it. Corney as it is to say, the gun didn't do it the person carrying it did. That is the root of the problem. And a ban doesn't really do much to help except to make it difficult on millions or tens of millions who are responsible owners.

That's my problem with it. I don't own an assault gun, nor do I feel the need for one. But my opinion is; laws that don't do much more than to criminalize otherwise legally responsible citiziens are not constructive, and result primarily in destructive ends to the means.

[WhoDeyJon]

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety." - Ben Franklin

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by WhoDeyJon

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety." - Ben Franklin

That can be said about many, many laws on the books. But, to me, the ability to buy a weapon designed for military use is not an essential liberty.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by BengalsFan024

Those fall into the Inciting Panic laws...

Which now can be consider an act of Terror.....

the recent law passed by obama were certain political people can not be protested or you will be thrown in jail is an infringement on your 1st amendment rights.

And you can engage in any amount of hate speach you want. You might be fired for it.. But you wont go to jail.

Oh, so your point is that even though the First Amendment gives you the freedom of speech, laws can be passed to restrict what you can say without infringing upon your First Amendment right and your freedom of speech isn't unlimited.

Thanks for making my point for me.

[Sher Khan]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

That can be said about many, many laws on the books. But, to me, the ability to buy a weapon designed for military use is not an essential liberty.

They were initially designed for military use, but have been modified to prevent automatic fire which makes them for non-military, or even non-Police use. That's why the military and Police have automatics (depends on the Police, I don't think Mayberry has them). I mean I see your point, but I don't agree their still a military weapon after modification is all. If we're talking automatics, then I don't have any disagreement. I really don't see a reason for machine gun ownership, even with a license.

But there again, no one has been mowed down with automatic machine guns in any of these incidents. So while my opinion is valid, there are millions of others who don't agree. It's why the laws have to be carefully thought out and not a knee jerk reaction which Congress is infamous for doing.

[WhoDeyJon]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

Oh, so your point is that even though the First Amendment gives you the freedom of speech, laws can be passed to restrict what you can say without infringing upon your First Amendment right and your freedom of speech isn't unlimited.

Thanks for making my point for me.

There's a difference in owning a gun and using it lawfully (2nd amendment freedom) and shooting someone in the face with it illegally (against the law).

It's HOW something is used that matters. If your freedom of speech is used in a way that is clearly wrong, pay the consequences. Same with guns. How you use them matters.

[browns town bengal]

I personally hate guns and I may never own one. But that doesnt mean I have a problem with responsible citizens owning them. Thats always been my take.

Thats the difference between me and people that want to ban everything they dont like.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by Sher Khan

That's not logic, it's your interpretation. And saying "have no reason to be in the hands of civilians", is an opinion, your opinion and not the opinion of millions of Americans. The so called assault gun you are equating to a combat weapon, is not a combat weapon because it's ability to fire automatically is what makes it a combat weapon, and that is not allowed under existing law unless you have a state controlled license. They are simply single fire, semi-auto's, not combat weapons. That's why the Army uses automatics.

M16A2s and M4s are semi-auto and three round burst. Personally, the only time I used the three round burst was at the range during familiarization fire. The rise of the muzzle makes them too inaccurate for point targets and for area targets you don't get a good beaten zone so it doesn't give you good suppressive fire, either. The three round burst is useless in my opinion unless your purpose is to burn through your ammo quickly.

[Whatever]

Originally Posted by x_Bengals_x

With mass shootings getting more and more common have they changed your stance on guns one way or the other? I've always wanted a gun thinking it was important for the home, I carry one just about every day at work but was never able to convince my wife to let us have one. She has changed her stance on guns and I was wondering if anyone else has as well.

I see a lot of people are turning in and getting rid of guns now but this has made us ready to go buy one.

I was raised around guns, own guns, and support responsible gun ownership. That said, I'm not oppossed to some kinds of restrictions on gun purchases. I have no issue with waiting periods. I do not believe that individuals that have commited a felony or violent misdemeanor should be able to purchase or own.firearms. I have no issue with the insanely restrictive laws on automatic weapons. I would have no problem if they closed the gun show loophole.

However, what gives me pause in the wake of Conneticut is a 20 year old autistic boy was able to get an assault rifle. I don't think individuals who have medical issues like that should be allowed to own a firearm. I also don't think that a 20 year old should be able to go out and buy an assault rifle. The failing in the background check system is that the character of a 20 year old is largely unproven. Perhaps you should have to wait until you're 25 to be able to purchase an assault weapon. At that point, I think you've been in society long enough that if you have criminal/violent tendancies, they will have come out in some form and they will be unable to purchase a firearm like that.

I am not in favor of an assault weapon and/or high capacity magazine ban. For one, they are ineffective given the number of them in the country. For another, it only encourages the kind of under the table sale of these weapons that winds up putting them in the wrong hands. I would support more stringent standards and more thorough background checks for assault weapons and high cap magazines. I would have no issue with waiting periods on them, either.

[Shere Khan]

Originally Posted by Whodey23

So you're getting all fired up solely on what you feel is the only purpose these said firearms are designed for? lol. Why the hell did you waste my time too! I don't care what you personally feel they're fully designed for...

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

Firearms designed for military use are designed for killing humans. That's not my opinion.

I've been trying not to jump in this discussion, but Rhythmic Geek is absolutely right.

[XenoMorph]

Originally Posted by Shere Khan

I've been trying not to jump in this discussion, but Rhythmic Geek is absolutely right.

I would say they are designed to nuetralize Threats.

[Shere Khan]

Originally Posted by BengalsFan024

How about throwing kniveS?

Welp, they've banned Ballistic Knives if that makes you feel any better.

[Shere Khan]

Originally Posted by BengalsFan024

I would say they are designed to nuetralize Threats.

If you want to neutralize a threat, switch the ammunition used to rubber bullets or beanbags.

[Sher Khan]

Originally Posted by Shere Khan

Welp, they've banned Ballistic Knives if that makes you feel any better.

DC banned blow guns. Ain't gonna put up with no head hunters there.