How do you feel about guns?

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

Ah, the slippery slope fear mongering.

I always love when they say it's a slippery slope. Lets me know to stop paying attention. There is a reason it is a logical fallacy.

[68Firebird]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

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.


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.


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?


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?


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!

Actually, this kind of led me into a counter point (just for thought).

No, people aren't using vehicles on a regular basis to run people over a high speeds. But, I do feel like there is the problem with the "You don't NEED" that stance in an argument. We have many many things in this world that we need, that perform to a level that we don't really "need".

The vehicles you brought up. A mustang that can go 165 mph. Speed limits are wayyyyy under that anywhere you go in the US. So, you don't NEED that. Same goes for every vehicle. Why don't we restrict all vehicles to only being able to go the speed limit? I would venture to guess that on a yearly basis more people are killed due to excessive speed over the legal limit than guns in this country - on just motorcycles alone, forget about the cars even. Why isn't anyone trying to limit the maximum speed of our vehicles?

That idea, to me, is silly. However, my point is not. The "You don't NEED that" is a slipper slope. And a point that, for me, can't hold any weight because the list of things we have we don't need is unlimited.

- Sick bastards use the internet to stalk, kill, rape, entrap people. We don't NEED the internet. Shut it down!

- FACT: During the war in Iraq, more US Marines were killed on US soil in motorcycle accidents than were killed IN IRAQ during the entire war. We don't NEED motorcycles. No more motorcycles!

See how silly that sounds? Where does it stop? And why do other people get to tell other people what they do or do not NEED? And when do we hold individuals responsible for their actions?

[SteelCitySouth]

Originally Posted by 68Firebird

The "You don't NEED that" is a slippery slope. And a point that, for me, can't hold any weight because the list of things we have we don't need is unlimited.

Slippery slope is a fallacious argument, that was wingnuts point and that is a logical error you seem to not understand. I am a gun proponent and I have no issue with large capacity mags; however using slippery slope as a defense is not logically sound.

[68Firebird]

Originally Posted by SteelCitySouth

Slippery slope is a fallacious argument, that was wingnuts point and that is a logical error you seem to not understand. I am a gun proponent and I have no issue with large capacity mags; however using slippery slope as a defense is not logically sound.

Slippery slope is an INFORMAL fallacy argument rather than a formal fallacy. Formal fallacy is where it fails to follow logic, rendering the argument invalid. Slippery slope arguments can be valid when supported by logical conclusions.

Slippery Slope, in this case, is appropriate because I am - on purpose - ignoring a possibility of the middle ground. Which is my entire point. Where does the "You don't need that" stop? To me, it cannot. Unintended consequences is the point of using slippery slope. Once one GROUP A begins to dictate what another GROUP B needs - I do not feel as though that cycle will ever be able to be stopped.

And, yeah, I stole some of that from Wikipedia.

[XenoMorph]

Originally Posted by 68Firebird

Slippery slope is an INFORMAL fallacy argument rather than a formal fallacy. Formal fallacy is where it fails to follow logic, rendering the argument invalid. Slippery slope arguments can be valid when supported by logical conclusions.

Slippery Slope, in this case is appropriate because I am - on purpose - ignoring a possibility of the middle ground. Which is my entire point. Where does the "You don't need that" stop? To me, it cannot. Unintended consequences is the point of using slippery slope. Once one GROUP A begins to dictate what another GROUP B needs - I do not feel as though that cycle will ever be able to be stopped.

And, yeah, I stole some of that from Wikipedia.

A poor comparison would be we the people would be slowly conceeding our rights like everyone slowly conceeded europe to the germans in WWII

[SteelCitySouth]

Originally Posted by 68Firebird

Slippery slope is an INFORMAL fallacy argument rather than a formal fallacy. Formal fallacy is where it fails to follow logic, rendering the argument invalid. Slippery slope arguments can be valid when supported by logical conclusions.

Slippery Slope, in this case is appropriate because I am - on purpose - ignoring a possibility of the middle ground. Which is my entire point. Where does the "You don't need that" stop? To me, it cannot. Unintended consequences is the point of using slippery slope. Once one GROUP A begins to dictate what another GROUP B needs - I do not feel as though that cycle will ever be able to be stopped.

And, yeah, I stole some of that from Wikipedia.

The issue lies with the fact that you believe that we as a nation take things to the extreme...Yes we have people on either side of the isle that believe and promote extreme ideas however the fact remains that this nation continues to favorer the middle ground. Talk happens for a short period of time and nothing dramatic ever happens. Why? Because as a people we do not like to live within the polar ends of any debate. It is not a logically sound conclusion because it is not some thing that happens.

Logic is predicated on the idea that you have to include all available data to come to that conclusion. Ignoring the middle ground, where our country continues to maintain its status is simply ignoring the largest factor in this debate, hence why your slippery slope argument becomes illogical.

The logical end game that we will all see is a bunch of saber rattling from either side, possibly a harsh bill proposed, it will get voted down, it will get revised and voted down and revised again until the bill is just a watered down version of what it began as that really changes nothing.

But for poops and giggles let’s assume the big bill gets through and they limit magazines to 10 rounds and let’s go even further to assume that they get the assault rifle ban back on. It will grandfather in the current supply as did the first ban and in no way will it in a “slippery slope” fashion begin the decent into an all out gun ban. That ship sailed many, many, many decades ago. This country will always have an armed populace.

[CKWI88]

I don't know what the answer is to these problems. But I know what the answer isn't: http://news.yahoo.com/nra-calls-arme...162851713.html

[Whatever]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

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

Just saying.

An AR-15 is classified as a sporting rifle, and is most commonly used as a target rifle. It is a target version of millitary weapons like the M-16 created for civilian use. Many things that we use in everyday life are adapted technology from millitary applications, from the Jeeps and Hummers out on the streets to the jet aircraft that shuttle us from city to city. Even the internet you're using now to read this began as a milltary application.

You could argue that the intented use of any firearm is to kill, although that is patently false, and then your argument would be a little more credible. However, you can't argue that limitations should be placed on items that you think people should be allowed to own to increase public safety without being willing to do so accross the board. After all, I can just as easily argue that the intended use of a vehicle that goes faster than the speed limit is to allow it's owner to break the laws of society put in place for our safety by exeeding the speed limit, and therefore is it is wrong for the US govenment to allow people to posses them. I can argue that from a far stronger position than you can, because I can show you plenty of data that proves that excess speed leads to traffic deaths and there is no empirical evidence that proves a corelation between assault rifle/high capacity magazine bans and a lower murder rate. You can't prove if having to reload more would have saved lives in Conneticut or not. When you're talking about laws that infringe on people's Constitutional rights, you should at least come with some data that indicates that doing so will make people safer. Otherwise, you're just throwing a solution at a wall and seeing if it sticks, without any good science or studies to show one way or another.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by Whatever

An AR-15 is classified as a sporting rifle, and is most commonly used as a target rifle. It is a target version of millitary weapons like the M-16 created for civilian use. Many things that we use in everyday life are adapted technology from millitary applications, from the Jeeps and Hummers out on the streets to the jet aircraft that shuttle us from city to city. Even the internet you're using now to read this began as a milltary application.

You could argue that the intented use of any firearm is to kill, although that is patently false, and then your argument would be a little more credible. However, you can't argue that limitations should be placed on items that you think people should be allowed to own to increase public safety without being willing to do so accross the board. After all, I can just as easily argue that the intended use of a vehicle that goes faster than the speed limit is to allow it's owner to break the laws of society put in place for our safety by exeeding the speed limit, and therefore is it is wrong for the US govenment to allow people to posses them. I can argue that from a far stronger position than you can, because I can show you plenty of data that proves that excess speed leads to traffic deaths and there is no empirical evidence that proves a corelation between assault rifle/high capacity magazine bans and a lower murder rate. You can't prove if having to reload more would have saved lives in Conneticut or not. When you're talking about laws that infringe on people's Constitutional rights, you should at least come with some data that indicates that doing so will make people safer. Otherwise, you're just throwing a solution at a wall and seeing if it sticks, without any good science or studies to show one way or another.

First, there is no infringement of constitutional rights involved, let's get that out now. The rights expressed in the Constitution are not without limits, as has been proven time and time again.

Now, is it illegal to drive 120 on the streets and highways in the US? Yes. Is it illegal on a track designed for it? No. Quite frankly, I couldn't care less if there were governors on vehicles intended for the road, wouldn't bother me one bit.

I want to go to this part in bold, though. The AR-15 is not a target rifle. If I take a standard AR-15, I can shoot a target, yes. But that weapon is still designed for combat. It is not a hunting rifle, it is not a target rifle, it is a combat rifle. Shooting sports associations can call it a modern sporting rifle all they like, it does not change what that weapon was designed for. Now, do we have many other military things adapted for civilian use? Yes. Are any of those, apart from the AR-15, designed to kill another human being directly? This argument has already been hashed out, and you decided to bring it up again. Fine. But realize that this part of your argument is wrong.

Anyway, I don't have to prove any of these things. I've said this before, my stance is not reactionary to anything. My stance is simply that a tool designed for an activity that is illegal for a civilian, should not be so readily available to civilians.

[Whatever]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

First, there is no infringement of constitutional rights involved, let's get that out now. The rights expressed in the Constitution are not without limits, as has been proven time and time again.

Now, is it illegal to drive 120 on the streets and highways in the US? Yes. Is it illegal on a track designed for it? No. Quite frankly, I couldn't care less if there were governors on vehicles intended for the road, wouldn't bother me one bit.

I want to go to this part in bold, though. The AR-15 is not a target rifle. If I take a standard AR-15, I can shoot a target, yes. But that weapon is still designed for combat. It is not a hunting rifle, it is not a target rifle, it is a combat rifle. Shooting sports associations can call it a modern sporting rifle all they like, it does not change what that weapon was designed for. Now, do we have many other military things adapted for civilian use? Yes. Are any of those, apart from the AR-15, designed to kill another human being directly? This argument has already been hashed out, and you decided to bring it up again. Fine. But realize that this part of your argument is wrong.

Anyway, I don't have to prove any of these things. I've said this before, my stance is not reactionary to anything. My stance is simply that a tool designed for an activity that is illegal for a civilian, should not be so readily available to civilians.

The AR-15 is not designed for combat. It it were, then it would be a standard issue weapon for armed forces, which it is not. In your opinion, it's being based on a design that was originally made for combat use qualifies it as a weapon designed for combat, but your amateur expertise does not mean that it is a combat weapon. In what way are you more qualified to speak on that than the manufacturer's themselves? By your logic, we should not be able to even own lever action firearms, as they were originaly used in the American Civil War. Even muskets were at one point designed to be weapons of war.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by Whatever

The AR-15 is not designed for combat. It it were, then it would be a standard issue weapon for armed forces, which it is not. In your opinion, it's being based on a design that was originally made for combat use qualifies it as a weapon designed for combat, but your amateur expertise does not mean that it is a combat weapon. In what way are you more qualified to speak on that than the manufacturer's themselves? By your logic, we should not be able to even own lever action firearms, as they were originaly used in the American Civil War. Even muskets were at one point designed to be weapons of war.

The AR-15 was, and is designed for combat. The history of the weapon is such. It has already been explained in these discussions, I leave you to find the explanation as to why you are wrong. Long story short, M16 is the military designation for an AR-15.

As for your discussion of a particular action type designating a firearm as military, not so. Certain models, yes, but not the action themselves. There have been hunting rifles designed with those actions as well as military. Same for any action type, really. There are semi-automatic weapons with no combat intentions even though semi-automatic actions were designed, initially, for the military.

[Whatever]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

The AR-15 was, and is designed for combat. The history of the weapon is such. It has already been explained in these discussions, I leave you to find the explanation as to why you are wrong. Long story short, M16 is the military designation for an AR-15.

As for your discussion of a particular action type designating a firearm as military, not so. Certain models, yes, but not the action themselves. There have been hunting rifles designed with those actions as well as military. Same for any action type, really. There are semi-automatic weapons with no combat intentions even though semi-automatic actions were designed, initially, for the military.

AR-15 was the previous designation for the old 5.56mm NATO ArmaLite weapon which was capable of fully automatic fire, which was purchased by Colt in 1959 and redesignated the M16 when the US Millitary picked the weapon up. Colt, having already purchased the AR-15 trademark, chose that name for the .223 Remington semi-automatic sporting rifle version. While they visually look the same, the AR-15 cannot fire the 5.56mm NATO round chambered for the M16[although the M16 can fire .223 Remington]. They are also not the same internally. The hammer, trigger mechanism, bolt carrier,and lower receiver are all different. The actions are not interchangable between the two. They are not the same gun.

The AR-15 was not designed as a combat weapon, and no argument can be made that it is because Colt created their own action for it, and as such are free to designate it as intended for whatever purpose they deem fit for it. It is a sporting rifle that was made to visually resemble the M16 in order to increase sales to millitary buffs. It does not achieve the same muzzle velocity as an M16 and it does not have the cyclic rate of an M16.

[Sher Khan]

Having a cop in every school may seem distasteful but it does provide security on the premise, and would have a direct impact on incidents like Columbine or Sandy Hook. A ban on assault guns and clip rounds will not have an effect. Given the choice between doing something that has an impact and doing something that doesn't I would have to come down on the side of having an impact. As unfortunate as it might be to admit we need a cop in every school, it is the kids that have to be considered. Not feel good photo ops for politicians.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by Whatever

An AR-15 is classified as a sporting rifle, and is most commonly used as a target rifle. It is a target version of millitary weapons like the M-16 created for civilian use.

Now see what you did to poor Jesus? Hope you're happy.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by Whatever

AR-15 was the previous designation for the old 5.56mm NATO ArmaLite weapon which was capable of fully automatic fire, which was purchased by Colt in 1959 and redesignated the M16 when the US Millitary picked the weapon up. Colt, having already purchased the AR-15 trademark, chose that name for the .223 Remington semi-automatic sporting rifle version. While they visually look the same, the AR-15 cannot fire the 5.56mm NATO round chambered for the M16[although the M16 can fire .223 Remington]. They are also not the same internally. The hammer, trigger mechanism, bolt carrier,and lower receiver are all different. The actions are not interchangable between the two. They are not the same gun.

The AR-15 was not designed as a combat weapon, and no argument can be made that it is because Colt created their own action for it, and as such are free to designate it as intended for whatever purpose they deem fit for it. It is a sporting rifle that was made to visually resemble the M16 in order to increase sales to millitary buffs. It does not achieve the same muzzle velocity as an M16 and it does not have the cyclic rate of an M16.

No argument can be made except for history. I've googled "history of the ar 15" for you and you can read page after page of how Eugene Stoner developed the AR 15 for the US Army designed for soldiers to hunt and kill other soldiers. If it is a hunting rifle, it is meant to hunt humans.

http://www.google.com/search?source=....1.9O5X8d4rjF4

As I've previously explained, you can fire military 5.56 rounds with a AR 15 chambered for .223 civilian rounds.

Originally Posted by Wingnut

AR 15 is a registered trademark.

M16 is the Army designation for an AR 15 built to the Army's specs.

They do have differences, but they are essentially the same weapon based upon the same design by Eugene Stoner intended for soldiers to kill the enemy.

You can fire military 5.56 rounds with an AR 15 although it isn't recommended because of pressure difference in the chamber due to minute differences in the thickness of the casing and the length of the throat.

http://www.humanevents.com/2011/02/1...ould-hurt-you/

An excerpt from the link...

In Technical Note #74 from ArmaLite, the company states “millions of rounds of NATO ammunition have been fired safely in Eagle Arms and ArmaLite’s® SAAMI chambers over the past 22 years,” and they have not had any catastrophic failures.

Currently commercial AR 15s are available in a variety of chambers for civilian purchase including 5.56. Just look at Colt's own magazine.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by Whatever

The AR-15 is not designed for combat. It it were, then it would be a standard issue weapon for armed forces, which it is not. In your opinion, it's being based on a design that was originally made for combat use qualifies it as a weapon designed for combat, but your amateur expertise does not mean that it is a combat weapon. In what way are you more qualified to speak on that than the manufacturer's themselves? By your logic, we should not be able to even own lever action firearms, as they were originaly used in the American Civil War. Even muskets were at one point designed to be weapons of war.

By your logic I should be able to own a M240B for hunting and target practice.

And there is no empirical data that shows just by legally owning a M240B will it increase the murder rate.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by 68Firebird

Actually, this kind of led me into a counter point (just for thought).

No, people aren't using vehicles on a regular basis to run people over a high speeds. But, I do feel like there is the problem with the "You don't NEED" that stance in an argument. We have many many things in this world that we need, that perform to a level that we don't really "need".

The vehicles you brought up. A mustang that can go 165 mph. Speed limits are wayyyyy under that anywhere you go in the US. So, you don't NEED that. Same goes for every vehicle. Why don't we restrict all vehicles to only being able to go the speed limit? I would venture to guess that on a yearly basis more people are killed due to excessive speed over the legal limit than guns in this country - on just motorcycles alone, forget about the cars even. Why isn't anyone trying to limit the maximum speed of our vehicles?

That idea, to me, is silly. However, my point is not. The "You don't NEED that" is a slipper slope. And a point that, for me, can't hold any weight because the list of things we have we don't need is unlimited.

- Sick bastards use the internet to stalk, kill, rape, entrap people. We don't NEED the internet. Shut it down!

- FACT: During the war in Iraq, more US Marines were killed on US soil in motorcycle accidents than were killed IN IRAQ during the entire war. We don't NEED motorcycles. No more motorcycles!

See how silly that sounds? Where does it stop? And why do other people get to tell other people what they do or do not NEED? And when do we hold individuals responsible for their actions?

I"ve suggested tighter restrictions along the lines of a Class 3 license to own assault rifles and high capacity magazines along with their more stringent vetting process of the owner prior to purchase.

I suggest you frame your argument around that, rather than around automobiles which is a red herring brought up by someone other than myself.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by 68Firebird

Slippery slope is an INFORMAL fallacy argument rather than a formal fallacy. Formal fallacy is where it fails to follow logic, rendering the argument invalid. Slippery slope arguments can be valid when supported by logical conclusions.

Slippery Slope, in this case, is appropriate because I am - on purpose - ignoring a possibility of the middle ground. Which is my entire point. Where does the "You don't need that" stop? To me, it cannot. Unintended consequences is the point of using slippery slope. Once one GROUP A begins to dictate what another GROUP B needs - I do not feel as though that cycle will ever be able to be stopped.

And, yeah, I stole some of that from Wikipedia.

Can you go out a purchase a M240B?

Obviously there is a point at which the slippery slope stops.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by BengalsFan024

A poor comparison would be we the people would be slowly conceeding our rights like everyone slowly conceeded europe to the germans in WWII

You're right.

That would be a poor comparison.

[Wingnut]

Originally Posted by Whatever

I can argue that from a far stronger position than you can, because I can show you plenty of data that proves that excess speed leads to traffic deaths and there is no empirical evidence that proves a corelation between assault rifle/high capacity magazine bans and a lower murder rate.

However, there is a correlation between lethality and assault rifles and high capacity magazines. At least there is according to the manufacturer's who sell them to the military. That's why the military buys them. Because they have the maximum amount of lethality at the right price point for mass production. Thus the term, "more bang for your buck." Look it up.

Guns are designed to be lethal.

Sports cars are designed to get you laid.

[SteelCitySouth]

Originally Posted by Whatever

AR-15 was the previous designation for the old 5.56mm NATO ArmaLite weapon which was capable of fully automatic fire, which was purchased by Colt in 1959 and redesignated the M16 when the US Millitary picked the weapon up. Colt, having already purchased the AR-15 trademark, chose that name for the .223 Remington semi-automatic sporting rifle version. While they visually look the same, the AR-15 cannot fire the 5.56mm NATO round chambered for the M16[although the M16 can fire .223 Remington]. They are also not the same internally. The hammer, trigger mechanism, bolt carrier,and lower receiver are all different. The actions are not interchangable between the two. They are not the same gun.

The AR-15 was not designed as a combat weapon, and no argument can be made that it is because Colt created their own action for it, and as such are free to designate it as intended for whatever purpose they deem fit for it. It is a sporting rifle that was made to visually resemble the M16 in order to increase sales to millitary buffs. It does not achieve the same muzzle velocity as an M16 and it does not have the cyclic rate of an M16.

Lol...not more than a month ago my friend and I sited in his ar-15 using tuhe 5.56 NATO round...,

[68Firebird]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

I"ve suggested tighter restrictions along the lines of a Class 3 license to own assault rifles and high capacity magazines along with their more stringent vetting process of the owner prior to purchase.

I suggest you frame your argument around that, rather than around automobiles which is a red herring brought up by someone other than myself.

It's not a red herring. What is the point of gun control? To save lives, right? That's the big deal. LIVES WILL BE SAVED IF WE MAKE SOMETHING ILLEGAL OR HARD TO GET.

THAT, my friend, is the red herring. We, as a society, need to focus on human behaviors, not inadimant objects.

Which brings me to why I brought up cars and the internet. If your goal by limiting fire arm equipment is to save lives, why start with that? It represents such a teeny tiny sliver of pie. Why not start with something that, when used outside the legal limit, is the cause of more lost life, injury and harm?

- You would save more lives per year (and certainly more injury) by championing speed limiters on cars. And then, after you do that, you can start telling restaurants what types of food they have to serve on their menus. Obesity, after all, kills way more people than guns in the US per year.

My point is, why do YOU get to tell ME what I can and can't have and at what point do you have to stop doing so? And, better yet... when do I get to tell YOU what you can and can't have?

And, yes, making class 3 restrictions would essentially take away the general public's ability to have these things.

Again, our country has a behavior problem. Why is no one wanting to fix that? The pendulum on how we deal with the mentally has swung too far the other direction. Before proper medicine, science, and study had been developed our country used to take our mentally ill and institutionalize them. It was cruel and ineffective. Now, our mentally ill have almost no regulation with very little government funding and are left to fend for their own, just like a normal minded citizen. THIS is our problem. Not extended magazines for guns. This guy attacked kindergartners. Even with 5 round magazines he could have pulled off the same results.

Originally Posted by Wingnut

Can you go out a purchase a M240B?

Obviously there is a point at which the slippery slope stops.

This is where you are going to an extreme to make some sort of point, but I fail to see it. I also can't legally own rocket propelled grenades and a launcher. I also can't own land mines, I also can't own a Humvee with a full auto 50 cal on top, I also can't own a fully armed F-18 fighter jet. Or an operational atomic bomb. And on and on and on.

The slide down a slope won't stop. Look at when income taxes were introduced. The GOV is still working hard to take as much money as they can from citizens and have written themselves laws to allow them to essentially do take whatever they want whenever they want. It just takes time for creep to happen. My worry is that once a door is breached, it will not be shut, particularly since this deals with our Constitutional Rights. It's how people gain control over one another.

[68Firebird]

Originally Posted by Wingnut

However, there is a correlation between lethality and assault rifles and high capacity magazines. At least there is according to the manufacturer's who sell them to the military. That's why the military buys them. Because they have the maximum amount of lethality at the right price point for mass production. Thus the term, "more bang for your buck." Look it up.

Guns are designed to be lethal.

Sports cars are designed to get you laid.

I'm sorry, but abuse is abuse. The purpose of a gun is inconsequential to me, same thing with an automobile. The end result is that when used unsafely there is an increased chance of loss of life or serious injury.

More people are killed and injured annually by abusing speeding laws than abusing guns. If the end result is saving lives, why is no one demanding speed limiters on cars before limiting guns?

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by 68Firebird

I'm sorry, but abuse is abuse. The purpose of a gun is inconsequential to me, same thing with an automobile. The end result is that when used unsafely there is an increased chance of loss of life or serious injury.

More people are killed and injured annually by abusing speeding laws than abusing guns. If the end result is saving lives, why is no one demanding speed limiters on cars before limiting guns?

The purpose may be inconsequential to you, but it is a major factor in the argument.

An automobile used safely, as intended, harms no one. A combat weapon used safely, as intended, kills humans.

[Frenchman]

I am against them as despite the men in my family owning them. In particular my brother in law and three sons that have over thirty guns. As really it makes me cringe to look at a toy gun.
As it is not really the guns themselves but the people using guns for safety or foolish games we have to look and watch out for.
As really guns have scared me since I was 10-years old! Just really they freak me out. As wished that my family of males did not own a single one. But I can't at all change their minds. So I am in the rare minority in my family in that area.