How do you feel about guns?

[XenoMorph]

Originally Posted by Bengalzona

Ryan need to work on them twigs he probably calls legs.

you could have 1 stronger arm...



or be a beginner lifter.

[Sher Khan]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

No program, I just misunderstood who you were referring to with the pronoun "he."


Murky legal waters at best. Here's a link to FM 27-10, it is a summary of the applicable treaties which govern what is lawful and unlawful conduct during warfare written in mostly laymen's terms that even a dumb grunt like me could understand.

http://ac-support.europe.umuc.edu/~nstanton/Ch3.htm#p61

If I have a soldier assigned to me I have legal command authority to give him orders and if he doesn't carry out those orders I have the legal authority to punish him. So I can order a soldier not to use poison on his rounds, for example, and if I find him doing so I can have him punished for commiting a war crime.

Highly doubtful I would have that same legal authority to command tribal headhunters or to punish them if they didn't follow my orders.

Also, not every combatant is a legal combatant. If you look at Chapter 3, Paragraph 64 the tribal headhunters wouldn't qualify as legal combatants. Hard to claim anyone has legal authority over a group which isn't considered a legal combatant.


This sounds like the birth of Special Forces like units and unconventional warfare to equip and train a guerilla force in secret. Were the Vietnam era SF units legally responsible for the actions of the Montagnards? I ask because I don't know.


I don't know if Japan ratified the GC or not. I'm not a WWII buff like you. However, the US had a formal declaration of war against Japan, yes? That would make Japan a party to the conflict. If you read Chapter 3, paragraphs 60 and 61 it would seem to me the Japanese soldiers would qualify as POWs and the protection of the law of land warfare. I'm also of the opinion that just because the law of land warfare may not apply to other combatants, that didn't relieve me of my obligation to conduct combat operations in a legal manner and for me and my men to conduct ourselves in an honorable mannner while doing everything we could to kill the enemy. Not every soldier thinks they way I do, but I believe the professional soldiers do.

Yes, it was the beginnings of the Commonwealth Special Forces. Primarily under Australian direct control via British command. The Australian Officer at least in Borneo encouraged the use of blowguns with poison arrows/darts. It was the British commanders far away from the front that were concerned. And as I said, not concerned enough to do anything about it. And there was also the rather haphazard communications link between headquarters and a few Australians running around in the interior of Borneo and Papua New Guinea which did not lend itself to a daily and effecient run communications link even in 1944, when most of this began.

I think the modern manuals can't be used as a reference to what was and was not legal back then, or compared to Vietnam. What transpired into legal documents after WWII, and Korea, would likely have been far different than what was law during the 1940's. And law was a precarious thing in the jungles of SE Asia during WWII.

It was an effective tactic primarily since the Japanese for most of the war had occupied the coastal plains of Borneo and New Guinea, not venturing into the dense jungle interiors. When they reacted to the natives attacking their patrols and supply areas and moved into the mountain interior, most of their units either got lost, or were cut off from reinforcements and supplies in unfamiliar and unmapped mountain jungle areas making it far easier for the natives armed with their standard weapons of spears, machetes, and blowguns, along with Allied supplied mortars, machineguns, and rifles, having been trained by the Australians, to cut them down. Usually in a running gun battle type of operations until through attrition the Japanese units lost effectiveness or the few remaining survivors surrendered. Radio communications wasn't what it is today either so it worked against both sides in the jungle mountain interiors.

Like I said, I suspect the Brits were more concerned about how it might look upon them rather than an actual legal fear of Japanese accusations. The Japanese were not in a position to complain even if they had been so inclined, but the Brits were still the stuffed shirts they'd always been. The Aussies, not so much.

And it was the Australians who had fought the Japanese Army face to face on the Kokoda Track, over the Owen Stanley Mountain Range in Papua New Guinea, during 1942-1943, when we, the US, had little to fight with aside from an aging Army Air Force against the Japanese Army AF, armed with much better aircraft, for the time. It wasn't until spring of 1943 when the more modern aircraft began to arrive in the South Pacific in sufficient numbers to dominate the air war. The P-38's, P-47's, and B-24's.

So the Aussies had not only face off with the Japanese Army face to face and beaten them, but they had done it essentially on their own in some of the most inhospital and rugged terrain anywhere. They learned to use any advantage they could gain over the enemy.

This is an interesting story you might like. It's online, 52 minutes of a true story taped by PBS. It reveals a lot of what I have been discussing. At least about the Australian native fighting in Borneo. What might be the beginnings of the Commonwealth's Special Forces, lead by an British Major in the interor of Borneo who was relentless in taking the fight to the Japanese and perhaps, if guilty of anything it was for running his own war rather than that of Allied Command. It isn't the entire story, but it is very engrossing if you have an interest in that part of WWII and what transpried in the jungles of SE Asia. It is also about a little known story of the escape and rescue of a downed American B-24 crew who were eventually to be some of the very few Western witnesses of the return to headhunting as a tactic of war by the Dayak Tribe against the Japanese. Something that at the time, put quite some fear into the Japanese Army's last vestages holding onto Borneo and North Western New Guinea.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/epis...l-episode/499/

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by Bengal4ever68

Gun bans will happen because half of America is f'n stupid and believe everything the media tells them to believe. If the media said eating your own sh** is the healthiest thing for you i gurantee people would start stuffing there faces with there own sh** while the people behind the media would sit back and laugh.

Guns will be banned and now look what's happening....

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/339334

So first you say people are stupid to believe the media then you post a media link to a story?

So doesn't that make you f'n stupid for believing the story you posted??

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by Sher Khan

Your right about the .38 special. You can put that in your .357 and essentially fire the same round with little to no recoil. You just have to clean the cylinder off since the shorter round will leave residue in the cylinder. I can't agree on "no reason to have them" because it overlooks a good many reasons to have them. The first being, the person wants one. From there, you can go to ranchers, people with large properties or farms in rural areas or just shooting enthusiasts. A better way to state that is; "you" don't see any reason to have them.

If they were a problem apart from a couple of recent very well publicized incidents, it would show up statistically and I might aqree. It doesn't. Less than 2% of gun fatalities are due to an assault weapon. And as is the case, Connecticut has had a ban on the possesion of assault guns for a long time now, which did nothing to prevent the most tragic event.

I know you've said that's not where your coming from on this, it's the gun not the incidents. And I understand that, but you don't seem to want to preface what you say with "in my opinion." Which it is.

I understand in your opinion there is no good reason to have an assault rifle. A perfectly fine opinion to have and you have a right to it.

But it is also the opinion of millions of other people that they do have a good reason to have one, starting with the fact they simply want one. And there is no great threat or other reason that they shouldn't be able to; which is partially my opinion and partially statistics. There isn't any clear evidence short of an emotional outburst by politicians breaking an ankle to get in front of a camera, to ban them. Further, with the proposal to reinstate the assault gun ban that seems to be an "on again - off again", law bound to expire the next Republican Administration we get, particularly in view of the Tea Pah-tay, no doubt it will expire again or be tossed out. The jiggling of the law due to mealy mouth politicians who want to cash in on the poor kids deaths in Newtown, and make a mockery of the entire thing by pretending to do something about it, with a so-called assault gun ban, while in reality doing absolutely nothing about it is unconscionable.

Meantime, the poor kids still have to go to schools where they will be no safer because of some ill thought out law in effect, than they were the day before it was thought up. That's where I'm coming from. Not about the gun, about the pretense of a law which will do nothing except make everyone feel good and forget doing anything that actually does resolve the problem.

Charlie Sheen wants coke and hookers. But, there are laws that say he can't have what he wants. I haven't checked but I bet less than 2% of fatalities are cause by coke and hookers.

And a bolt action 300 win mag is a much better choice for ranchers, people with large properties or farms in rural areas or just shooting enthusiats.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by Sher Khan

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/epis...l-episode/499/

When I have the time I'll check it out. Thanks.

[Sher Khan]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

Charlie Sheen wants coke and hookers. But, there are laws that say he can't have what he wants. I haven't checked but I bet less than 2% of fatalities are cause by coke and hookers.

And a bolt action 300 win mag is a much better choice for ranchers, people with large properties or farms in rural areas or just shooting enthusiats.

Nope, can't buy the logic. Your crossing what I said with something illegal (except in Vegas, where he can infact have hookers). There is nothing illegal about assault rifles, except where they are banned. And so just wanting one won't get you one where they are banned. And actually, prostitution has always been referred to as a victimless crime. In Vegas it is legal, licenses, taxed, inspected and regulated. Coke is illegal, and doesn't fall into the conversation at all. What type of gun is better, is your opinion. Whatever your opinion is; you can count on the fact that there are millions, if not tens of millions of people with an opposite view.

Nothing in what you offered changes the fact that if an assault gun is otherwise legal, then it is up to the individual if they want one. And the only reason they need; is that they want one. It might be your opinion now that they are wrong, they are spending money uselessly, they are bad people, they have dandruff, but that's your opinion and not the law. Which is, that regardless of your opinion, they can buy assault rifles and all they need to do is want one; have the money (and perhaps the wife's permission), and that's it.

Now, if you want to talk about banning them for some reason, then we can talk about that. But if you don't accept the premise that they are at this time, with a few exceptions (or at least in Connecticut), legally available and that is as a result of the 2nd Amendment, then there's no reason to discuss it. Just oppose it and be happy in your own mind.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by Sher Khan

Nope, can't buy the logic. Your crossing what I said with something illegal (except in Vegas, where he can infact have hookers). There is nothing illegal about assault rifles, except where they are banned. And so just wanting one won't get you one where they are banned. And actually, prostitution has always been referred to as a victimless crime. In Vegas it is legal, licenses, taxed, inspected and regulated. Coke is illegal, and doesn't fall into the conversation at all. What type of gun is better, is your opinion. Whatever your opinion is; you can count on the fact that there are millions, if not tens of millions of people with an opposite view.

Sorry, I have to. Prostitution is not legal in Vegas. It is legal in lower population counties in Nevada, but not in Clark County, where Las Vegas is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Nevada

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by Sher Khan

Nope, can't buy the logic. Your crossing what I said with something illegal (except in Vegas, where he can infact have hookers). There is nothing illegal about assault rifles, except where they are banned. And so just wanting one won't get you one where they are banned.

And by "banned" of course you mean illegal. Unless there is a difference between banned and illegal. If there is a difference please explain it to me.

Why can't I buy a M240B if I want one? Is it because there are laws that restrict my ability to purchase a M240B? And if these sort of restrictions drive the black market sales of M240B to mostly the criminals, then why aren't more criminals using M240Bs to commit crimes? Is it because the restrictions actually work?

And actually, prostitution has always been referred to as a victimless crime.

Not according to the teenage "prostitute" Lawrence Taylor had sex with and was convicted of sexual misconduct.

In Vegas it is legal, licenses, taxed, inspected and regulated. Coke is illegal, and doesn't fall into the conversation at all.

So prostitution isn't universally illegal because laws can be changed? Or should I use the term "banned" instead? I'm so confused between banned and illegal right now. And cocaine is found in almost all your emergency departments to help stop nose bleeds. It's true. Medical cocaine is a schedule II drug the same as Adderall.

Here's the thing, laws are rules we agree to follow until we no longer agree to follow them. Then we change them. I know you know this.

What type of gun is better, is your opinion. Whatever your opinion is; you can count on the fact that there are millions, if not tens of millions of people with an opposite view.

A bolt action 300 win mag is essentially a M24 US Army sniper rifle. Compared to the AR 15, M16, and M4 series military assault rifles the 300 win mag is more accurate and more lethal at longer ranges. It is a devastating weapon. Compared to the assault rifles it has a much slower rate of fire because it is bolt action and not a gas operated semi-automatic. These are facts, not opinion. So if you were to walk into a movie theater, mall, elementary school, high school, university, or political rally and open fire with a bolt action rifle you wouldn't be able to kill as many people in the same amount of time before being subdued or committing suicide because the rate of fire is slower and the magazine capacity is less compared to the assault rifles.

If anyone claims an assault rifle is better for most hunting applications* and/or target practice than a sniper rifle then they are ignorant of weapons. Nothing can stop them from having an ignorant, uninformed opinion...except the facts.

(*Before you start, notable exceptions being fowl and small game in which case you would most likely choose a shotgun and a plinking rifle, respectively.)

Assault rifles are made for the military to conduct combat operations. Assault rifles are made for soldiers to hunt and kill other soldiers. If you believe people should be able to purchase assault rifles because they want to, do you also believe people should be able to buy a M240B because they want to? A military assault rifle and a military machine gun are both designed and used to kill enemy soldiers. However, they have different rates of fire. If you think people should be able to own assault rifles, but don't think people should be able to purchase a M240B explain why? The rate of fire? Isn't that Matt's same determining factor? You don't believe people should own automatic weapons and Matt doesn't believe people should own semi-automatic weapons. So basically it boils down to the rate of fire. An automatic M16A1 with a cyclic rate of fire which can fire a 30 round magazine in 2.4 seconds is not okay in your book? But a semi-automatic M16A2 which can fire a 30 round magazine as fast as you can squeeze the trigger in less than 30 seconds is okay? So somewhere between 30 rounds fired in 2.4 seconds and less than 30 seconds is the break point for what should be legal and what should be illegal (banned?)? So does that mean my M109A6 Paladin howitzer with a rate of fire of 6 rounds per minute is okay?

Nothing in what you offered changes the fact that if an assault gun is otherwise legal, then it is up to the individual if they want one. And the only reason they need; is that they want one. It might be your opinion now that they are wrong, they are spending money uselessly, they are bad people, they have dandruff, but that's your opinion and not the law. Which is, that regardless of your opinion, they can buy assault rifles and all they need to do is want one; have the money (and perhaps the wife's permission), and that's it.

What I offered was mostly tongue-in-cheek which you took seriously. So I'll play along. At one point is was legal to own slaves in this country. It might be your opinion now that slave owners were wrong, that they spent their money uselessly, that they were bad people, they had dandruff, but that's your opinion and not the law at that time. But, what happened to the law? It was changed. What happened to slavery? It was abolished. Things change. People change. The times change and society changes along with it. If we sit around claiming we can't change this and we can't change that then that is exactly what is going to happen. Nothing will change.

Now, if you want to talk about banning them for some reason, then we can talk about that. But if you don't accept the premise that they are at this time, with a few exceptions (or at least in Connecticut), legally available and that is as a result of the 2nd Amendment, then there's no reason to discuss it. Just oppose it and be happy in your own mind.

Okay, let's discuss why you and Matt disagree on what should be legal and what should be illegal based soley upon the rate of fire.

Why do you believe an automatic weapon should be illegal/banned/restricted while a semi-automatic weapon should not be illegal/banned/restricted even though every thing about the two weapon system's specs and performance could otherwise be exactly the same or very similar, e.g. M16A1 vs. AR 15?

[Sher Khan]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

Sorry, I have to. Prostitution is not legal in Vegas. It is legal in lower population counties in Nevada, but not in Clark County, where Las Vegas is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Nevada

Correct, but in the context of what I was saying makes little difference. Point is, there are places where it is legal.

[Sher Khan]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

And by "banned" of course you mean illegal. Unless there is a difference between banned and illegal. If there is a difference please explain it to me.

Why can't I buy a M240B if I want one? Is it because there are laws that restrict my ability to purchase a M240B? And if these sort of restrictions drive the black market sales of M240B to mostly the criminals, then why aren't more criminals using M240Bs to commit crimes? Is it because the restrictions actually work?


Not according to the teenage "prostitute" Lawrence Taylor had sex with and was convicted of sexual misconduct.


So prostitution isn't universally illegal because laws can be changed? Or should I use the term "banned" instead? I'm so confused between banned and illegal right now. And cocaine is found in almost all your emergency departments to help stop nose bleeds. It's true. Medical cocaine is a schedule II drug the same as Adderall.

Here's the thing, laws are rules we agree to follow until we no longer agree to follow them. Then we change them. I know you know this.


A bolt action 300 win mag is essentially a M24 US Army sniper rifle. Compared to the AR 15, M16, and M4 series military assault rifles the 300 win mag is more accurate and more lethal at longer ranges. It is a devastating weapon. Compared to the assault rifles it has a much slower rate of fire because it is bolt action and not a gas operated semi-automatic. These are facts, not opinion. So if you were to walk into a movie theater, mall, elementary school, high school, university, or political rally and open fire with a bolt action rifle you wouldn't be able to kill as many people in the same amount of time before being subdued or committing suicide because the rate of fire is slower and the magazine capacity is less compared to the assault rifles.

If anyone claims an assault rifle is better for most hunting applications* and/or target practice than a sniper rifle then they are ignorant of weapons. Nothing can stop them from having an ignorant, uninformed opinion...except the facts.

(*Before you start, notable exceptions being fowl and small game in which case you would most likely choose a shotgun and a plinking rifle, respectively.)

Assault rifles are made for the military to conduct combat operations. Assault rifles are made for soldiers to hunt and kill other soldiers. If you believe people should be able to purchase assault rifles because they want to, do you also believe people should be able to buy a M240B because they want to? A military assault rifle and a military machine gun are both designed and used to kill enemy soldiers. However, they have different rates of fire. If you think people should be able to own assault rifles, but don't think people should be able to purchase a M240B explain why? The rate of fire? Isn't that Matt's same determining factor? You don't believe people should own automatic weapons and Matt doesn't believe people should own semi-automatic weapons. So basically it boils down to the rate of fire. An automatic M16A1 with a cyclic rate of fire which can fire a 30 round magazine in 2.4 seconds is not okay in your book? But a semi-automatic M16A2 which can fire a 30 round magazine as fast as you can squeeze the trigger in less than 30 seconds is okay? So somewhere between 30 rounds fired in 2.4 seconds and less than 30 seconds is the break point for what should be legal and what should be illegal (banned?)? So does that mean my M109A6 Paladin howitzer with a rate of fire of 6 rounds per minute is okay?


What I offered was mostly tongue-in-cheek which you took seriously. So I'll play along. At one point is was legal to own slaves in this country. It might be your opinion now that slave owners were wrong, that they spent their money uselessly, that they were bad people, they had dandruff, but that's your opinion and not the law at that time. But, what happened to the law? It was changed. What happened to slavery? It was abolished. Things change. People change. The times change and society changes along with it. If we sit around claiming we can't change this and we can't change that then that is exactly what is going to happen. Nothing will change.


Okay, let's discuss why you and Matt disagree on what should be legal and what should be illegal based soley upon the rate of fire.

Why do you believe an automatic weapon should be illegal/banned/restricted while a semi-automatic weapon should not be illegal/banned/restricted even though every thing about the two weapon system's specs and performance could otherwise be exactly the same or very similar, e.g. M16A1 vs. AR 15?

In the context of what I'm saying; banned or illegal is the same. Meaning you are not allowed to just go get it because you want it, prostitutes, coke, or anything else.

Your still not getting what I'm saying. It doesn't matter about the assault gun itself. Whether it's a good gun, not a good gun, a military gun, or a civilian gun, costs too much or too little. The point is it is legally available in most places (I know it isn't in Connecticut), and so the result of that is, no matter anyone's opinion about the gun itself, as a legally available product all someone needs to buy one is the desire, the money, whatever restrictions like background checks etc., and that's it.

Has nothing to do with what I believe, or you believe, or anyone else believes, the point is despite all that, they are legally available.

If the context of bringing slavery into it you mean then that the assault rifles/weapons, should be banned, then I would say slavery and a rifle are vastly two different things and cannot be compared. A gun is not a human being. However your point seems to be that since society or other factors have changed, yes they have.

But how have they changed to where a ban would make a difference?

You are not taking into account that Connecticut has had a ban in place on these weapons for years, and yet it did nothing to deter or prevent the crime.

You are also not taking into account the fact that less than 2% of gun crime/deaths, are a result of assault weapons. Best math I can come up with and I'm not good at math, is that saves about 200 lives a year. Sounds good right. Makes one feel good. However, banning alcohol would save nearly 65 to 70 thousand lives a year. Seems to me if saving lives is what we want, then banning alcohol would be far more effective. Make that suggestion and watch the masses howl! "No no, ban something the other guy wants, I don't want to actually make a sacrifice myself..."

You are not taking into account that gun violence/deaths, are no where near the top of the list for public safety related deaths.

No I'm not claiming nothing can change, I am asserting that if one has a problem of some sort, making up claims that one is fixing it by doing something which has little or no impact upon that problem, is not fixing it at all and perhaps even more dangerous (like arresting the wrong person for a murder allowing the murderer go to free), one has allowed the open door so to speak of continuing it to keep on happening.

As I have said, but maybe in all this you didn't see it, I don't care about the assault guns. Whether their great guns, lousy guns, fun guns, or hard to shoot guns, or if they are good for this or that or not. I don't have one, I don't want one, I have no use for one.

What I do care about is not allowing the types of incidents which have prompted all this to happen be stopped or be prevented. And what I have said is; that pretending that an assault gun ban is going to fix the problem is not the solution. Worse, it will result in everyone feeling good as if the problem has been solved when the proposed ban will do nothing of the sort, and the problem will still be as bad or worse than it is now.

Unfortunately, there is no quick, simple, magic, or cheap solution to the problem anymore than arresting the first person you see for a murder they didn't commit solves a crime. And the news media has in effect, lead everyone down the path to believing there is a simple solution, priming most people to forget about it after a gun ban that won't work is put in place, so that they will all go away happy and feeling good, while the clock ticks until it happens again.

Well maybe you didn't put enough pointers in it so I knew it was tongue and cheek. Fred has been a bit cheeky laterly, but for an entirely different reason. I think those interested who have discussed this with me don't realize that the gun itself means nothing to me, legal or illegal/banned. What I am concerned about, just like most everyone else, is that some solution to the problem be found/worked on, rather than allow the politicians and news media to sweep it all under the carpet with an assault gun ban that won't work to resolve the problem. And I think that is really unconscionable.

So it depends on what you want done. Do you want to see the school attacks keep on happening? Or would you like to see them stop?

Depending on how you answer that question; do you want a simple, fast, and cheap or free solution? Or are you willing to commit to a solution which takes time to figure out and implement, costs money (taxes) that you might have to pony up, and means you yourself might have to actually do something?

That's kind of what it comes down to for this country to realize.

So yeah I didn't get you were joking, sorry about that.

[WhoDeyJon]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

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.

I've done that for numerous pages and in at least two threads, if not three now.

See Fred, if someone breaks into my house to harm my family, I want to be well prepared. Let's assume the bad guy has a weapon himself (and since he is a lawbreaker, he isn't going to say "awww shucks, I can't break into this house with a gun that holds less than 10 rounds, it's against the law." No Fred, he won't say that, even though you and all the other Libs in this world seem to think lawbreakers will some how magically begin to follow the law when a new gun law is passed. That guy could, and probably will be carrying something that carries numerous rounds and inflicts lots of damage (and No Fred, banning them will not stop a lawbreaking bad guy from getting them, tat is foolishness).

So now, I have the lawbreaking bad guy in my home trying to hurt me, and because of Libs like you in Washington, I have a 5 round magazine. If those 5 shots aren't perfect, I have to ask the lawbreaking bad guy for a timeout while I reload. "Hold on a second lawbreaking bad guy, I have to reload." Instead he keeps firing.

I could go on, but what point would it serve. The facts are that logic and facts don't work with libs. They don't understand that lawbreakers break the law. They don't understand that law abiding citizens don't break the law. They truly don't understand self-defense.

I feel like I am trying to explain to my kid why he has to pee in a toilet and not on the wall.

[WhoDeyJon]

Originally Posted by BengalsFan024

If you like blowing holes thru your wall and furniture sure i guess...

Shotgun might be most liked because it requires the least amount of aiming skill...

Hand Gun or an Axe is the way to go.

Or Assult Rifle if there is more than 1 guy in your house.

Fred thinks bad guys only break into houses individually and with squirt guns. Can't be having all that assault rifle stuff.

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by WhoDeyJon

I've done that for numerous pages and in at least two threads, if not three now.

See Fred, if someone breaks into my house to harm my family, I want to be well prepared. Let's assume the bad guy has a weapon himself (and since he is a lawbreaker, he isn't going to say "awww shucks, I can't break into this house with a gun that holds less than 10 rounds, it's against the law." No Fred, he won't say that, even though you and all the other Libs in this world seem to think lawbreakers will some how magically begin to follow the law when a new gun law is passed. That guy could, and probably will be carrying something that carries numerous rounds and inflicts lots of damage (and No Fred, banning them will not stop a lawbreaking bad guy from getting them, tat is foolishness).

So now, I have the lawbreaking bad guy in my home trying to hurt me, and because of Libs like you in Washington, I have a 5 round magazine. If those 5 shots aren't perfect, I have to ask the lawbreaking bad guy for a timeout while I reload. "Hold on a second lawbreaking bad guy, I have to reload." Instead he keeps firing.

I could go on, but what point would it serve. The facts are that logic and facts don't work with libs. They don't understand that lawbreakers break the law. They don't understand that law abiding citizens don't break the law. They truly don't understand self-defense.

I feel like I am trying to explain to my kid why he has to pee in a toilet and not on the wall.

I know much more about crime and criminal behavior than you do. I work with criminals every day. The idea that someone is going to sneak into your house in the middle of the night with an assault weapon is absurd. In fact burglars almost never enter houses when some one is at home.

Robbers who take homes by force use handguns. I dare you to find one example of a home invasion that involved an extended shootout with assault weapons.

[WhoDeyJon]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

I know much more about crime and criminal behavior than you do. I work with criminals every day. The idea that someone is going to sneak into your house in the middle of the night with an assault weapon is absurd. In fact burglars almost never enter houses when some one is at home.

Robbers who take homes by force use handguns. I dare you to find one example of a home invasion that involved an extended shootout with assault weapons.

That took all of 3 seconds. http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/...ckval=GooglePM

It is not absurd. Not even a little bit. I'll give you that burglars prefer to enter houses when someone is at home, but it still happens many times. Robbers use more than handguns, Fred, it's documented, and I have a family member that came face to face with a burglar in their home with an "assault weapon."

[WhoDeyJon]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

I know much more about crime and criminal behavior than you do. I work with criminals every day. The idea that someone is going to sneak into your house in the middle of the night with an assault weapon is absurd. In fact burglars almost never enter houses when some one is at home.

Robbers who take homes by force use handguns. I dare you to find one example of a home invasion that involved an extended shootout with assault weapons.

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/...ckval=GooglePM

15 people Fred.

"Time out guys! I have to reload!"

[WhoDeyJon]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

I know much more about crime and criminal behavior than you do. I work with criminals every day. The idea that someone is going to sneak into your house in the middle of the night with an assault weapon is absurd. In fact burglars almost never enter houses when some one is at home.

Robbers who take homes by force use handguns. I dare you to find one example of a home invasion that involved an extended shootout with assault weapons.

I guess this guy should have used a rubber band shooter made with a broken wood shake shingle and a clothes line clip.

http://gunowners.org/op0730.htm

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by WhoDeyJon

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/...ckval=GooglePM

15 people Fred.

"Time out guys! I have to reload!"

I believe that story must have been made up by the victims. I can't find any proof that it ever really happened. To anyone who deals with real crime (not the TV stuff) it is just unbelievable.

If it did happen it was gang related retaliation and not just a robbery of a regular citizen.

[WhoDeyJon]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

I believe that story must have been made up by the victims. I can't find any proof that it ever really happened. To anyone who deals with real crime (not the TV stuff) it is just unbelievable.

If it did happen it was gang related retaliation and not just a robbery of a regular citizen.

Sigh.

Good day sir.

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by WhoDeyJon

I guess this guy should have used a rubber band shooter made with a broken wood shake shingle and a clothes line clip.

http://gunowners.org/op0730.htm

This was not a home invasion, and has nothing to do with self defense. Just like I said, not a single one of these burglars had a loaded weapon.

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by WhoDeyJon

Sigh.

Good day sir.

So you are not even going to try and prove that it really happened?

[WhoDeyJon]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

This was not a home invasion, and has nothing to do with self defense. Just like I said, not a single one of these burglars had a loaded weapon.

I didn't say it was, it was just an example where a normal citizen needed t defend himself with something more than a stick.

[Sher Khan]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

I dare you to find one example of a home invasion that involved an extended shootout with assault weapons.

Bin Laden...

You didn't say where, and you didn't say by whom.

[SteelCitySouth]

Good god I would never want to be in the house when an AR-15 is discharged. My 40 is loud enough, has plenty of stopping power and is much more desirable in close quarters situation.

AR would be in my opinion better used to stop people from entering the house; however once they are inside a hand gun would be better.

[Sher Khan]

Originally Posted by SteelCitySouth

Good god I would never want to be in the house when an AR-15 is discharged. My 40 is loud enough, has plenty of stopping power and is much more desirable in close quarters situation.

AR would be in my opinion better used to stop people from entering the house; however once they are inside a hand gun would be better.

Well for an outside frontal assault, you'd want a couple M60's and some M18A1 Claymores. If you have prior knowledge, dig some punji stick entrapments close in about 20-30 yds out from the house.

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by WhoDeyJon

I didn't say it was, it was just an example where a normal citizen needed t defend himself with something more than a stick.

See this is the problem I always run into when I try to have logical, grown up conversations about this subject.

I suggest we outlaw high capacity magazines and the gun nut turns it into me wanting to outlaw all weapons other than sticks or rubber bands.

Not a single one of these criminals had a gun. So a machine gun was not necessary to stop them.