Arsenal of Doom
Footballguy
No, I think revolvers are fine. IMO better guns for most who want to own a handgun for defense anyway.A single shot hand gun? Seriously?
No, I think revolvers are fine. IMO better guns for most who want to own a handgun for defense anyway.A single shot hand gun? Seriously?
No, gun guy is trying to educate you because you guys don't even know what you're talking about.Exactly. Gun-guy always tries to dominate the debate with the "I know more about guns and their nomenclature than you do and therefore I have a superior position." All that noise does is kick up dust and deflect from the debate at hand.
What are you talking about? The intent behind this thread and the question it represented was clear. We've all heard the technical definitions thrown at us about the AR15, going back many shootings ago, and we still don't give a ####. Its not about labeling guns and putting them into proper categories, its about identifying the ones that have no place in a civilian's hands. Shotguns, cool. Rifles, cool. Handguns, fine. Those all have very real uses aside from "fun". A weapon that can be altered very easily to become something out of ####### Rambo? Not a single good argument has been made in this thread. Plenty of good arguments have been made for different guns, but not the ones this thread was created to talk about. Don't be intentionally thick.Oh so we are changing the rules? When proven wrong you make up some scenario to try and prove you're right.
How are you going decide who gets what when you won't label and put guns in proper categories? Do you see how stupid that sounds? You won't take the time to actually learn about the thing you're so quick to ban.Its not about labeling guns and putting them into proper categories, its about identifying the ones that have no place in a civilian's hands.
Did you watch the Bill O'Reilly clip I posted a while back? He covers this.How are you going decide who gets what when you won't label and put guns in proper categories? Do you see how stupid that sounds? You won't take the time to actually learn about the thing you're so quick to ban.
Its just a semi automatic rifle. The Ruger 10/22 has been around since 1964. It is also a semi automatic rifle with a magazine and basically the same size round (diameter .22 vs .223) and nobody is calling for the 10/22 to be banned for private sale. All rifles can be used to hunt for food, get rid of varmints, can be used for self defense, can be used by military or law enforcement, could be used against a tyrannous government, and unfortunately could be used to harm people.Apparently anything. I have no understanding about them or what they are used for, verbatim what you wrote. I'm sure there are others like me, we need enlightening from A-Z.
I have to disagree with you there.No, I think revolvers are fine. IMO better guns for most who want to own a handgun for defense anyway.
Empty that revolver and check it a few times to make sure its empty. Now I want you to take that revolver and have someone grab ahold of the cylinder and try to fire it more than once and see what happens.No, I think revolvers are fine. IMO better guns for most who want to own a handgun for defense anyway.
Don't think people care about the 10 bullet mag version (1964 version) but you slap on a 30 bullet magazine, add a folding stock and a pistol handle and then you are getting into different territory and I think people would want those banned or at least I would. Saying AR15 is short hand for what people don't want.Its just a semi automatic rifle. The Ruger 10/22 has been around since 1964. It is also a semi automatic rifle with a magazine and basically the same size round (diameter .22 vs .223) and nobody is calling for the 10/22 to be banned for private sale. All rifles can be used to hunt for food, get rid of varmints, can be used for self defense, can be used by military or law enforcement, could be used against a tyrannous government, and unfortunately could be used to harm people.
This falls into the diminishing returns bucket to me. You can come up with scenarios where any gun would have an advantage over another type but IMO revolvers are going to cover 99 out of 100 situations that a semi-auto pistol will, while being less practical for someone who wants to injure a large number of people.Empty that revolver and check it a few times to make sure its empty. Now I want you to take that revolver and have someone grab ahold of the cylinder and try to fire it more than once and see what happens.
No fully automatic weapons? Seriously?I'll post the same thing I do in all of these threads. By way of background I worked at the NRA in the 90s, right when all the infamous "Jack-booted Thugs" flap was going on. I worked on the hunting and safety side as opposed to the ILA, which is the lobbying arm. I own 2 guns currently but don't keep any ammunition in the house since I have a young son and think it's safer that way.
In short, I don't think people need semi-automatic guns (I won't read the thread but I assume it immediately devolved into an argument over what constitutes an assault weapon so I'll just keep my comments directed at all semi-auto) for legitimate sporting purposes and further that there is a vastly diminishing return on semi-automatics for defense purposes.
I also don't think there is a definitive 2nd Amendment right to own/carry semi-automatics. The vast majority of people including gun owners currently recognize a distinction between fully-automatic weapons and 2A protection, so the line is somewhat arbitrary as the amendment was written before any of today's modern arms existed. So the question really should be about the marginal value of weapons for legitimate reasons vs. the risk of misuse. As stated above, I think the marginal value is small beyond personal preference. At a minimum I believe we can and should effectively ban semi-automatic rifles and I would personally like to see that extended to handguns as well.
No I didn't watch it. He covers how to classify guns without classifying them? connskinn already said he didn't care which tells me all I need to know. He just wants to ban scary sounding guns to hell with actually learning about them.Did you watch the Bill O'Reilly clip I posted a while back? He covers this.
Well, if this is the case i am all for vetting them out rather then waiting for them to decide when they feel they should exercise their rights and shoot away. If "looking for a fight" would help us uncover 5% of the nuts with these guns, then let's go for it.Anti gunners need to chill. Once Hillary wins, the dems take the senate & the SCOTUS swings back to the left, all the problems will be squarely on the dems shoulders. I suggest not trying to confiscate guns. I'm not looking for a fight, but there are lot of people who are. Let's NOT force their hands.
Not getting into a lot of this debate...but, so what?Empty that revolver and check it a few times to make sure its empty. Now I want you to take that revolver and have someone grab ahold of the cylinder and try to fire it more than once and see what happens.
He was on Colbert last night (coincidentally - appearance was booked a month ago). They had a frank discussion with both taking the expected sides. But I found myself agreeing with a lot of what Bill was saying. To paraphrase Bill:No I didn't watch it. He covers how to classify guns without classifying them? connskinn already said he didn't care which tells me all I need to know. He just wants to ban scary sounding guns to hell with actually learning about them.
mmmmkayWell, if this is the case i am all for vetting them out rather then waiting for them to decide when they feel they should exercise their rights and shoot away. If "looking for a fight" would help us uncover 5% of the nuts with these guns, then let's go for it.
If you want something to be angry about or fight, maybe take up a cause that actually needs attention. there are plenty like the education system, etc.
What's the point of the delay? Is there evidence of people committing violent crimes on their way home from the FFL?Do gun advocates on here believe a one day (or even one hour?) wait purchase a AR15 would be acceptable?
Have you read any of Tim's posts? That's a crime against humanity.What's the point of the delay? Is there evidence of people committing violent crimes on their way home from the FFL?
Not sure I understand the question. Did you mean to say semi-auto?No fully automatic weapons? Seriously?
This is why we need productive discussions among people who actually know what they're talking about. Two sides, come to the table and look for solutions. The problem's not getting solved on a message board or Facebook.People can work on tactical reloading skills. I believe people really want to cap the cyclic rate. Unfortunately they focus on scary looking guns instead.
Capacity is more important than rate of fire in these situations IMO. Mainly basic math, the more often you need to pause to reload the more chances people have to get away or subdue.People can work on tactical reloading skills. I believe people really want to cap the cyclic rate. Unfortunately they focus on scary looking guns instead.
Thats hard when one side's solution is "ban all guns" and the other side wants absolute freedom concerning firearmsThis is why we need productive discussions among people who actually know what they're talking about. Two sides, come to the table and look for solutions. The problem's not getting solved on a message board or Facebook.
Google "tactical reloading"Capacity is more important than rate of fire in these situations IMO. Mainly basic math, the more often you need to pause to reload the more chances people have to get away or subdue.
You've described two extremes that probably actually covers 10% or fewer of opinions on either side.Thats hard when one side's solution is "ban all guns" and the other side wants absolute freedom concerning firearms
There are generally more than two positions on any given subject.Thats hard when one side's solution is "ban all guns" and the other side wants absolute freedom concerning firearms
stop steppin all over my narrativeThere are generally more than two positions on any given subject.
Well, here't to hoping thoughts and prayers finally work. Or maybe it'll be the moments of silence that finally do the trick. I thought America could come up with something better.Thats hard when one side's solution is "ban all guns" and the other side wants absolute freedom concerning firearms
I know what it is so not necessary. Doesn't change my assessment even if I thought most people prone to this would invest the time to become proficient, which I don't. Basically at any skill or training level a shooter is better off the less they need to think about reloading.Google "tactical reloading"
Way too much polarization going on right now. I don't see any solutions coming soon.Well, here't to hoping thoughts and prayers finally work. Or maybe it'll be the moments of silence that finally do the trick. I thought America could come up with something better.
It's also hard when it's already illegal to go to a populated place indiscriminately kill people. The solution of making another law for him to break to do so seems wonky to me. Maybe he broke the speed limit on the way to the shooting. Maybe he jaywalked from wherever he parked. If he broke 20 laws before a horrific act of terrorism is it really going to make anyone feel better if we pass another law so he had to break 21 of them instead?Thats hard when one side's solution is "ban all guns" and the other side wants absolute freedom concerning firearms
We'll just agree to disagree. I see people practicing mag changes every time I'm at the range.I know what it is so not necessary. Doesn't change my assessment even if I thought most people prone to this would invest the time to become proficient, which I don't. Basically at any skill or training level a shooter is better off the less they need to think about reloading.
Yes.Do gun advocates on here believe a one day (or even one hour?) wait purchase a AR15 would be acceptable?
YesIs it just an unfortunate coincidence that the Lester Burnham character was killed by a gun shot by a closeted homosexual with a history of violence and mental instability?
For the AR?Yes.
You realize the piece of crap in Orlando waited 72 hours, right?
Florida gun laws, like those in many states, are more lax for larger weapons than they are for handguns. While there is a three-day waiting period for purchasing handguns, there’s no waiting period between purchase and delivery of firearms, like the AR-15, that require two hands to hold.
We are not saying that. Not sure why limiting certain guns or make specific changes is always turned into "ban all guns"Thats hard when one side's solution is "ban all guns" and the other side wants absolute freedom concerning firearms
Ever negotiate anything? Did you start with your final offer?We are not saying that. Not sure why limiting certain guns or make specific changes is always turned into "ban all guns"
Do you think pot is easier or harder to get now in CO? Do you think more or fewer people use it now? The fact that a law can't stop every instance it is written for isn't a great reason to not have laws.It's also hard when it's already illegal to go to a populated place indiscriminately kill people. The solution of making another law for him to break to do so seems wonky to me. Maybe he broke the speed limit on the way to the shooting. Maybe he jaywalked from wherever he parked. If he broke 20 laws before a horrific act of terrorism is it really going to make anyone feel better if we pass another law so he had to break 21 of them instead?
Nobody can be so naive that they think we can stop bad guys from getting guns in this country. If there are they probably think that pot was just "discovered" in the states of CO and WA.
Well Columbine was seventeen years ago so I am sure solutions are just around the cornerWay too much polarization going on right now. I don't see any solutions coming soon.
Things have gotten way worse since then. I wish we had better candidates to choose from, but Merica has spoken.Well Columbine was seventeen years ago so I am sure solutions are just around the corner
Why is this an acceptable reason to avoid additional gun laws but is somehow expected to keep perverts out of women's restrooms?It's also hard when it's already illegal to go to a populated place indiscriminately kill people. The solution of making another law for him to break to do so seems wonky to me. Maybe he broke the speed limit on the way to the shooting. Maybe he jaywalked from wherever he parked. If he broke 20 laws before a horrific act of terrorism is it really going to make anyone feel better if we pass another law so he had to break 21 of them instead?
Nobody can be so naive that they think we can stop bad guys from getting guns in this country. If there are they probably think that pot was just "discovered" in the states of CO and WA.
That's a fair question.Do you think pot is easier or harder to get now in CO? Do you think more or fewer people use it now? The fact that a law can't stop every instance it is written for isn't a great reason to not have laws.
Apparently I got bad information.