How do you feel about guns?

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by WhoDeyJon

They don't do bad things because they do bad things. They do bad things because they were born that way.

Have you ever lied? Stole? Etc....

I have. Doesn't make me a killer. Unless you want to include that time in Iraq.

But, I've been told by Christian chaplains the good Lord gives out exemptions for that. Sergeat York will explain it to you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W87k64HU9gE

Funny the religious leaders of non-Christian countries tell their soldiers the same thing.

It's funny how we justify things to ourselves.

[Ben zoo 2]

On a lighter note, I think guns are like women. Stick your finger in then do the come here motion.

Deep thoughts.

Maybe.















Maybe not.

[XenoMorph]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

That doesn't answer my question. How does this drive up ratings?

And I have not seen a single story in the major media about video games causing this shooting. I know there are all types of articles out there with all sorts of theories, but the main media sources are not blaming video games at all.

new story i was watching was talking about The guy played call of duty and they are looking into the issue. so they will try to find a way

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by WhoDeyJon

If a person only owned the guns you want banned, then you are violating their 2nd amendment freedom. (I think even if they own those you don't want banned you are still violating their freedom, but for the sake of argument let's roll with the first.)

This website's code of conduct restricts what you can and cannot write on this website. Is your First Amendment right being violated? According to your logic it is. Yet, I haven't heard a peep out of you in protest. But, you've squalled like a long tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs at the suggestion you can't have a 10 round magazine for your .22 plinking rifle.

[SteelCitySouth]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

This website's code of conduct restricts what you can and cannot write on this website. Is your First Amendment right being violated? According to your logic it is. Yet, I haven't heard a peep out of you in protest. But, you've squalled like a long tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs at the suggestion you can't have a 10 round magazine for your .22 plinking rifle.

Government banning the ownership of guns can be argued as a violation of the constitution.

Private company restricting speech within its property can not.

[Sher Khan]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

This website's code of conduct restricts what you can and cannot write on this website. Is your First Amendment right being violated? According to your logic it is. Yet, I haven't heard a peep out of you in protest. But, you've squalled like a long tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs at the suggestion you can't have a 10 round magazine for your .22 plinking rifle.

First Amendment rights don't apply to a privately owned websites, clubs, businesses, and so forth.

[Sher Khan]

Originally Posted by BengalsFan024

new story i was watching was talking about The guy played call of duty and they are looking into the issue. so they will try to find a way

What'd I tell you... They already tried the bully discussion, and it fell flat. Turns out he was always under some adult supervision. They haven't come out with Daddy poking him in the cheeks with pins yet.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by SteelCitySouth

Government banning the ownership of guns can be argued as a violation of the constitution.

Private company restricting speech within its property can not.

There is a difference between restricting which guns can be purchased and not allowing a person to purchase a gun at all.

WhoDeyJon is restricted from purchasing a M240B, that doesn't mean he is banned from all gun purchases.

Which illustrates my previous point his rights aren't unlimited.

Originally Posted by Sher Khan

First Amendment rights don't apply to a privately owned websites, clubs, businesses, and so forth.

I know. His rights aren't unlimited which is exactly my point. Just using another example. See below...

Originally Posted by WhoDeyJon

Well, that's 2 different things. I disagree with both. If you took them away from someone, it is clear you are infringing. The 2nd amendment doesn't state that you can only own certain types of guns. The moment they were taken, you have infringed upon their right to own THAT gun.

Banning them going forward, does the same thing.

If the 2nd amendment said "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, except for XYZ guns" then I would say you have a case to be made. But it doesn't.

Originally Posted by Wingnut

Just because you have a constitutional right doesn't mean that right is unlimited.

Does the First Amendment specifically say you can't yell "Fire!" in a theater? Does it say you can't yell "Bomb!" on an airplane? Does it say you can't engage in hate speech? No, it doesn't say any of that and yet it is illegal to do such things. Is your First Amendment right being infringed upon because you can't yell "Bomb!" on an airplane? No, it isn't.

Is a felon's Second Amendment right being infringed upon because he is no longer permitted to own a firearm? Is my Second Amendment right being infringed upon because I can't go out a buy a M240B because the current gun control laws prevent me from doing so because I don't have the proper license and haven't been through the vetting process to obtain the necessary license? No, my Second Amendment right to bear arms isn't being infringed upon because I can't buy a M240B.

I just don't understand the fanatical opposition to any sort of gun control law. As a law abiding citizen and gun owner, gun control laws will have zero affect on my ability to own guns legally. Stricter gun control laws regarding military assault rifles marketed for civilian purposes or other guns with high capacity firing ability will have zero affect on my ability for home defense or to hunt.

[SteelCitySouth]

Originally Posted by Sher Khan

What'd I tell you... They already tried the bully discussion, and it fell flat. Turns out he was always under some adult supervision. They haven't come out with Daddy poking him in the cheeks with pins yet.

Daddy really hasn't been a big part of his life for a while.

[Sher Khan]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

There is a difference between restricting which guns can be purchased and not allowing a person to purchase a gun at all.

WhoDeyJon is restricted from purchasing a M240B, that doesn't mean he is banned from all gun purchases.

Which illustrates my previous point his rights aren't unlimited.


I know. His rights aren't unlimited which is exactly my point. Just using another example. See below...

Yes, that's entirely correct. The government first regulated the manufacture and sale of guns in 1932, and has since then. It has the right (infact some would argue according to the Constitution, only the right, but that's another discussion), to regulate interstate commerce. And the 2008 SCOTUS decsion in DC vs Heller, left open for further court rulings the question on restrictions. They only ruled that you can't just ban all guns. They didn't say you can't restrict or regulate them.

Back to what I've said 15 times already, the State of Connecticut has had a ban in place on the possession of assault guns (rifles, since an assault gun is actualy something like the Stug III, Kampfwagon - see pic below), for many years. (Averting not much of anything it seems, certainly not this Sandy Hook incident). But Connecticut did that, and no one challenged it to the SCOTAS, nor would they have won if they did I would say.

A German Assault Gun from WWII, the Stug III, or Sturmgeschütz III.



Now, these Assault Guns are banned.

[Sher Khan]

Originally Posted by SteelCitySouth

Daddy really hasn't been a big part of his life for a while.

You never know what took place way back when he were a lil nipper, that left serious psychological damage and just might have caused all this to happen that weren't his fault...

[SteelCitySouth]

Originally Posted by Sher Khan

You never know what took place way back when he were a lil nipper, that left serious psychological damage and just might have caused all this to happen that weren't his fault...

Meh...Given the persons condition, I'm going with the mother's poor understanding of his issues, providing weapons training to a person diagnosed with emotional disassociation, and then allowing those weapons to be accessed without her presence.

Would this tragedy have been stopped completely if:

1. the mother had no weapons
2. the weapons were not readily accessible to him

Probably not, however I feel very confident that there would be many more children and adults that would have survived his wrath.

[Sher Khan]

Originally Posted by SteelCitySouth

Meh...Given the persons condition, I'm going with the mother's poor understanding of his issues, providing weapons training to a person diagnosed with emotional disassociation, and then allowing those weapons to be accessed without her presence.

Would this tragedy have been stopped completely if:

1. the mother had no weapons
2. the weapons were not readily accessible to him

Probably not, however I feel very confident that there would be many more children and adults that would have survived his wrath.

Probably would be my guess also. They'll all be a wanting them assault rifles when the Zombie Apocalypse comes... That's tomorrow right.

[SteelCitySouth]

Originally Posted by Sher Khan

Probably would be my guess also. They'll all be a wanting them assault rifles when the Zombie Apocalypse comes... That's tomorrow right.

From what I can tell Australia is already gone.

[Sher Khan]

Originally Posted by SteelCitySouth

From what I can tell Australia is already gone.

Oh man, I'm gonna miss Kendal Schuler...

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by Sher Khan

You stated that violent crime was on the rise,.

No I didn't.

It has been dropping dramatically since the early 90's. So anyone who tries to tie the drop in violent crime to the end of the assault weapon ban in 2005 is just spewing nonsense.

[Sher Khan]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

No I didn't.

It has been dropping dramatically since the early 90's. So anyone who tries to tie the drop in violent crime to the end of the assault weapon ban in 2005 is just spewing nonsense.

Misread that, you are correct it has been going down. For a long while now. I haven't heard of anyone who's making that connection particularly other than to say it doesn't account for the rise in gun sales. Why are sales rising? Hard to say, but obviously people don't feel safe for some reason.

But the media also can't link the rise in gun sales to a rising crime rate either.

[SteelCitySouth]

Originally Posted by Sher Khan

Why are sales rising?

12/21/2012.....

[XenoMorph]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

No I didn't.

It has been dropping dramatically since the early 90's. So anyone who tries to tie the drop in violent crime to the end of the assault weapon ban in 2005 is just spewing nonsense.

Not to the Assult Rifle Ban...

but the overall % of gun ownership....

If everyone has a gun how fast will you be to pick a fight?

[CKWI88]

Interesting article:

http://news.yahoo.com/smart-guns-sho...202657039.html

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by BengalsFan024

Not to the Assult Rifle Ban...

but the overall % of gun ownership....

If everyone has a gun how fast will you be to pick a fight?

But no one here is arguing against the number of guns out there, the argument is about a type of firearm that is so readily available.

So that statistic means nothing against these arguments.

Strawman, all over the place. Rabble rabble rabble.

[Whatever]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

You were talking about a 10 round magazine for your .22 and you were asked why you needed a 10 round magazine. Next time try to be more clear. Obviously you don't need a 10 round magazine for a plinking rifle, you just don't want to be bothered by working the bolt or lever action.

If you can load, shoot, and reload a single shot shotgun 20 times in less than 40 seconds it will meet your needs just fine. Plus you could always upgrade to a double barrel or a pump action. Like you stated you've seen people reload a shotgun in a manner of seconds. So there are plenty of tactical alternatives which eliminate your perceived need for a high capacity magazine.

I'm glad you have thick skin. That doesn't obviate your use of perjoratives to insult others. Was there a need for your insults? Do we want to open that can of worms?

A large part of the point of high cap magazines in target weapons is that many people enjoy working on tighter shot groupings when rapid firing, which difficult to near impossible with a break action weapon. Besides, if you're proposing teaching people to fire a single shot weapon 20 times in less than 40 seconds is reasonable with a little practice as an alternative to high cap magazines, then there shouldn't be any issue with high cap magazines at all, since a person can logically shoot that fast whether they have a single shot weapon or a 30 round clip.

If we're talking about banning high capacity magazines because we believe it will make the public safer[and mind you, there is no empirical data that proves this statement], then the US should also ban all motor vehicles that can go faster than the legal speed limit, so 70 mph or so. It is a proven fact that excessive speed is a contributer to many traffic accidents and there are far more traffic deaths each year than shooting deaths, so if you govern all cars, trucks, and motorcycles to 70 mph, the general public will be far safer.

There's the slippery slope with that logic. A person can argue just as easily that you don't need a 300 HP sports car as they can that you don't need a 10 round magazine for your .22. This is where the concept of a free country comes in. We are reasonably free to do what we want so long as it does not endanger the lives of others. An AR-15 assault rifle with a 30 round clip being used to shoot targets at the local gun range is no more of a risk to the safety of the public than a Ford Mustang with a 400+HP engine being driven within the legal speed limit. Both items give their owners pleasure, however, if used in a dangerous manner, death can follow.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by Whatever

A large part of the point of high cap magazines in target weapons is that many people enjoy working on tighter shot groupings when rapid firing, which difficult to near impossible with a break action weapon. Besides, if you're proposing teaching people to fire a single shot weapon 20 times in less than 40 seconds is reasonable with a little practice as an alternative to high cap magazines, then there shouldn't be any issue with high cap magazines at all, since a person can logically shoot that fast whether they have a single shot weapon or a 30 round clip.

If we're talking about banning high capacity magazines because we believe it will make the public safer[and mind you, there is no empirical data that proves this statement], then the US should also ban all motor vehicles that can go faster than the legal speed limit, so 70 mph or so. It is a proven fact that excessive speed is a contributer to many traffic accidents and there are far more traffic deaths each year than shooting deaths, so if you govern all cars, trucks, and motorcycles to 70 mph, the general public will be far safer.

There's the slippery slope with that logic. A person can argue just as easily that you don't need a 300 HP sports car as they can that you don't need a 10 round magazine for your .22. This is where the concept of a free country comes in. We are reasonably free to do what we want so long as it does not endanger the lives of others. An AR-15 assault rifle with a 30 round clip being used to shoot targets at the local gun range is no more of a risk to the safety of the public than a Ford Mustang with a 400+HP engine being driven within the legal speed limit. Both items give their owners pleasure, however, if used in a dangerous manner, death can follow.

But only one is intended to be used to kill another person.

Just saying.

[Helldog]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

But only one is intended to be used to kill another person.

Just saying.

If I had a dollar for every time you used the word intended in this thread, I could buy...

















an assault rifle.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by Whatever

A large part of the point of high cap magazines in target weapons is that many people enjoy working on tighter shot groupings when rapid firing, which difficult to near impossible with a break action weapon.

And yet Army snipers practice that using the M24 with a 10 round magazine during break contact drills. Although the emphasis is on taking well aimed shots, not rapid fire.

You can practice rapid fire with 8 or 10 round magazines to improve your shot groupings. The three rapid magazine changes which would be required to fire three 10 round magazines vs. one 30 round magazine should make it more challenging and enjoyable. Rapid magazine changes are a perishible skill which needs to be practiced to master. I've seen shooting competitions that included this skill as a measure of their proficiency.

Besides, if you're proposing teaching people to fire a single shot weapon 20 times in less than 40 seconds is reasonable with a little practice as an alternative to high cap magazines, then there shouldn't be any issue with high cap magazines at all, since a person can logically shoot that fast whether they have a single shot weapon or a 30 round clip.

I didn't propose that at all. I merely pointed out if he can load, fire, and reload a single shot shotgun 20 times in 40 seconds as he claimed that is actually faster than the sustained rate of fire with a M16 or M4 with a 30 round magazine which means his skill level obviates his perceived need for a high capacity magazine.

I also pointed out he could use a double barrel or pump action to decrease his time spent reloading. So he has other viable alternatives that also obviate his need for a high capacity magazine.

According to Guns&Ammo the top two reasons people cite for owning an assault rifle is for recreational shooting and home defense. You can accomplish each of those with a 10 round magazine. If your intent is home defense then you shouldn't be practicing rapid fire anyway. Your focus should be on well aimed shots and reflexive fire at close ranges that simulate the distances in your own home, typically less than 3m. If you can practice this safely in the dark, even better. More realistic. You should practice double tapping the target with no more than 2 round shot groups. I've fired thousand of rounds practicing and teaching CQB in tire houses and MOUT cities while in the Army and the crap I see people doing at ranges is stupid. Emptying a 30 round magazine as rapidly as you can to practice home defense is stupid.

If we're talking about banning high capacity magazines because we believe it will make the public safer[and mind you, there is no empirical data that proves this statement],

Using the term "empirical data" makes that statement sound super intelligent on the surface. However, in order to have empirical data you need a study. In order to have a study, you need an experiment to collect empirical data. Where would one get volunteers for this study to collect the empirical data on whether or not banning high capacity magazines decreases their chances of getting shot?

Kinda like pharmaceutical data in pregnant mothers and fetuses. Which pregnant mothers are going to volunteer for studies to collect empirical data on the effects of their unborn child? Which parent will volunteer their newborn for studies to collect empirical data on the effects of the newborn?

then the US should also ban all motor vehicles that can go faster than the legal speed limit, so 70 mph or so. It is a proven fact that excessive speed is a contributer to many traffic accidents and there are far more traffic deaths each year than shooting deaths, so if you govern all cars, trucks, and motorcycles to 70 mph, the general public will be far safer.

Do you understand the difference between an automobile accident and a violent crime commited with a gun as an intentional act?

When is the last time a home invasion was commited using an automobile as a weapon? When was the last time a bank or covenience store was robbed by threatening them with an automible? When was the last time someone was car jacked using an automobile as a weapon? When was the last time someone was raped or kidnapped while pointing an automobile to their head? When was the last time a criminal pulled an automobile from a concealed carry and robbed someone at an ATM at point grill range? Are soldiers issued automobiles as standard issue weapons or firearms? Do law enforcement agencies use firearms or automobiles to arm their officers? When was the last time you purchased an automobile for use as a weapon for self or home defense?

There's the slippery slope with that logic. A person can argue just as easily that you don't need a 300 HP sports car as they can that you don't need a 10 round magazine for your .22. This is where the concept of a free country comes in. We are reasonably free to do what we want so long as it does not endanger the lives of others. An AR-15 assault rifle with a 30 round clip being used to shoot targets at the local gun range is no more of a risk to the safety of the public than a Ford Mustang with a 400+HP engine being driven within the legal speed limit. Both items give their owners pleasure, however, if used in a dangerous manner, death can follow.

Ah, the slippery slope fear mongering.

Except criminals aren't using Ford Mustangs with a 400+HP engine to commit violent crimes. They might have an accident in one fleeing the scene of a crime, but the didn't use an automobile to commit the crime. Once the criminals start using automobiles as weapons then you have my permission to buy antitank weapons to defeat that threat to defend your family and home. I can even show you how to fire them remotely to engage a target using an explosive charge via both electrical and non-electrical firing devices should the need arise to fire more than one antitank weapon simultaneously for a volley fire when you have more shoulder fired antitank missiles than you have shoulders. Or maybe you would prefer a series of improvised platter charges? As a matter of fact, I love to go to the range and just blow crap up because it is so much fun. But, unfortunately the government restricts my ability to purchase and use explosives for my own personal enjoyment. Can you believe that BS in a free country? Talk about your slippery slope!