Trump's Final 100 days

Quote: Steverinos

I admitted ignorance because it’s irrelevant.

Is this the left's new slogan?

Quote: RogerKint

Is this the left's new slogan?

No. One guys comment does not make a slogan for an entire political spectrum

Reaching arent you?

Quote: darkoz

No. One guys comment does not make a slogan for an entire political spectrum

Reaching arent you?

Put it in yer book :D

Quote: Face

This is why I'm so bleeding pedantic all the time. I should just listen to that voice telling me to go for a walk...

This is for those ramping up opposition, especially those who repeatedly clamor "AR-15" and "Not trying to ban all guns".

You "just" want the AR-15 gone. I've no reason to not believe you, and I've no reason to assume you don't believe yourself. But I have no faith you know what an AR-15 is. You can't, or else you wouldn't make this statement. What an AR-15 is is a semi automatic, small caliber rifle with a removable magazine. The thing is, MOST rifles are semi automatic, small caliber with removable magazines.

So, you have a choice. You can ban the AR-15 specifically, and leave hundreds of thousands of rifles on the shelves that look, smell, taste, feel, and do the exact same thing as Armalite's brand, or you can ban ALL rifles that share an AR's features. Rifles that share AR's feature, in US private collections, number in the millions.

Help me, here. You CANNOT ban "just" the AR-15 and expect any single change whatsoever (unless you're trying to buy Armalite stock on the cheap), and you CANNOT ban all guns like it without banning "all guns", since a large majority, and I do mean majority, are all semi automatic with detachable mags.

If you can't help me here, can you at least see why your opposition is always charging you with wanting to ban all guns? I mean, most of you anti's here are pretty reasonable. When you say you're "not trying to" take or ban or restrict ALL guns, I totally believe you. But... I dunno if it's just the lack of familiarity or what, but what you're asking for can only be done by doing what you're saying you're not asking for.

As an aside, if any gun, from a .22sr to a .50BMG was ever tested and found NOT to be lethal, fatal, dangerous, it wouldn't exist. No one would sell it, as that's kind of the point. And an aside to the aside, my "machine gun" / "assault rifle" / "AR" is, I think, the ONE firearm I bought WITHOUT the intention of using it to take life.

This last I included just for the giggles. I dunno, it strikes me as humorous =)

I really appreciate the post. I was not aware of this info

Which leaves us in a quandary. Access to assault rifles we already have. School shootings and other mass killing using them we already have. So having them legal isnt stopping these atrocities and seems to be adding them

You want to protect your 2a rights but those rights are not guaranteed. Its already been determined in thr courts that 2a does not guarantee assault rifles.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/02/22/does-the-second-amendment-really-protect-assault-weapons-four-courts-have-said-no/

So this isnt a 2a argument. This is simply i want my guns regardless of my rights

I actually laughed out loud at "I admitted ignorance because it's irrelevant." That post deserves a "Thank You". Well done.

Quote: Paradigm

Steverinos isn't an isolated case and is in fact more closer to the norm of those fighting for "sensible gun laws"...how can someone be simultaneously ignorant on the subject matter yet have anything intelligent to add on a sensible solution? Do you see the problem here?

The same problem happens when you have gun control politicians interchanging the terms automatic weapons with semi-automatic weapons when discussing gun control. At least get a mastery of the subject matter before forming an intelligent decision...even though it is harder and requires work, it is the least you can do.

BBB, I clicked your and Steves links, I believe both polls didn't ask/frame the question in a manner that aligns with the question "are you for or against an outright ban on all semi-automatic firearms...here are examples of semi-automatic firearms, do you agree with banning all of these?" But forget it, let's just agree to disagree on the polls.

I believe that Face and many other Americans would consider a ban on all semi-automatic firearms to be unconstitutional. If that law were passed and the authorities tried to round up the hundreds of millions of semi-automatic firearms that are suddenly "illegal", it would get really ugly. And if you don't round them up, there will be hundreds of millions of these outlawed guns floating around and the "ban" wouldn't accomplish much. This isn't the path forward on this issue.

Not.sure what argument you can make for unconstitutionality. Civilians can't legally own all kinds of firearms already. BANNING all firearms, yeah, I can see that argument. That would take a repeal or another amendment.

Defining the equipment, that would be up to regulators and legislators, aso it ia now. The strictest interpretation of the 2nd would be that the citizenry only has the right to bear the arms in existence when it was written (muzzle loader/breech loader). Anything developed since then, gun people are making an assumption that the language and the intent of the 2nd would be the same.

Few things in the Constitution are vulnerable to technological advances. This is. You can't argue that the Founding Fathers envisioned firearms that could mow down 100 people a minute. Or that citizens would mow down American children and bystanders with the class of gun they couldn't foresee.

The intent of providing for an armed citizenry (militia) was to repel invading forces or tyrannical troops. That would not be infringed by losing access to this type of gun. The militia might lose more readily, but they were always going to lose such a battle, ever since nuclear war was invented, let alone tanks, grenades, automatic weapons, RPGs, bazookas, smart missiles, stuff I've never heard of and they don't talk about, but all or almost all is illegal for private citizens to own or buy.

Quote: Steverinos

You seem to know your stuff. I, admittedly, do not inherently know anything about guns. I grew up in Alaska, but I went fishing, I didn't go hunting. So I'm ignorant on the subject which is why I'm trying to absorb as much info as I can.

Then use me. There's nothing I want more than to educate. I don't even care if it makes you more anti. I can handle opinions based on FACT. And you can be sure there's no shortage of anti's to challenge whatever I say if I start getting suggestive and/or opinionated. Let's chat.

I only skimmed your article. Seems the gist is the AR-15 is designed to be as deadly as possible. I thought I saw (or maybe it was a diff link you offered) that it compared it to rounds like the 9mm and showed the stark difference.

If that is indeed the gist, then no argument from me. I don't know how else to continue that conversation than by repeating "That's the point". Any weapon, every weapon, is designed to best and most quickly and efficiently kill whatever it's used against. A bitty .22lr isn't devastating to us, if only due to relative size, but it's still designed in every way to do as very much damage as it can while inside.

Perhaps I can better explain like this...



This here is the Ruger Mini 14. It's a varmint rifle chambered in .223, used for small game and pests like prairie dogs, woodchucks, stuff like that. Lil bastards that dig holes in the pastures and snap cow's legs. You know what the difference is between this and any of the "AR's" used in all these shootings?

Nothing.

It's the exact same rifle, if looking purely from a performance aspect. Shoots the same round at the same muzzle velocity with the same energy at the same distance. Holds the same amount of ammo and fires them off exactly as fast. The ONLY performance difference is the modern version with its plastic composite body weighs about 8oz less. That's it.

The .223 isn't even a "big" gun! Your AK friends are right, especially up there. It's too small for AK level critters, and although completely doable, I likewise don't condone using them on animals even whitetail size. It's a plinking gun. That in no way means it's, like, not good on people or anything. It, like everything else, WAS designed for warfare. But is also WAS created because the really good round, the .308, is too punishing for select fire and full auto apps. It's a compromise round, and if you search for it, you'll find reports aplenty that it lacks the power to stop a target.

We starting to find each other now? I can't look at it as "They let civs have Army guns!" because I know it's just cosmetic. I hope at least it can shed some light on why we might seem so unsympathetic, or why we seem to be charging you with something you don't claim to be doing.

Quote: beachbumbabs

...And all.it does is place a gun where it is not now located, in proximity of children who are not mature enough to handle that proximity. Some of whom are much larger or stronger than the teacher (something around 70% of high school and lower teachers are women), who did not sign up to be an armed guard, and would be devastated to be either :

So is it like impossible to have it in a locked case?

Quote: Face

Then use me. There's nothing I want more than to educate. I don't even care if it makes you more anti. I can handle opinions based on FACT. And you can be sure there's no shortage of anti's to challenge whatever I say if I start getting suggestive and/or opinionated. Let's chat.

I only skimmed your article. Seems the gist is the AR-15 is designed to be as deadly as possible. I thought I saw (or maybe it was a diff link you offered) that it compared it to rounds like the 9mm and showed the stark difference.

If that is indeed the gist, then no argument from me. I don't know how else to continue that conversation than by repeating "That's the point". Any weapon, every weapon, is designed to best and most quickly and efficiently kill whatever it's used against. A bitty .22lr isn't devastating to us, if only due to relative size, but it's still designed in every way to do as very much damage as it can while inside.

Perhaps I can better explain like this...



This here is the Ruger Mini 14. It's a varmint rifle chambered in .223, used for small game and pests like prairie dogs, woodchucks, stuff like that. Lil bastards that dig holes in the pastures and snap cow's legs. You know what the difference is between this and any of the "AR's" used in all these shootings?

Nothing.

It's the exact same rifle, if looking purely from a performance aspect. Shoots the same round at the same muzzle velocity with the same energy at the same distance. Holds the same amount of ammo and fires them off exactly as fast. The ONLY performance difference is the modern version with its plastic composite body weighs about 8oz less. That's it.

The .223 isn't even a "big" gun! Your AK friends are right, especially up there. It's too small for AK level critters, and although completely doable, I likewise don't condone using them on animals even whitetail size. It's a plinking gun. That in no way means it's, like, not good on people or anything. It, like everything else, WAS designed for warfare. But is also WAS created because the really good round, the .308, is too punishing for select fire and full auto apps. It's a compromise round, and if you search for it, you'll find reports aplenty that it lacks the power to stop a target.

We starting to find each other now? I can't look at it as "They let civs have Army guns!" because I know it's just cosmetic. I hope at least it can shed some light on why we might seem so unsympathetic, or why we seem to be charging you with something you don't claim to be doing.

Again, I’m not really in favor of banning anything, and you know guns better tell me if there is a piece to this I am not understanding. I still do not see how it’s accurate to say that there’s no difference between AR or assault style rifles, and other semi-automatic weapons like the Ruger Mini.

To clear up any uncertainty about terminology, by assault style I mean a Semi-Automatic rifle of any caliber, with a pistol grip and 20/30+1 capacity.

That Ruger Mini 14 is 10+1 max and has no pistol grip. Less capacity, less control, and less mobility than something like an AR-556.

So in a super hypothetical situation, you are tasked with accurately hitting 25 moving targets as quickly as possible. You are given the choice between a Ruger Mini 14, AR-556, a 9mm pistol, or a semi-auto shotgun. What is the best tool for the job?

Quote: RS

..f/when these "assault" rifles are banned, the hippies are going to look at the data (or more likely, skew it in their favor, as usual, but that's another point). Let's assume the data they look at is accurate. It's either going to be, "Wow, this works! Too bad there are still shootings. Well, since banning these big bad scary AR-15's worked, maybe if we ban these other guns, it'll decrease the number of shootings!" OR it'll be, "Wow, this isn't really working. Well, people are just using other guns. Well the solution is simple -- just ban these other guns, too!"

Nobody got shot at Woodstock, lol

Quote:

Why don't we actually look at the damn problem? Even if we banned all guns, God forbid, the problem of people wanting to go to schools, churches, concerts, etc. and shoot people up would still be there. Don't pawn it off as a "gun problem". If you really believe that, then logic would suggest there'd be WAY MORE mass shootings than currently exist. I don't know how many people own how many or what kind of guns, but I'm pretty sure Paddock, Cruz, etc. aren't the only guys who own these guns....not by a long shot. #PunNotIntended

In Rwanda the murders between the Hutu's and Tutsi's has passed the 4 million mark, most of them committed by machete.

Quote: Face

If you search for it, you'll find reports aplenty that it lacks the power to stop a target.

That was a key reason for so much criticism of the M-16 when the Army was changing from the M-14 after Tet.

Quote: Steverinos

The relatively new gang violence in the big city is being carried out with pistols.

OK BBB, specifically what would you see as the appropriate new gun ban criteria...the specifics matter, let’s see how you do. That goes for anyone, I listed the gun restriction measures I thought could work/get passed by Congress in detail...there is a lot of hammering for bans on some types of guns...use specifics, don’t use undefined terms like “assault weapons” or AR-15’s (that is one model of gun). You’re a Congressman or Senator, what does a banned gun have/do that an unbanned gun doesn’t?

If you define guns by their specs, I don't see much sense excluding ones with the same specs.

If two guns can kill at the same distance, why would you define the restrictions differently in the first place? There may be enough other individual differences to ban one, and not the other though.

In order not to get overwhelmed with the task with so many guns, you really have to have to have a grandfather clause. This creates an imperfect solution because the ones grandfathered would still be out there. But at least it is beginning, such as what probably happened when automatic weapons bans hadn't affected their numbers much at first.

If FACE can tell us which 3 common guns he'd least likely want to see if he was sitting in a classroom unarmed when a mad killer burst in going to try to kill him and all the people in the room, we can begin get an idea of the specifications we are looking for.

If it turns out the worst gun is also the preferred hunting rifle, then we have to focus on why hunting rifles would be designed to hold large clips, and other things mass killers find useful but can't be justified for hunting.

Quote: rxwine

If you define guns by their specs, I don't see much sense excluding ones with the same specs.

If two guns can kill at the same distance, why would you define the restrictions differently in the first place? There may be enough other individual differences to ban one, and not the other though.

In order not to get overwhelmed with the task with so many guns, you really have to have to have a grandfather clause. This creates an imperfect solution because the ones grandfathered would still be out there. But at least it is beginning, such as what probably happened when automatic weapons bans hadn't affected their numbers much at first.

If FACE can tell us which 3 common guns he'd least likely want to see if he was sitting in a classroom unarmed when a mad killer burst in going to try to kill him and all the people in the room, we can begin get an idea of the specifications we are looking for.

If it turns out the worst gun is also the preferred hunting rifle, then we have to focus on why hunting rifles would be designed to hold large clips, and other things mass killers find useful but can't be justified for hunting.

In other words: You don’t even know what you want banned/restricted/etc.

Face could probably write for days and days about guns. But it doesn’t matter if you don’t even know what you’re asking for. Do you want fully automatic guns banned (or some kind of restriction)? Semi-automatic? Only semi-auto rifles and not pistols? Magazines that can hold X+ bullets? Guns that can be shot accurately over a long distance? How far? Anything over a certain caliber? Guns under a certain size (that can be concealed very easily)? Guns with a certain amount of “killing power” (lol)?

Right now it seems like you (general you) are asking for “these big scary guns” to be banned but not “those normal self defense / hunting guns” to be banned, but don’t even know which is which or that many of “these” are practically the same as “those”.

I may as well advocate banning “addictive” casino games, but not “regular & fun” casino games. Wait, you mean there isn’t a completely black/white line between the two?! Can you explain to me the difference between casino games so I know which ones I want to rally against? —Sincerely, someone who’s never stepped foot in a casino because all gambling is bad and evil.

Quote: RS

In other words: You don’t even know what you want banned/restricted/etc.

I'm not use to writing actual legislation. Are you?

Besides I already know the definition for assault rifle varies. But I do know what general things should be okay. Auto weapons, no. Not to the general population. To get rid of bump stocks and any other mods, probably 1 finger pull=1 bullet limit. Then it doesn't matter how you try to get around the law. Other things, like how easily guns can accept large clips would call for design changes that would likely be opposed anyway but I would be for that.

Selling guns from state to state would be the same in each state. No more variations. No more loopholes like father giving son a gun. No more gun show variations. All procedures to sell guns would be the same in all 50 states. The forms would be the same, the checks would be the same.

Other than that, the rest is more about mental health requirements, not guns. I'm in favor of point system that doesn't require a major threat. You're a constant troublemaker, disturbed person, the number of events should trigger someone removing your weapons if you have any, or preventing you buying them.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Few things in the Constitution are vulnerable to technological advances. This is. You can't argue that the Founding Fathers envisioned firearms that could mow down 100 people a minute. Or that citizens would mow down American children and bystanders with the class of gun they couldn't foresee.

I think this is the best argument against those that feel any infringement on the right to own any gun is a second amendment violation.

I’ll stipulate that banning Americans from owning some tyoes of guns doesn’t violate the Second Amendment...but that isn’t the one before American Society today.

The question is which guns with which specific capabilities are you in favor of banning? This is not a request to write legislation...this is a simple request for a list of features or capabilities that should be banned.

Separate this from background checks, mental health and other additional measures that will restrict certain individuals from owning any firearm.

Here is an example:

1). The current ban on automatic weapons extends to any device applied to another firearem that makes it capable of firing more than a single bullet with a single manual pull of the trigger.
2). Ban magazines with more than 10 rounds...tough to mandate this through any other means than the magazine capacity as an attachment to most weapons is the same reagrdless of the length of magazine you attach.

Here is another couple of sample rules that are not gun feature related:

3). Gun parts that are ever in contact with the bullet or its casing can only be purchased at an FFL and subject to a background check...no more buying barrels, uppers or anything but a cosmetic attachment, sights, optics or similar types of items can be bought on the internet.
4). Ammunition must be bought from an FFL and require a background check or a renewable license that includes a new background check at every renewal.

See, writing specifics isn’t hard...it isn’t legislation...but if you can’t articulate the specifics of what you want banned, your desire to change something can’t be taken very seriously.

Give us the detail of which casino game is evil and addictive and which ones are safe to lose money playing before we simply ban every new slot machine with bonus rounds and screens wider than 12” and table games other than those with no more than one ante and one additional bet per round & Blackjack provided it only has one side bet with a maximum payout of 30-1...Progressives are banned on all games. Clearly I am being sarcasic with the casino game example which is a brilliant analogy for this board (thanks for that RS) but it communicates the point of the exercise with the firearms discussion.

Quote: Paradigm

I’ll stipulate that banning Americans from owning some tyoes of guns doesn’t violate the Second Amendment...but that isn’t the one before American Society today.

The question is which guns with which specific capabilities are you in favor of banning? This is not a request to write legislation...this is a simple request for a list of features or capabilities that should be banned.

Separate this from background checks, mental health and other additional measures that will restrict certain individuals from owning any firearm.

Here is an example:

1). The current ban on automatic weapons extends to any device applied to another firearem that makes it capable of firing more than a single bullet with a single manual pull of the trigger.
2). Ban magazines with more than 10 rounds...tough to mandate this through any other means than the magazine capacity as an attachment to most weapons is the same reagrdless of the length of magazine you attach.

Here is another couple of sample rules that are not gun feature related:

3). Gun parts that are ever in contact with the bullet or its casing can only be purchased at an FFL and subject to a background check...no more buying barrels, uppers or anything but a cosmetic attachment, sights, optics or similar types of items can be bought on the internet.
4). Ammunition must be bought from an FFL and require a background check or a renewable license that includes a new background check at every renewal.

See, writing specifics isn’t hard...it isn’t legislation...but if you can’t articulate the specifics of what you want banned, your desire to change something can’t be taken very seriously.

Give us the detail of which casino game is evil and addictive and which ones are safe to lose money playing before we simply ban every new slot machine with bonus rounds and screens wider than 12” and table games other than those with no more than one ante and one additional bet per round & Blackjack provided it only has one side bet with a maximum payout of 30-1...Progressives are banned on all games. Clearly I am being sarcasic with the casino game example which is a brilliant analogy for this board (thanks for that RS) but it communicates the point of the exercise with the firearms discussion.

Actually i think your casino example is pretty good

Wasnt that the case up until about 20 years ago? Most states viewed all gambling as evil. Thats why you could only go to vegas and AC

As people became educated gambling that was allowable became more delineated opening up markets. Some markets still prohibited live games. Others specifically blackjack (like NY until recently)

As for banning weapons non-pros will see all guns as black n white evil. But as the subject is analyzed a fair agreement can be arrived at. It shouldnt be an all or nothing scenario

To use your gambling comparison you wouldn't want any hold slot machines allowable right? You wouldn't want slots with 40% return? You wouldn't want 3 card monte being offered? There needs to be regulations that make sense and determined by people who understand these details for both casinos and gun control

Quote: Paradigm

See, writing specifics isn’t hard...it isn’t legislation...but if you can’t articulate the specifics of what you want banned, your desire to change something can’t be taken very seriously.

The reason I said that, because usually there is a trap in being overly specific or not specific enough, as manufacturers can and have changed features in order to avoid violating a specific limitation..

For instance,

Quote:

regulations clamped down on a gun industry innovation, known as the bullet button, that flouted an earlier statute meant to regulate rifles with detachable, quickly reloadable ammunition magazines

I can't take you and RS very seriously if you don't know about such things, <-- a little sarcasm

Quote: darkoz

Actually i think your casino example is pretty good

Wasnt that the case up until about 20 years ago? Most states viewed all gambling as evil. Thats why you could only go to vegas and AC

As people became educated gambling that was allowable became more delineated opening up markets. Some markets still prohibited live games. Others specifically blackjack (like NY until recently)

As for banning weapons non-pros will see all guns as black n white evil. But as the subject is analyzed a fair agreement can be arrived at. It shouldnt be an all or nothing scenario

To use your gambling comparison you wouldn't want any hold slot machines allowable right? You wouldn't want slots with 40% return? You wouldn't want 3 card monte being offered? There needs to be regulations that make sense and determined by people who understand these details for both casinos and gun control

Yeah, but when the people that want “gun control” can’t even say WTF they want. Saying you don’t want a game with a 40% return or 3 card monte (an unwinnable game, AFAIK?) allowed is descriptive of what you want. Those things are tangible and objective (less so on 3CM), where a game can’t have a HE greater than X, payouts greater than Y, or some other objective feature Z.

Wanting the “people who know guns” to come up with a reason for you to want to ban guns is completely backwards. You want something banned but you don’t even know what you want banned. If you want “us” to determine what should be banned or not, we’ll just say nothing should be banned. Do you see the problem?

Quote: RS

Y
Wanting the “people who know guns” to come up with a reason for you to want to ban guns is completely backwards.

Nope that's exactly why laws get "f**ked up. You let legislators when they are in control "fix" something for you, which you know better because there is a popular sentiment to do something, if you don't contribute your expertise, you'll just get laws you don't like.

Literally, if you have excellent reasons not to do something, unless it's weak argument why are you hiding it? For some reason, you think only laws get passed which are done by experts. Ha ha ha ha.

I'm surprised there haven't been more bioterrorist attacks, ala the Rajneeshees.

Remember those whackos?

Poisoned ten different salad bars at various restaurants in The Dalles, Oregon with Salmonella.

Lots of buffets in America these days, and lots of disgruntled souls pissed off at the world.

Now news report say that there 4 armed deputies who remained outside of the school while the shooting was going on. Four.

Quote: RS

Yeah, but when the people that want “gun control” can’t even say WTF they want. Saying you don’t want a game with a 40% return or 3 card monte (an unwinnable game, AFAIK?) allowed is descriptive of what you want. Those things are tangible and objective (less so on 3CM), where a game can’t have a HE greater than X, payouts greater than Y, or some other objective feature Z.

Wanting the “people who know guns” to come up with a reason for you to want to ban guns is completely backwards. You want something banned but you don’t even know what you want banned. If you want “us” to determine what should be banned or not, we’ll just say nothing should be banned. Do you see the problem?

There are gun pros who can objectively determine these things. My point is you shouldnt be asking people without that intricate knowledge which guns to ban. I agree the answer will be all

It should be by people fairly knowledgable on the subject. Im not and dont care to be. Ban em all:)

Quote: rxwine

The reason I said that, because usually there is a trap in being overly specific or not specific enough, as manufacturers can and have changed features in order to avoid violating a specific limitation..

I can't take you and RS very seriously if you don't know about such things, <-- a little sarcasm

I hear you Rx and let's agree that there are folks that are going to look at work arounds when/if new legislation gets passed. I am being total serious here. I am not laying some sort of trap. This is a real discussion on a thread that has been full of meaningless jabs back and forth of people talking past one another and not conversing.

This is a significant issue and changes need to be part of what comes out of Parkland. But what are those changes and can they be passed as real legislation, that is the question? I think the specifics of new legislation matter and when politicians & the media are throwing around words like "Assault Rifles", "Weapons of War" and every other inflammatory non-specific description they can use to whip up the populous, but never say something like "I am in favor of banning every semi-automatic gun in the country", they are dishonest in their rhetoric.

Tell us what you/your side specifically want banned and then there can be a response from the other side and the dialogue can be constructive. If you refuse to get specific, the conversation is over.

Quote: boymimbo

Now news report say that there 4 armed deputies who remained outside of the school while the shooting was going on. Four.

That is why it is important to allow anyone to protect themselves with a firearm, if they so choose. The police are not going to protect you. They will fill out a report over your dead body. They are afraid of your dog and will shoot it. They will not save your child from a massacre. What good will their pension be if dead? Much easier to cower in fear outside the building and take a report later.

Quote: SanchoPanza

That was a key reason for so much criticism of the M-16 when the Army was changing from the M-14 after Tet.

Military switched to the 5.56 because of its ability to injure. If you can remove 3 soldiers from battle by occupying 2 assisting 1 injured it is way more effective than just having 1 dead on the ground.

Sometimes it is best to keep things real simple.

Quote: Paradigm

Tell us what you/your side specifically want banned and then there can be a response from the other side and the dialogue can be constructive. If you refuse to get specific, the conversation is over.

Hey, did I sign some agreement in this discussion? Don't remember that

You're free to do whatever you want of course.

Sometimes I'm a gigantic gun grabber (as some would say) but I have plenty of gun ideas as well. If you told me every non-felonious adult was required to carry a 2 shot Derringer as self protection I might actually prefer that to what we have now.

Not that I believe it will stop attackers, though it sometimes would with a good shot, but that if everyone had one I would consider that a pretty good deterrent to keeping the polite society knowing everyone potentially is carrying one would make a lot of people think twice, knowing a whole crowd of adults had one on them.

First of all when people start firing,, they'll be a lot of missed shots. But there would be a lot of bullets flying. All in all though, a deterrent effect would be achieved with fewer deaths IMO, but the goal achieved..

When "pro" fessional gun experts suggest a top ten list of small handguns for self-defense, then I wonder, why in the hell do we make these AR-15 style weapons available, when we have smaller less capable guns good for self defense. Why is some guy living in the city going in to buy one so easily when he just needs a small one with limited range and capacity.. Maybe he should be able to justify why, more than just showing up as a breathing individual which is, in some states not much to getting the at-15 or similar capable rifle.

Quote: Paradigm

I hear you Rx and let's agree that there are folks that are going to look at work arounds when/if new legislation gets passed. I am being total serious here. I am not laying some sort of trap. This is a real discussion on a thread that has been full of meaningless jabs back and forth of people talking past one another and not conversing.

This is a significant issue and changes need to be part of what comes out of Parkland. But what are those changes and can they be passed as real legislation, that is the question? I think the specifics of new legislation matter and when politicians & the media are throwing around words like "Assault Rifles", "Weapons of War" and every other inflammatory non-specific description they can use to whip up the populous, but never say something like "I am in favor of banning every semi-automatic gun in the country", they are dishonest in their rhetoric.

Tell us what you/your side specifically want banned and then there can be a response from the other side and the dialogue can be constructive. If you refuse to get specific, the conversation is over.

What I'd like today.
1) Raise the age to buy guns to 21.
2) ban magazines that hold more than X amount. Eight might be too little, fourteen might be too much. Somewhere in the middle.
Don't just ban their sale, ban their use in hunting and even at ranges.
3) Make it a felony to tamper with any semi-automatic in any way in an attempt to change it from firing semi automatic to full auto.
4) Better and mandatory background checks.
5) Close the gun show loophole for people to be able to buy guns without going thru the background check.
6) A waiting period. How long is open for discussion. I think the wait should be longer for your first gun but still at least 24 hours.
7) a Federal buy back program.
8) a system where guns can be taken away from a person if someone swears that they are a danger to themselves or others. A hearing would be held and making false charges would result in a large civil penalty. If the person is mentally stabile, give back his guns.

The longest journey as well as the shortest both start with a single step.

Quote: MaxPen

That is why it is important to allow anyone to protect themselves with a firearm, if they so choose. The police are not going to protect you. They will fill out a report over your dead body. They are afraid of your dog and will shoot it. They will not save your child from a massacre. What good will their pension be if dead? Much easier to cower in fear outside the building and take a report later.

Wow once again my thinking is completely opposite yours

When i heard 4 officers didnt go into the line of fire my first thought was "oh really! The cops aint doin it good luck getting some teachers to do it"

Quote: darkoz

Wow once again my thinking is completely opposite yours

When i heard 4 officers didnt go into the line of fire my first thought was "oh really! The cops aint doin it good luck getting some teachers to do it"

When you are in the line of fire you either run or fight. There is no option to contemplate action. You do not get that luxury. That teacher whose classroom is getting invaded will do one of the two.

Quote: MaxPen

When you are in the line of fire you either run or fight. There is no option to contemplate action. You do not get that luxury. That teacher whose classroom is getting invaded will do one of the two.

I agree with that

Most of the teachers i ever had were gonna duck once bullets started flying

Quote: billryan

What I'd like today.
1) Raise the age to buy guns to 21.

Yeah, that is going to work!

Quote: darkoz

I agree with that

Most of the teachers i ever had were gonna duck once bullets started flying

That's fine. I would prefer the teachers be ducking behind every desk and turn with a gun. That way when the shooter walks into the line of fire he can be receiving some of what he is attempting to dish out. Maybe we only wind of with 4 or 5 corpses instead of 15 or 20.

Quote: AZDuffman

Yeah, that is going to work!

I don't think we will be able to phase them, this time. Although almost all murders are carried out by pistols, and many of those are stolen. And the murders being ethnic, they got to take something away, anything. As long as it isn't something they hold dear.

Mexico's murder rate is 3x what our's is, with much stricter gun laws. Doesn't matter, won't phase 'em.

Never going to hear how many lives are saved by ccp, no one wants to hear it.

It isn't coming across to the de gunners that 4 armed public service officers, making a starting salary of 75k, plus benefits were sworn to serve and protect and didn't, are the only ones they can call when the are getting attacked.

As long as they can chip away at citizens rights. You are correct, that before the ink is dry on the next confiscation, they movement will continue, to remove legal citizens means of protection, from all enemy's foreign and domestic.

Same way you eat an elephant, one bite at a time.

Quote: MaxPen

That's fine. I would prefer the teachers be ducking behind every desk and turn with a gun. That way when the shooter walks into the line of fire he can be receiving some of what he is attempting to dish out. Maybe we only wind of with 4 or 5 corpses instead of 15 or 20.

I think it will work like the bumper sticker that says, " This vehicle is protected by Smith and Wesson three days per week, you guess which three". Not all teachers or people are willing to face the fire. But some are, enough to deter some of the sickness.

In the days of the old west, many a bandit was shot in the back from rooftops, it wasn't always face to face as in the movies.

Bad guys run on a guilty conscience, I swear. When I started firing a few rounds in the night in a safe direction [many years ago], the gas thievery dropped way off. Crooks sneaking around in the dark are convinced any neighborhood shots are aimed at them, is my theory.

""The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
-H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

Quote: billryan

What I'd like today.
1) Raise the age to buy guns to 21.
2) ban magazines that hold more than X amount. Eight might be too little, fourteen might be too much. Somewhere in the middle.
Don't just ban their sale, ban their use in hunting and even at ranges.
3) Make it a felony to tamper with any semi-automatic in any way in an attempt to change it from firing semi automatic to full auto.
4) Better and mandatory background checks.
5) Close the gun show loophole for people to be able to buy guns without going thru the background check.
6) A waiting period. How long is open for discussion. I think the wait should be longer for your first gun but still at least 24 hours.
7) a Federal buy back program.
8) a system where guns can be taken away from a person if someone swears that they are a danger to themselves or others. A hearing would be held and making false charges would result in a large civil penalty. If the person is mentally stabile, give back his guns.

The longest journey as well as the shortest both start with a single step.

I think this entire list is doable (assuming the buyback program is applicable to large capacity magazines as this appears to be the only current gun item that is going to become illegal under your list)...but it doesn't equate to the calls for banning all semi's or all "assault weapons/weapons of war"...the Country could find common ground on gun legislation if 1) - 8) was out being trotted out as "common sense gun laws", but unfortunately it isn't.

The fact that you have bookend the list above with "this is what I want today" and "the longest journey..." is why the side opposing your view doesn't want to give an inch on even rational change, for fear that your next step will be irrational. But that fight can happen then and we could do these things now.

Assault rifles and pistols are for killing people, whereas bolt action rifles have dual purpose: killing people and game.

So why not outlaw all weapons except bolt action rifles; anyone found using an assault rifle or pistol in the commission of a crime gets executed: by firing squad.

I like it.

Quote: AZDuffman

Yeah, that is going to work!

I hear you AZ, but why fight on this one. It would have helped in Parkland and it may very well help with future High School kids that sometimes go through downswings in life, making them mentally unstable and temporarily capable of doing something stupid.

Why would a Second Amendment proponent fight over 18 vs. 21 as the age to own a firearm...give here and fight hard on the stuff that matters. Gun ownership from age 18-21 isn't a hill/battle anyone should die defending (figuratively speaking). If both sides picked better battles, common ground could be found.

Quote: billryan

4) Better and mandatory background checks.

Ahhhhh..... "better" background checks.

If a person is being treated for depression, can they get a gun?
If a person is being treated for mania, can they get a gun? (Will applying for a gun mean you have to open up your medical records?)
If a person has a DUI, can they get a gun?
If the person has been convicted of civil disobedience, can they get a gun?
If the check finds a you tube video of the person ranting about how Trump is evil and is a threat to America, can that person get a gun?
Marijuana conviction?
Vision less than 20/100?
Parkinson's?
Illegal aliens?
Etc,,,,,

What background checks are needed to buy a vehicle that is capable of far more damage than a handgun?

Quote: Paradigm

Quote: AZDuffman

Yeah, that is going to work!

I hear you AZ, but why fight on this one. It would have helped in Parkland and it may very well help with future High School kids that sometimes go through downswings in life, making them mentally unstable and temporarily capable of doing something stupid.

Why would a Second Amendment proponent fight over 18 vs. 21 as the age to own a firearm...give here and fight hard on the stuff that matters. Gun ownership from age 18-21 isn't a hill/battle anyone should die defending (figuratively speaking). If both sides picked better battles, common ground could be found.

Then maybe we should raise the voting age to 21 again? We want to call them adults, but can't buy beer or smokes. Now add guns. As I said before. Gun free school zone, check. Armed guard on the school, check. See something, say something, check.

You cannot have total security. Chances of dying in a mass shooting at a school or elsewhere are unbelievably low. We need to quit trading freedom for security.

I'll be back after hockey to dive into some of the meatier offerings here, but had to pop in for a few comments before I head out...

Quote: MaxPen

Military switched to the 5.56 because of its ability to injure. If you can remove 3 soldiers from battle by occupying 2 assisting 1 injured it is way more effective than just having 1 dead on the ground.

Undeniably false. There has not nor has ever been a "honey pot" round. No doubt this happened, and I've little doubt such happenings were done on purpose, but your claim that this is the round's purpose is unfounded.

The 5.56 NATO / .223mm Remington was indeed created for the exact reason I stated, to be big enough to cause human death but small enough to not pulverize the operator in select fire and full auto apps. Several of the requirements during development include but are not limited to being able to be used in a full auto application, to penetrate .135" of steel plate at 500yds, ability to punch through one side of a US Army steel helmet at 500yds, have the accuracy and ballistics of the M2 (30-06), and the wounding potential of its big brother, the .308 (7.62mm). Not a mote of any part had to do with injuring as opposed to killing.

I could go on and on about the WHY behind its issues in 'Nam and its "less than lethal" reputation, but I suspect that's a subject that'll only capture the interest of fellow anoraks, so I'll spare the forum at large.


The only other thing I've time to comment on is the comments from my fellow gunners. We could sit up here and taunt our anti friends. We know stuff, they don't, so it's pretty easy to point and laugh at their ignorance, if you so choose to. But... I dunno, I kind of think it's in OUR best interest to instead help these people and bring them up to speed. I've been in these types of arguments since loooong before my arrival at WoV, and most of them are indeed an "us vs them" type of of confrontation. When you do that, you usually "win", yes, but what actually gets done? Seems to me they either rail against the AR enough to get their representatives attention and actions, which almost always gets shot down because of the reasons offered throughout this thread, or they happen upon a scenario where THEY get the numbers needed and your regular ol' good guy gunner is now a felon waiting to be caught (like me). On one hand, nothing happens and NOTHING CHANGES, which when talking school shootings, I'm sure no one here wants "nothing to change", and on the other we gunners lose our rights, risk prison, and STILL nothing changes because the underlying problem hasn't been addressed.

Talking is good. There's already a few people here on the anti side who are becoming better informed, and I see a few of the more inane comments and charges typical of these types of convos ceasing to rear their heads. That's a good thing, and took no more effort than reaching out with an open hand. Let's keep it going.

Enough preaching for now. I get to beat the dog s#$% out of people legally and I'd not miss it for you lot ;)

Quote: petroglyph

I don't think we will be able to phase them, this time. Although almost all murders are carried out by pistols, and many of those are stolen. And the murders being ethnic, they got to take something away, anything. As long as it isn't something they hold dear.

Most by pistol, and most of those by someone they knew. Often one gangster killing another. Reality is life is so safe that they are looking for something to be afraid of.

Quote:

As long as they can chip away at citizens rights. You are correct, that before the ink is dry on the next confiscation, they movement will continue, to remove legal citizens means of protection, from all enemy's foreign and domestic.

Same way you eat an elephant, one bite at a time.

I know I gave the perfect example earlier because instead of denying it they attacked the example. They want us to believe they only want this one little thing. Yeah, right. They want us to believe they do not want a gun-free USA just because they are not openly calling for it. Sometimes I wonder if they believe themselves.

Quote: Paradigm

I think this entire list is doable (assuming the buyback program is applicable to large capacity magazines as this appears to be the only current gun item that is going to become illegal under your list)...but it doesn't equate to the calls for banning all semi's or all "assault weapons/weapons of war"...the Country could find common ground on gun legislation if 1) - 8) was out being trotted out as "common sense gun laws", but unfortunately it isn't.

The fact that you have bookend the list above with "this is what I want today" and "the longest journey..." is why the side opposing your view doesn't want to give an inch on even rational change, for fear that your next step will be irrational. But that fight can happen then and we could do these things now.

It's a starting list. You put out an offer and see what comes back. If the other side feels that seventeen is the right number, we might agree. If the other side says let's try this but it expires in a few years, or something that hasn't been brought up yet.

I don't give a lot of thoughts to guns but I absolutely believe everyone who isn't a convicted felon has the right to have a gun for self defense in his home. I'd like to see most handguns off the street, both legal and illegal. Put horrific sentences on illegal gun crime. Not a year, or two. Ten years or more. Certainly for repeat offenders. Eliminating illegal guns should make the demand for legal carry permits go down. One would hope.

Quote: AZDuffman

Sometimes I wonder if they believe themselves.

I'm sure some of them don't, but want to lend support to "their" side, hoping it will be reciprocal on something else.

Some have a hard time reconciling the Broward county cops not doing their sworn duty on one hand, and trying to confiscate firearms with the other. That is the Yin and the Yang of it. It surely doesn't convince me that the Po Po will get here in time, or step up when it would be expected.

Look at what happened to .22 ammo. The price doubled and tripled and became impossible to find, in a kneejerk reaction to Sandy Hook. .22 did little to anybody ever and has been the favorite for plinkers and [anti rodent gunners] for a long time. But reactionaries, and their politicians, were able to make the round disappear for no relative reason. No one has even heard of, an automatic .22. But again, they "had to do something", anything. It's like using leeches in medieval medicine.

Were I to believe that banning black rifles would be enough, I would probably say, ok here you go, now gtfa, but they are like mosquito's. I don't own an AR, and don't want to spend that much for ammo when I had a perfectly good rim fire. I know people that couldn't get .22 ammo, so they bought .17's, 9's and AR's, hoping to be able to continue recreational shooting. Now there are more guns, because of a bad reaction to something that happened to a youth, taking SSRI's, a continent away, in a population of 350 million.

Polar bears seemed to be averaging a villager per year in AK. for awhile? An automatic AR 15, would be a good weapon for going to the town dump, in villages. Not a lot of time for bolt action when a bear is closing in on you.

Polar's in Can ; http://www.heavemedia.com/2013/02/04/reasons-to-fear-the-polar-bear/

Quote: Face

I'll be back after hockey to dive into some of the meatier offerings here, but had to pop in for a few comments before I head out...



Undeniably false. There has not nor has ever been a "honey pot" round. No doubt this happened, and I've little doubt such happenings were done on purpose, but your claim that this is the round's purpose is unfounded.

The 5.56 NATO / .223mm Remington was indeed created for the exact reason I stated, to be big enough to cause human death but small enough to not pulverize the operator in select fire and full auto apps. Several of the requirements during development include but are not limited to being able to be used in a full auto application, to penetrate .135" of steel plate at 500yds, ability to punch through one side of a US Army steel helmet at 500yds, have the accuracy and ballistics of the M2 (30-06), and the wounding potential of its big brother, the .308 (7.62mm). Not a mote of any part had to do with injuring as opposed to killing.

I could go on and on about the WHY behind its issues in 'Nam and its "less than lethal" reputation, but I suspect that's a subject that'll only capture the interest of fellow anoraks, so I'll spare the forum at large.


The only other thing I've time to comment on is the comments from my fellow gunners. We could sit up here and taunt our anti friends. We know stuff, they don't, so it's pretty easy to point and laugh at their ignorance, if you so choose to. But... I dunno, I kind of think it's in OUR best interest to instead help these people and bring them up to speed. I've been in these types of arguments since loooong before my arrival at WoV, and most of them are indeed an "us vs them" type of of confrontation. When you do that, you usually "win", yes, but what actually gets done? Seems to me they either rail against the AR enough to get their representatives attention and actions, which almost always gets shot down because of the reasons offered throughout this thread, or they happen upon a scenario where THEY get the numbers needed and your regular ol' good guy gunner is now a felon waiting to be caught (like me). On one hand, nothing happens and NOTHING CHANGES, which when talking school shootings, I'm sure no one here wants "nothing to change", and on the other we gunners lose our rights, risk prison, and STILL nothing changes because the underlying problem hasn't been addressed.

Talking is good. There's already a few people here on the anti side who are becoming better informed, and I see a few of the more inane comments and charges typical of these types of convos ceasing to rear their heads. That's a good thing, and took no more effort than reaching out with an open hand. Let's keep it going.

Enough preaching for now. I get to beat the dog s#$% out of people legally and I'd not miss it for you lot ;)

I'm sure you will be back to regale me with one of your wall of text diatribes shortly. While the truth of the statement regarding wounding may not be factual and more myth than truth it was one of the reasons used to switch from 7.62 to 5.56. Some of the other reasons were that a soldier can carry 2 1/2 times more ammunition and barrel lengths were shortened to assist in getting in and out of vehicles on the modern battlefield. At least this is what I was told in 1988 at Camp Geiger.

Hey, the Dem's memo is out!

Quote: AZDuffman

Chances of dying in a mass shooting at a school or elsewhere are unbelievably low.

So I guess we should just wait untill the chances are high.