How do you feel about guns?

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by WhoDeyJon

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.

I agree with your first sentence and I never made a statement to the contrary.

However, my point your constitutional rights aren't unlimited and can be restricted still stands.

For example, you stated...

Originally Posted by WhoDeyJon

The 2nd amendment doesn't state that you can only own certain types of guns.

And yet the ownership of a M240B is restricted. Can you buy one? Is your Second Amendment violated because you are restricted from purchasing a M240B? No, your Second Amendment isn't violated because current gun control laws restrict the purchase of M240Bs.

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by WhoDeyJon

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.

Good point. Every gun should be registered to an owner just like cars.

You have no problem with that do you?

Also make any clip or magazine that holds more than 10 shells illegal.

I ama realist. There are just too many guns out there right now to get them all off the streets. But we need some serious regulation about who can sell them (no private citizens), getting them all registered, and outlawing high volumn clips and magazines.

[Dalton's_Gang]

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

I've heard about a lot of people rushing out to get guns after this incident.

When someone tells me that they own a gun, they tell me a lot about themselves.

how does it?

[Dalton's_Gang]

Originally Posted by VCU Rams

yep it should be mandatory if you own a firearm to have it locked either by safe, or atleast by lock and key...don't know how it could be enforced, but make it a law that if someone gets their hands on your firearm, then the offense falls on the gun owner as well..

unless the gun owner can prove forced entry into the locked "gun safe"

then thats more tax payer money going towards punishing someone who didnt really commit a crime. wasteful spending if you ask me.

[Dalton's_Gang]

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.

how will that ban stop gunsmiths from making parts to repair the "worn out " rifles?

anyone with a lathe and CNC and the know how could make their own AR15 style gun and not have to register it.

how would the ban stop people like that?

[Slappy from New Haven]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

Good point. Every gun should be registered to an owner just like cars.

You have no problem with that do you?

Also make any clip or magazine that holds more than 10 shells illegal.

I ama realist. There are just too many guns out there right now to get them all off the streets. But we need some serious regulation about who can sell them (no private citizens), getting them all registered, and outlawing high volumn clips and magazines.

I like the issue of no private citizen sales but i think it is foolhardy to legislate it. It will just be done illegally more often. There are a lot of private sale guns that aren't legal. I don't think that would be a deterant.

i also think we need to take a look at the knee jerk reactio we had in the 80's to crack laws. Too strict, over loaded the sustem and stiffer penalties than comprable drugs.

In addition i do not trust the goverment when it comes to taking away gun rights. Once they start they never stop

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by BengalsFan024

I would say they are designed to nuetralize Threats.

Let's not hide behind coy euphemism like "neutralize threats" when we really mean "killing."

An infantry rifleman's standard issue weapon is an assault rifle. An infantryman's mission is to close with and destroy the enemy with fire and manuever utilizing the maximum amount of violence of action. A rifleman does this with an assault rifle by killing or wounding the person in his sight picture so severely they can't even use their trigger finger.

Let's not trivialize what infantryman do or sanitize what their standard issue weapons are designed to do.

[Dalton's_Gang]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

Let's not hide behind coy euphemism like "neutralize threats" when we really mean "killing."

An infantry rifleman's standard issue weapon is an assault rifle. An infantryman's mission is to close with and destroy the enemy with fire and manuever utilizing the maximum amount of violence of action. A rifleman does this with an assault rifle by killing or wounding the person in his sight picture so severely they can't even use their trigger finger.

Let's not trivialize what infantryman do or sanitize what their standard issue weapons are designed to do.

a firearm can be used to disable a threat. you dont have to kill with them although it is probably better if you do.

as for maximum amount of violence with the soldier, im gonna have to disagree. the soldiers job is to kill yes, but it is also his job to be as efficient as possible. a soldiers job is not to mame his opponent, but to kill his opponent.

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by Dalton's_Gang

how will that ban stop gunsmiths from making parts to repair the "worn out " rifles?

anyone with a lathe and CNC and the know how could make their own AR15 style gun and not have to register it.

how would the ban stop people like that?

Originally Posted by NC Bengal Mike

I like the issue of no private citizen sales but i think it is foolhardy to legislate it. It will just be done illegally more often. There are a lot of private sale guns that aren't legal. I don't think that would be a deterant.

This type of logic is silly. Making murder illegal does not stop all murders, but I don't see anyone saying we should do away with laws against murder.

If guns were required to be registered there would still be lots of unregistered guns out there, but they would be subject to siezu and anyone carrying one would be subject to arrest even if he was nto using the gun. This would have a major deterrent effect on people who carry guns outside their homes or even keep illegal guns in their homes.

[Slappy from New Haven]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

This type of logic is silly. Making murder illegal does not stop all murders, but I don't see anyone saying we should do away with laws against murder.

If guns were required to be registered there would still be lots of unregistered guns out there, but they would be subject to siezu and anyone carrying one would be subject to arrest even if he was nto using the gun. This would have a major deterrent effect on people who carry guns outside their homes or even keep illegal guns in their homes.

Not to criminals, they don't care. Crack dealers have houses set up to sell the product.

A murderer doesn't care about the law. There is a % of the population that doesn;t care and denying my right to own firearms legally, free of any potential government interference is unconstitutional

[Sher Khan]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

This type of logic is silly. Making murder illegal does not stop all murders, but I don't see anyone saying we should do away with laws against murder.

If guns were required to be registered there would still be lots of unregistered guns out there, but they would be subject to siezu and anyone carrying one would be subject to arrest even if he was nto using the gun. This would have a major deterrent effect on people who carry guns outside their homes or even keep illegal guns in their homes.

I'm not entirely against the idea Fred, but there's a couple of legal obstacles in the way. While states can require registrations, not all of them do and some cannot. The problem is that it is up to each state. So the hope that each state will adopt the same law, springs eternal as they say. Ain't gonna happen. And the Federal Government is prohibited by two Congressional Acts from requiring registration in a state, or requiring a National registration database. And a few states actually prohibit firearm registration under their own laws, to include Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, South Dakota, and Vermont.

I think it intriguing to note that in Connecticut, as of the date of the report on the link below, Feb 9, 2011, it was illegal in the State of Connecticut, to possess an assault weapon unless it was purchased prior to 1993, and had the required permits according to state law all approved, much like owning a machine gun. The incident which has sparked a new round of assault gun debates took place at, Newtown, Connecticut. A place where according to the Connecticut Legislative report below, assault guns were already banned for possession, and that ban did absolutely nothing to prevent the tragedy from taking place.

You can read more on it here, at the Connecticut General Assembly legislative research website.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2011/rpt/2011-R-0074.htm

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by Dalton's_Gang

a firearm can be used to disable a threat. you dont have to kill with them although it is probably better if you do.

as for maximum amount of violence with the soldier, im gonna have to disagree. the soldiers job is to kill yes, but it is also his job to be as efficient as possible. a soldiers job is not to mame his opponent, but to kill his opponent.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you disagreeing with me.

I spent 10 years as an infantryman from rifleman to platoon sergeant, from Private to Sergeant First Class, from 3rd Ranger Battalion to 4th Ranger Training Battalion to 101st Infantry Divison before I became an Army physician assistant for more infantry battalions. Trump that. After every single mission you conduct an AAR and discuss how you can improve. Violence of action was discussed at every single one. Violence of action, violence of action, violence of action! Never lose the physical and psychological momemtum. Momemtum, mometum, momemtum. It is drilled into you over and over until it is ingrained. Do you know the best medicine on the battle field? Fire superiority washed down with a nice cup of violence of action.

Infantrymen aim center mass at their targets because that gives the best chance of hitting their target at various ranges up to 300m without adjusting their rear sight for elevation. It also gives them the best chance to hit a vital organ resulting in a KIA or WIA. The don't aim at nonvital organs to disable. In certain CQB situations they may aim for a no reflex kill shot to to a small area of the head; if you hit this spot the enemy can't even involuntarily jerk their trigger finger to accidentally squeeze off a round as the die.

Where did I mention anything about maiming the enemy? I never wrote that or even implied that. I don't have a clue where you came up with that because intentionally maiming the enemy is a war crime.

[Sher Khan]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

I'm gonna have to disagree with you disagreeing with me.

I spent 10 years as an infantryman from rifleman to platoon sergeant, from Private to Sergeant First Class, from 3rd Ranger Battalion to 4th Ranger Training Battalion to 101st Infantry Divison before I became an Army physician assistant for more infantry battalions. Trump that. After every single mission you conduct an AAR and discuss how you can improve. Violence of action was discussed at every single one. Violence of action, violence of action, violence of action! Never lose the physical and psychological momemtum. Momemtum, mometum, momemtum. It is drilled into you over and over until it is ingrained. Do you know the best medicine on the battle field? Fire superiority washed down with a nice cup of violence of action.

Infantrymen aim center mass at their targets because that gives the best chance of hitting their target at various ranges up to 300m without adjusting their rear sight for elevation. It also gives them the best chance to hit a vital organ resulting in a KIA or WIA. The don't aim at nonvital organs to disable. In certain CQB situations they may aim for a no reflex kill shot to to a small area of the head; if you hit this spot the enemy can't even involuntarily jerk their trigger finger to accidentally squeeze off a round as the die.

Where did I mention anything about maiming the enemy? I never wrote that or even implied that. I don't have a clue where you came up with that because intentionally maiming the enemy is a war crime.

Well he's right about maiming the enemy being illegal. In WWII New Guinea and Borneo, the Aussies had the headhunter tribes up in arms against the Japanese, and one of their many local advantages was that they used blow guns with poison darts. While deadly effective since even a scatch would kill the victim, they were also silent and could not be heard. It was a clear violation of the Geneva Convention to use poison let alone blow guns. It gave the Brits some pause. Their high command was aware of it and considered putting a stop to it, but never really did much about it.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by Sher Khan

Well he's right about maiming the enemy being illegal. In WWII New Guinea and Borneo, the Aussies had the headhunter tribes up in arms against the Japanese, and one of many of their local advantages was that they used blow guns with poison darts. While deadly effective since even a scatch would kill the victim, they were also silent and could not be heard. It was a clear violation of the Geneva Convention to use poison let alone blow guns. It gave the Brits some pause. Their high command was aware of it and considered putting a stop to it, but never really did much about it.

I'll tell you the same thing I told him...

Originally Posted by Wingnut

Where did I mention anything about maiming the enemy? I never wrote that or even implied that. I don't have a clue where you came up with that because intentionally maiming the enemy is a war crime.

I was the one who stated maiming the enemy is a war crime, not him.

Who was using the blow guns with poison darts, the headhunter tribes or the Aussie soldiers? If it was the headhunter tribes, did they sign the Geneva Convention? If they didn't, then please explain how the Geneva Conventions apply to a tribe that isn't a party to the Geneva Conventions.

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by NC Bengal Mike

A murderer doesn't care about the law. There is a % of the population that doesn;t care and denying my right to own firearms legally, free of any potential government interference is unconstitutional

Where did I say you should not be allowed to own a gun. I just say there needs to be stricter regulation. Every gun must be registered. No sales by private citizens. Outlaw magazines or clips holding more than ten shells.

You don't disagree with any of those do you? Or are you one of those nutjobs that think every convicted criminal and mentally unstable person should be able to buy a bazooka or a 50 caliber machine gun?

[Sher Khan]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

I'll tell you the same thing I told him...



I was the one who stated maiming the enemy is a war crime, not him.

Who was using the blow guns with poison darts, the headhunter tribes or the Aussie soldiers? If it was the headhunter tribes, did they sign the Geneva Convention? If they didn't, then please explain how the Geneva Conventions apply to a tribe that isn't a party to the Geneva Conventions.

I was talking about you not him. Is there a program with this argument?

The Aussies instigated the headhunter tribes to attack the Japanese. They were already inclined to do so since the Japanese hadn't been very friendly towards the native girls, their livestock, or crops. The tribes were the ones to use blowguns with poison darts on the Japanese. They also used machineguns, rifles, (assault rifles - hey there's an angle...), mortars, and spears. They were fighting on behalf of the Brits ultimately, who also had long held dominion over Borneo and New Guinea. Those territories were for all intents and purposes the United Kingdom, and therefore any combatant taking part in support of, or under the authority of the British, vis-a-vie the Australians were legally their responsibility.

I really can't answer for Lord Mountbatton who was killed in 1979 by the IRA, as to why he and SEAC (South East Asia Command) were concerned about the issue. I would surmise because the Geneva Convention of WWII apparently took a dim view of arming, supplying, and directing a local indigenous population into armed biligerence using inhumane actions against a combatant Nation.

I have a better one for you. While Japan did sign the Geneva Convention, they never ratified it. Therefore technically had no legal standing to it's articles of protection. And further the convention is primarily about the treatment of prisoners, though I believe it and other conventions specify particular articles on the conduct of war. Like banning chemical weapons. However, the Brits were also concerned since the tribes had taken to their old habit of shrinking heads over a camp fire. Japanese heads in this case. A few tribes were rumored to have gone competely retro and may have taken a few hearts to eat. (Everyone has their conservatives). The islander tribal populations had always resented the Brits for declaring an end to their beloved custom around 1929. Kind of like the air freshener or fuzzy dice hanging from a rear view mirror, they had a deeply held spiritual practice of hanging shrunken heads of their enemies round about their villages.

So I rather imagine that the Brits were somewhat nervous about all this getting out into press circulation; that they were or might be encouraging the use of inhuman weapons and/or treatment of prisoners of war, or more specifically the shrinking of Japanese heads that might have otherwise been, prisoners of war for a short period. The Brits also bemoaned our use of incendary area bombing of German cities. Maybe their just bleeding hearts...

I'm not a lawyer. Ask Fred. He'll know.

[WhoDeyJon]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

Where did I say you should not be allowed to own a gun. I just say there needs to be stricter regulation. Every gun must be registered. No sales by private citizens. Outlaw magazines or clips holding more than ten shells.

You don't disagree with any of those do you? Or are you one of those nutjobs that think every convicted criminal and mentally unstable person should be able to buy a bazooka or a 50 caliber machine gun?

I own a .22 rifle that holds more than 10 in the mag. If you think, or anyone thinks that magazine should be banned then there is zero hope to show you the error of your ways.

[Sher Khan]

Originally Posted by WhoDeyJon

I own a .22 rifle that holds more than 10 in the mag. If you think, or anyone thinks that magazine should be banned then there is zero hope to show you the error of your ways.

You'll shoot your eye out kid.

[D.Boon]

I firmly believe that there is no reason that a civilian needs an assault rifle. For those concerned about protecting their families from intruders I would say that there is no more terrifying sound than a round being moved to the chamber of a pump action shotgun. You should be able to scare any intruder off without firing a shot.

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by WhoDeyJon

I own a .22 rifle that holds more than 10 in the mag. If you think, or anyone thinks that magazine should be banned then there is zero hope to show you the error of your ways.

Please explain why you have to have a clip that holds more than ten rounds. The point of a debate is to support your argument with facts or logic.

[68Firebird]

Originally Posted by D.Boon

I firmly believe that there is no reason that a civilian needs an assault rifle. For those concerned about protecting their families from intruders I would say that there is no more terrifying sound than a round being moved to the chamber of a pump action shotgun. You should be able to scare any intruder off without firing a shot.

I read an article in a gun magazine a few years ago. It ranked the best weapons for home defense. Kind of like the power rankings for football. The writers on the panel talked about all sorts of pros and cons, etc. of all sorts of weapons ranging from specific brands and types of revolvers, semi auto, caliber, etc.

Unanimous #1 weapon for home defense...... 12 Gauge shotgun.

Reasons:

- Multiple ammo choices. Ammunition is available that will NOT go through walls, potentially harming unintended targets, but WILL incapacitate an intruder.

- Does not require much accuracy or skill. Essentially point and pull. People under duress tend to lose accuracy, are nervous, etc. We've all seen videos of police shootouts where the guys are a few feet away, fire a ton of rounds and nobody is even grazed. The 12 gauge eliminates any margin for error as long as you are pointed in the general direction of your target.

- Simple, easy to operate.

- Their number 1 reason: No one in their right mind will continue aggression after hearing "Don't come any closer, I have a shotgun" and then hearing the shotgun's famous "rack-rack" sound.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by 68Firebird

I read an article in a gun magazine a few years ago. It ranked the best weapons for home defense. Kind of like the power rankings for football. The writers on the panel talked about all sorts of pros and cons, etc. of all sorts of weapons ranging from specific brands and types of revolvers, semi auto, caliber, etc.

Unanimous #1 weapon for home defense...... 12 Gauge shotgun.

Reasons:

- Multiple ammo choices. Ammunition is available that will NOT go through walls, potentially harming unintended targets, but WILL incapacitate an intruder.

- Does not require much accuracy or skill. Essentially point and pull. People, under duress tend to lose accuracy, are nervous, etc. We've all seen videos of police shootouts where the guys are a few feet away, fire a ton of rounds and nobody is even grazed. The 12 gauge eliminates any margin for error as long as you are pointed in the general direction of your target.

- Simple, easy to operate.

- Their number 1 reason: No one in their right mind will continue aggression after hearing "Don't come any closer, I have a shotgun" and then hearing the shotgun's famous "rack-rack" sound.

Yep. That's usually considered the tops for home defense. A rifle is always at the bottom, with revolver and semi-auto pistol usually in the 2 and 3 spots, but switching back and forth depending on preference. Though I usually see revolver higher.

[68Firebird]

Also, a lot of people do not understand exactly what types of weapons are available, how much they cost, etc.

I really enjoy video games. One of my favorite guns to use in a lot of games is a shotgun. In a game called Battlefield Bad Company 2 (an army game) my favorite gun was a SAIGA shotgun. I thought it would be fun to read more about it. Turns out, it's the shotgun version of an AK47 - only in semi automatic, magazine fed 12 gauge form. I thought to myself, "Hey, this is America, can someone actually own one of these?". Answer: YUP. I was saddened to learn that someone could easily buy one of these with the money earned from a part time job. $400. There were many sites with things just like this for sale... cheap.

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/p...s_id/411543939

That, to me, is really a little unreasonable. I also found videos on youtube where guys were showing how they could be converted into FULLY AUTOMATIC shotguns with reall large drum magazines. They looked like tommy-gun shotguns. Some of this stuff has gotten a little too cheap and a little too out of control.

I am a HUGE believer that anyone should be able to have or do anything they please as long as it does not bring down the moral fiber of society. I do NOT believe that a gun brings down the moral fiber of society in any way shape or form. Insane people being allowed to run rampant and have access to guns, however, does IMO. I just wish the price point of some of these things, as well as the requirements to own one were out of reach of, literally, anyone with even the most modest of incomes.

Does that make sense what I am trying to say?

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by 68Firebird

- Does not require much accuracy or skill. Essentially point and pull. People, under duress tend to lose accuracy, are nervous, etc. We've all seen videos of police shootouts where the guys are a few feet away, fire a ton of rounds and nobody is even grazed. The 12 gauge eliminates any margin for error as long as you are pointed in the general direction of your target..

This. A 12 gauge double aught shotgun shell contains about nine 32 caliber shots. Although they don't have near the range of a 32 caliber pistol getting hit by evgen one of these shots is like getting ahot by a 32 caliber pistol.

[68Firebird]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

Yep. That's usually considered the tops for home defense. A rifle is always at the bottom, with revolver and semi-auto pistol usually in the 2 and 3 spots, but switching back and forth depending on preference. Though I usually see revolver higher.

I understand having hunting rifles.

I understand having a rifle on a farm.

I do not understand owning a rifle for the purpose of IN HOME DEFENSE. Anyone with a rifle for home defense, would you care to explain the idea behind it? I am asking with genuine curiosity.