***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (2 Viewers)

[[icon]]

Chaka, the explanation you're seeking is as simple as it is simplistic and paranoid. The smarter pro-gun types won't give it to you because I syspect they're embarrassed by it. But you can find it all throughout this thread. Here is a quick summary:If guns are confiscated, the government will impose a dictatorship, similar to Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. Only private gun ownership protects us from that fate. That's why the first thing that Hitler and Stalin did, upon taking power, was seize all the guns.The last sentence is a complete and utter falsehood, but this does not prevent it being repeated endlessly in pro-NRA websites.

Two separate issues: 1) Fear that Gov't will attempt to seize firearms : I believe this is a very real possibility at some point. 2) Government will "impose a dictatorship": I believe this is a foolish stance that is highly highly highly unlikely to ever occur.

Well, there are different levels of gun paranoia, much like Dante's Inferno. By believing point #1, you have descended through the first several levels. But your skepticism about the second point prevents you from descending even further.

You're a fool who lost any credibility on these matters long ago. Continue operating in your fantasy land.

 

[Chaka]

I don't think the government seizing all our guns is even remotely a possibility in this country, ever.

By the same token I can't see a single reason why any citizen would need a semi-automatic rifle (which we all know can be converted to burst fire or full auto with some bubble gum a couple of paper clips and a five minute YouTube video) with high capacity magazines. I also don't understand why it would be a bad idea knowing which guns get sold to whom and having a little information on the purchaser before making the sale.

 

[[icon]]

I have no problem with 1 & 2 and agree that 4 should not even be on the radar.

Regarding 5 it really seems to be an extension of 4. I support the second amendment and would never want to see gun ownership entirely forbidden but, by the same token, I don't see our guns protecting us from the current erosion of our civil liberties, which I don't think you would argue is not happening.

3 is an interesting scenario and likely the one I can get most behind but my next question is what type of guns do you need to feel safe in this situation? Let's face it, the government is never going to take away all of our guns but do you truly believe that you would need a fully automatic rifle or even a semi-automatic AR-15 with two high capacity banana clips (or something along those lines) to make you safe in the civil unrest scenario? Wouldn't your hunting rifle(s), shotgun(s) and handgun(s) make you feel secure enough that any predators would move on to easier targets?

Also I wish you would post links or mention sources of any studies you wish to put forward. I am not disagreeing with the data, it certainly passes the smell test, but it helps put things in context.

A so-called "Assault Rifle" is an extension of 1. It's a fun sporting rifle to shoot and hunt with. It features a slower moving, smaller bullet that does LESS damage than most commonly accepted hunting rounds. The fact that idiots who know nothing about firearms are attacking it is reason enough for folks to bristle up and defend it.

You can argue against capacity of magazines all you want but it's a fools errand that I'm not getting into. Want to outlaw 100round barrels? Sure. Go for it. Want to outlaw standard 30 round magazines, You're a ####### and good luck. That's the last I'll address on that matter. Erosion of liberties is indeed occuring and giving up our right to bear arms would be another. I'm not sure why it needs to be related to any other loss of liberties when it qualifies as such on it's own. My Shotgun and handgun are excellent for close quarters combat. Me, I'd rather that IF in the UNLIKELY scenario #3 comes to pass, I have something with a bit more range so I can keep harm outside the reach of my family. For that purpose I have selected my AR-15... PRIMARILY for enjoyable target/sport shooting... but alternately as a long range form of self defense in the unlikely event need arises. My AR will NOT be my first firearm I reach for when my home is broken into (That would be a shotgun for a combination of it's close range effectiveness while limiting collateral damage outside by home by stray rounds. I am a little perturbed by the fact that you simply brush aside 1 & 2 which are my primary reasons for wanting to own a firearm... those are plenty of reason for me and, frankly, that's all that matters.

 

[timschochet]

Chaka, the explanation you're seeking is as simple as it is simplistic and paranoid. The smarter pro-gun types won't give it to you because I syspect they're embarrassed by it. But you can find it all throughout this thread. Here is a quick summary:If guns are confiscated, the government will impose a dictatorship, similar to Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. Only private gun ownership protects us from that fate. That's why the first thing that Hitler and Stalin did, upon taking power, was seize all the guns.The last sentence is a complete and utter falsehood, but this does not prevent it being repeated endlessly in pro-NRA websites.

Two separate issues: 1) Fear that Gov't will attempt to seize firearms : I believe this is a very real possibility at some point. 2) Government will "impose a dictatorship": I believe this is a foolish stance that is highly highly highly unlikely to ever occur.

Well, there are different levels of gun paranoia, much like Dante's Inferno. By believing point #1, you have descended through the first several levels. But your skepticism about the second point prevents you from descending even further.

You're a fool who lost any credibility on these matters long ago. Continue operating in your fantasy land.

You believe that it's a "very real possibility" that the government will attempt to seize firearms, and yet I'm the one operating in "fantasy land". Pretty ironic, IMO.

 

[ATC1]

How has the Australian government hurt their population, in a way that gun ownership would have prevented, after the mandatory gun buyback in 1996?

>Right now the government based argument seems to be "I need my guns to prevent the government from taking my guns&

quot;.

People buy guns for self-defense. You don't understand that when a government infringes on peoples right and duty to protect their family and their property that this is a bad thing?

So is self defense the only concern you have with the government taking guns? It seems that a lot of people also believe that an armed citizenry protects us from direct threats posed by our government, I imagine if I sifted through all 529 of your posts in this thread something along those lines would show up. I am just curious what those threats from the American Government are that our guns are protecting us from.

I think it is important to understand as many of the positions in this debate as possible.

I arm myself for self defense. I feel that a quicker response to a threat increases the chances for survival and reduces the number of victims in mass shootings. If they did start seizing guns I would not feel confident the government to keep guns out of the wrong hands.

But are mass shootings really the main issue or just the one that sells newspapers? I mean mass shootings are the exception when it comes to gun violence. I believe we average around 800 people per year who are killed just by accidental shootings. Around 19,000 die from suicide by gun and thousands more from malicious gun violence.

And how many mass shootings have been stopped by armed citizens? I know there was a citizen with a conceal/carry (Nick Miel) at the Clackamas Town Center shooting but he did not fire on the shooter, wisely IMO, who ended up killing himself. And one could also make an argument for restricting the size of magazines from the CTC shooting because it was due to the break in fire from the shooter having to clear a jam that allowed Miel to draw his weapon and take a position to even aim at the shooter. More breaks in fire most likely means more lives saved.

The Pearl High School shooting is a good example of an armed citizen possibly saving additional lives as he prevented the shooter from leaving the school until authorities arrived.

Any others? Do we save or lose more lives due to our obsession with guns? And don't deny guns are a national obsession, we have more guns per capita by an enormous margin over any other country in the world for which we have data,

I believe most mass shootings occur because the targets are in areas where people can not carry for self defense. Sandhook, Aurora movie theater, VTech, Colombine and the recent stabbings on a college campus were all mass shootings/stabbings in gun free zones because their targets where easy and had less resistance to worry about.

ICON posted a link early in this thread of all the shootings that have occurred and someone was able to intervene. The number of victims greatly decrease when someone is there to resist the criminal. (Salt Lake City stabbing, the mall shooting in Oregon) I think there were only 2 victims in each case? One held the suspect at gun point until the police arrived. The other pointed the gun and the shooter shot himself before police arrived.

Limiting magazine capacity is just dumb. If someone plans a shooting are you really going to think they are going to care about the law that limits a magazines ammo capacity? It will not have any affect on the real problem you mention and that is accidental shootings. We need a better way to make people more aware in the proper care and safety in owning a gun.

I have discussed before in this thread that a lot of accidental shootings involve someone carrying needing to take a holster off before they enter a building that permits carry. Or it involves showing off guns to buddies that could be prevented if they were properly trained to disarm a weapon.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Aside from taking your guns what, exactly, do people think the American Government will do to them if they somehow manage to take your guns? It will never happen but there seems to be a strong feeling among gun owners that the American Government would do something nefarious if they managed to confiscate all the guns, so what is it that the American Government would do that worries people? I mean something beyond the act of somehow managing to confiscate guns.

This is where the gun grabbers crowd lose any and all credibility.

It (It = gun confiscation) has already happened in the U.S., read the thread. State governments (NY and CA in particular) have already used gun registration lists to confiscate firearms. Anyone that thinks these lists could not be used again in the future to repeat this process is blind. You (and Tim and others) love making the jump from A->Z and assume every 2A-gun-loving American is expecting the U.S. Government to turn Tyrannical, yet you ignore all of the stepping stones in between that infringe on our rights and can have immediate consequences against criminals that remain armed and do not comply. Hell look at the recent manhunt in Boston with two criminals that possessed fully automatic weapons. Don't misinterpret this as a cry that every citizen needs a fully automatic weapon to defend against this, but rather take it in perspective of such ridiculous legislation of reducing weapons to carry only 7 bullets such as in NY where 10 (or more) would be better suited for home defense.

 

[[icon]]

n I can't see a single reason why any citizen would need a semi-automatic rifle (which we all know can be converted to burst fire or full auto with some bubble gum a couple of paper clips and a five minute YouTube video) with high capacity magazines.

Thank God you have no say over gun legislation

 

[[icon]]

Chaka, the explanation you're seeking is as simple as it is simplistic and paranoid. The smarter pro-gun types won't give it to you because I syspect they're embarrassed by it. But you can find it all throughout this thread. Here is a quick summary:If guns are confiscated, the government will impose a dictatorship, similar to Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. Only private gun ownership protects us from that fate. That's why the first thing that Hitler and Stalin did, upon taking power, was seize all the guns.The last sentence is a complete and utter falsehood, but this does not prevent it being repeated endlessly in pro-NRA websites.

Two separate issues: 1) Fear that Gov't will attempt to seize firearms : I believe this is a very real possibility at some point. 2) Government will "impose a dictatorship": I believe this is a foolish stance that is highly highly highly unlikely to ever occur.

Well, there are different levels of gun paranoia, much like Dante's Inferno. By believing point #1, you have descended through the first several levels. But your skepticism about the second point prevents you from descending even further.

You're a fool who lost any credibility on these matters long ago. Continue operating in your fantasy land.

You believe that it's a "very real possibility" that the government will attempt to seize firearms, and yet I'm the one operating in "fantasy land". Pretty ironic, IMO.

:backdot:

 

[[icon]]

I do love the "If we make ________ illegal it will be gone" mindset too

Not sure why I jumped back in this thread. Thankfully more sensible individuals have prevailed in washington and have shot down these ridiculous attempts at legislation.

You guys keep at it though.... molon labe.

 

[timschochet]

Aside from taking your guns what, exactly, do people think the American Government will do to them if they somehow manage to take your guns? It will never happen but there seems to be a strong feeling among gun owners that the American Government would do something nefarious if they managed to confiscate all the guns, so what is it that the American Government would do that worries people? I mean something beyond the act of somehow managing to confiscate guns.

This is where the gun grabbers crowd lose any and all credibility.

It (It = gun confiscation) has already happened in the U.S., read the thread. State governments (NY and CA in particular) have already used gun registration lists to confiscate firearms. Anyone that thinks these lists could not be used again in the future to repeat this process is blind. You (and Tim and others) love making the jump from A->Z and assume every 2A-gun-loving American is expecting the U.S. Government to turn Tyrannical, yet you ignore all of the stepping stones in between that infringe on our rights and can have immediate consequences against criminals that remain armed and do not comply. Hell look at the recent manhunt in Boston with two criminals that possessed fully automatic weapons. Don't misinterpret this as a cry that every citizen needs a fully automatic weapon to defend against this, but rather take it in perspective of such ridiculous legislation of reducing weapons to carry only 7 bullets such as in NY where 10 (or more) would be better suited for home defense.

Now see Icon, this guy gets it. He has gone far lower than you seem to be capable of. Your paranoia is only a dim shadow of his. Look! Look how far ahead he is of you. But if you hurry, you might catch him...

 

[Chaka]

I have no problem with 1 & 2 and agree that 4 should not even be on the radar.

Regarding 5 it really seems to be an extension of 4. I support the second amendment and would never want to see gun ownership entirely forbidden but, by the same token, I don't see our guns protecting us from the current erosion of our civil liberties, which I don't think you would argue is not happening.

3 is an interesting scenario and likely the one I can get most behind but my next question is what type of guns do you need to feel safe in this situation? Let's face it, the government is never going to take away all of our guns but do you truly believe that you would need a fully automatic rifle or even a semi-automatic AR-15 with two high capacity banana clips (or something along those lines) to make you safe in the civil unrest scenario? Wouldn't your hunting rifle(s), shotgun(s) and handgun(s) make you feel secure enough that any predators would move on to easier targets?

Also I wish you would post links or mention sources of any studies you wish to put forward. I am not disagreeing with the data, it certainly passes the smell test, but it helps put things in context.

A so-called "Assault Rifle" is an extension of 1. It's a fun sporting rifle to shoot and hunt with. It features a slower moving, smaller bullet that does LESS damage than most commonly accepted hunting rounds. The fact that idiots who know nothing about firearms are attacking it is reason enough for folks to bristle up and defend it.

You can argue against capacity of magazines all you want but it's a fools errand that I'm not getting into. Want to outlaw 100round barrels? Sure. Go for it. Want to outlaw standard 30 round magazines, You're a ####### and good luck. That's the last I'll address on that matter. Erosion of liberties is indeed occuring and giving up our right to bear arms would be another. I'm not sure why it needs to be related to any other loss of liberties when it qualifies as such on it's own. My Shotgun and handgun are excellent for close quarters combat. Me, I'd rather that IF in the UNLIKELY scenario #3 comes to pass, I have something with a bit more range so I can keep harm outside the reach of my family. For that purpose I have selected my AR-15... PRIMARILY for enjoyable target/sport shooting... but alternately as a long range form of self defense in the unlikely event need arises. My AR will NOT be my first firearm I reach for when my home is broken into (That would be a shotgun for a combination of it's close range effectiveness while limiting collateral damage outside by home by stray rounds. I am a little perturbed by the fact that you simply brush aside 1 & 2 which are my primary reasons for wanting to own a firearm... those are plenty of reason for me and, frankly, that's all that matters.

I don't like the label "assault rifle" because it's too much of a (forgive the language) moving target. But the most popular semi-automatic rifle, by a wide margin, is the AR-15 which can be modified to fully automatic with little experience or effort. It is a highly dangerous weapon with all the mods that can be done to it, and the argument that it is more fun to shoot does not seem very strong as a position to defend the right to own one. Not being able to have an AR-15, or the like, does not inhibit your ability to hunt in any way, I am sorry if it infringes on your fun.

And regardless of whether or not you want to discuss it, magazine size seems to be very relevant. There is a clear example in the Clackmas mall shooting where the break in fire allowed a citizen with a conceal/carry to draw his weapon and target the shooter. Whatever leads to breaks in fire, like having to reload more frequently, would absolutely lead to more opportunities for lives being saved. That is pretty difficult to argue against.

As far as longer range to defend yourself in a case of civil unrest, exactly how long range do you need? And why won't your standard hunting rifle do in that situation? You expecting to be in a situation where the government response is so very slow that you will have to fend off massive hordes or people with malicious intent? Seems to me that barring a complete and total breakdown of the government to a dystopian post-apocalyptic state that is an unrealistic scenario. If you think it is a realistic scenario perhaps you should audition for Doomsday Hoarders.

 

[ATC1]

I have no problem with 1 & 2 and agree that 4 should not even be on the radar.

Regarding 5 it really seems to be an extension of 4. I support the second amendment and would never want to see gun ownership entirely forbidden but, by the same token, I don't see our guns protecting us from the current erosion of our civil liberties, which I don't think you would argue is not happening.

3 is an interesting scenario and likely the one I can get most behind but my next question is what type of guns do you need to feel safe in this situation? Let's face it, the government is never going to take away all of our guns but do you truly believe that you would need a fully automatic rifle or even a semi-automatic AR-15 with two high capacity banana clips (or something along those lines) to make you safe in the civil unrest scenario? Wouldn't your hunting rifle(s), shotgun(s) and handgun(s) make you feel secure enough that any predators would move on to easier targets?

Also I wish you would post links or mention sources of any studies you wish to put forward. I am not disagreeing with the data, it certainly passes the smell test, but it helps put things in context.

A so-called "Assault Rifle" is an extension of 1. It's a fun sporting rifle to shoot and hunt with. It features a slower moving, smaller bullet that does LESS damage than most commonly accepted hunting rounds. The fact that idiots who know nothing about firearms are attacking it is reason enough for folks to bristle up and defend it.

You can argue against capacity of magazines all you want but it's a fools errand that I'm not getting into. Want to outlaw 100round barrels? Sure. Go for it. Want to outlaw standard 30 round magazines, You're a ####### and good luck. That's the last I'll address on that matter. Erosion of liberties is indeed occuring and giving up our right to bear arms would be another. I'm not sure why it needs to be related to any other loss of liberties when it qualifies as such on it's own. My Shotgun and handgun are excellent for close quarters combat. Me, I'd rather that IF in the UNLIKELY scenario #3 comes to pass, I have something with a bit more range so I can keep harm outside the reach of my family. For that purpose I have selected my AR-15... PRIMARILY for enjoyable target/sport shooting... but alternately as a long range form of self defense in the unlikely event need arises. My AR will NOT be my first firearm I reach for when my home is broken into (That would be a shotgun for a combination of it's close range effectiveness while limiting collateral damage outside by home by stray rounds. I am a little perturbed by the fact that you simply brush aside 1 & 2 which are my primary reasons for wanting to own a firearm... those are plenty of reason for me and, frankly, that's all that matters.

ARs are mostly for fun. (I don't own one, my father in law does that I get to shoot, so never felt the need to purchase one). The only way I would have one for protection is if I were in New Orleans after Katrina. My entire family was relocated from the storm, no one close to me decided to stay, but I heard stories involving armed robberies, murders etc. after Katrina.

 

[[icon]]

. But the most popular semi-automatic rifle, by a wide margin, is the AR-15 which can be modified to fully automatic with little experience or effort.

Link?

 

[timschochet]

. But the most popular semi-automatic rifle, by a wide margin, is the AR-15 which can be modified to fully automatic with little experience or effort.

Link?

I've had some friends of mine who own guns, who have made this claim in the past. I have no idea if it's true.

 

[[icon]]

. But the most popular semi-automatic rifle, by a wide margin, is the AR-15 which can be modified to fully automatic with little experience or effort.

Link?

I've had some friends of mine who own guns, who have made this claim in the past. I have no idea if it's true.

It's not true with the AR-15 platform. I'm eager to see this documentation There is a bump fire stock that mimics full auto by absorbing recoil and bumping back against the finger. It doesn't make the rifle full auto but instead facilitates fast pulling of the trigger. This is not the "gum and paperclip modification" crap that Chaka is talking about. For the record I'd have no problem with anyone making bump-recoil stocks like these illegal. They're fun but it's not a hill worth dying on for me, personally.

 

[Chaka]

I believe most mass shootings occur because the targets are in areas where people can not carry for self defense. Sandhook, Aurora movie theater, VTech, Colombine and the recent stabbings on a college campus were all mass shootings/stabbings in gun free zones because their targets where easy and had less resistance to worry about.

ICON posted a link early in this thread of all the shootings that have occurred and someone was able to intervene. The number of victims greatly decrease when someone is there to resist the criminal. (Salt Lake City stabbing, the mall shooting in Oregon) I think there were only 2 victims in each case? One held the suspect at gun point until the police arrived. The other pointed the gun and the shooter shot himself before police arrived.

Limiting magazine capacity is just dumb. If someone plans a shooting are you really going to think they are going to care about the law that limits a magazines ammo capacity? It will not have any affect on the real problem you mention and that is accidental shootings. We need a better way to make people more aware in the proper care and safety in owning a gun.

I have discussed before in this thread that a lot of accidental shootings involve someone carrying needing to take a holster off before they enter a building that permits carry. Or it involves showing off guns to buddies that could be prevented if they were properly trained to disarm a weapon.

I don't think you can claim with much certainty that those targets were chosen because they were gun free zones. If you are going to include Aurora in that list then most of the public space in this country is gun free.

The shootings it sounds like you are talking about are Clackmas, where a break in fire allowed Nick Miel to draw his weapon and target the shooter but I am not sure you can argue he saved any lives. I am not saying he didn't just that it is unclear. The other one is probably Pearl high school where the assistant principle detained the shooter in the parking lot as he was leaving the scene, it is very possible he saved lives of others in doing so. I would really like to see the list of others, any idea what page it is on?

Accidental shootings are part of the problem but hardly the entirety of it, I mentioned it simply to point we have lost far more citizens to accidental gun death than all mass shootings or kill sprees combined. And I wouldn't be surprised, if we could somehow compile the data, to learn that we lose more citizens to accidental shootings than lives that are saved by armed citizens.

I am all for a proper training mandate prior to being allowed to purchase a firearm.

 

[Chaka]

Aside from taking your guns what, exactly, do people think the American Government will do to them if they somehow manage to take your guns? It will never happen but there seems to be a strong feeling among gun owners that the American Government would do something nefarious if they managed to confiscate all the guns, so what is it that the American Government would do that worries people? I mean something beyond the act of somehow managing to confiscate guns.

This is where the gun grabbers crowd lose any and all credibility.

It (It = gun confiscation) has already happened in the U.S., read the thread. State governments (NY and CA in particular) have already used gun registration lists to confiscate firearms. Anyone that thinks these lists could not be used again in the future to repeat this process is blind. You (and Tim and others) love making the jump from A->Z and assume every 2A-gun-loving American is expecting the U.S. Government to turn Tyrannical, yet you ignore all of the stepping stones in between that infringe on our rights and can have immediate consequences against criminals that remain armed and do not comply. Hell look at the recent manhunt in Boston with two criminals that possessed fully automatic weapons. Don't misinterpret this as a cry that every citizen needs a fully automatic weapon to defend against this, but rather take it in perspective of such ridiculous legislation of reducing weapons to carry only 7 bullets such as in NY where 10 (or more) would be better suited for home defense.

I live in California and can buy all the guns I want.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I have no problem with 1 & 2 and agree that 4 should not even be on the radar.

Regarding 5 it really seems to be an extension of 4. I support the second amendment and would never want to see gun ownership entirely forbidden but, by the same token, I don't see our guns protecting us from the current erosion of our civil liberties, which I don't think you would argue is not happening.

3 is an interesting scenario and likely the one I can get most behind but my next question is what type of guns do you need to feel safe in this situation? Let's face it, the government is never going to take away all of our guns but do you truly believe that you would need a fully automatic rifle or even a semi-automatic AR-15 with two high capacity banana clips (or something along those lines) to make you safe in the civil unrest scenario? Wouldn't your hunting rifle(s), shotgun(s) and handgun(s) make you feel secure enough that any predators would move on to easier targets?

Also I wish you would post links or mention sources of any studies you wish to put forward. I am not disagreeing with the data, it certainly passes the smell test, but it helps put things in context.

A so-called "Assault Rifle" is an extension of 1. It's a fun sporting rifle to shoot and hunt with. It features a slower moving, smaller bullet that does LESS damage than most commonly accepted hunting rounds. The fact that idiots who know nothing about firearms are attacking it is reason enough for folks to bristle up and defend it.

You can argue against capacity of magazines all you want but it's a fools errand that I'm not getting into. Want to outlaw 100round barrels? Sure. Go for it. Want to outlaw standard 30 round magazines, You're a ####### and good luck. That's the last I'll address on that matter. Erosion of liberties is indeed occuring and giving up our right to bear arms would be another. I'm not sure why it needs to be related to any other loss of liberties when it qualifies as such on it's own. My Shotgun and handgun are excellent for close quarters combat. Me, I'd rather that IF in the UNLIKELY scenario #3 comes to pass, I have something with a bit more range so I can keep harm outside the reach of my family. For that purpose I have selected my AR-15... PRIMARILY for enjoyable target/sport shooting... but alternately as a long range form of self defense in the unlikely event need arises. My AR will NOT be my first firearm I reach for when my home is broken into (That would be a shotgun for a combination of it's close range effectiveness while limiting collateral damage outside by home by stray rounds. I am a little perturbed by the fact that you simply brush aside 1 & 2 which are my primary reasons for wanting to own a firearm... those are plenty of reason for me and, frankly, that's all that matters.

I don't like the label "assault rifle" because it's too much of a (forgive the language) moving target. But the most popular semi-automatic rifle, by a wide margin, is the AR-15 which can be modified to fully automatic with little experience or effort. It is a highly dangerous weapon with all the mods that can be done to it, and the argument that it is more fun to shoot does not seem very strong as a position to defend the right to own one. Not being able to have an AR-15, or the like, does not inhibit your ability to hunt in any way, I am sorry if it infringes on your fun.

And regardless of whether or not you want to discuss it, magazine size seems to be very relevant. There is a clear example in the Clackmas mall shooting where the break in fire allowed a citizen with a conceal/carry to draw his weapon and target the shooter. Whatever leads to breaks in fire, like having to reload more frequently, would absolutely lead to more opportunities for lives being saved. That is pretty difficult to argue against.

As far as longer range to defend yourself in a case of civil unrest, exactly how long range do you need? And why won't your standard hunting rifle do in that situation? You expecting to be in a situation where the government response is so very slow that you will have to fend off massive hordes or people with malicious intent? Seems to me that barring a complete and total breakdown of the government to a dystopian post-apocalyptic state that is an unrealistic scenario. If you think it is a realistic scenario perhaps you should audition for Doomsday Hoarders.

Bold sums it up. It's always amazing to me how many white males in this country live in such a high state of fear.

 

[Chaka]

n I can't see a single reason why any citizen would need a semi-automatic rifle (which we all know can be converted to burst fire or full auto with some bubble gum a couple of paper clips and a five minute YouTube video) with high capacity magazines.

Thank God you have no say over gun legislation

The only defense you have proffered for owning an AR-15 is that they are fun to shoot (something I agree with BTW).

 

[Chaka]

. But the most popular semi-automatic rifle, by a wide margin, is the AR-15 which can be modified to fully automatic with little experience or effort.

Link?

I've had some friends of mine who own guns, who have made this claim in the past. I have no idea if it's true.

It's not true with the AR-15 platform. I'm eager to see this documentation There is a bump fire stock that mimics full auto by absorbing recoil and bumping back against the finger. It doesn't make the rifle full auto but instead facilitates fast pulling of the trigger. This is not the "gum and paperclip modification" crap that Chaka is talking about. For the record I'd have no problem with anyone making bump-recoil stocks like these illegal. They're fun but it's not a hill worth dying on for me, personally.

Okay I was wrong and am happy to own that. Apparently it's the "bump stock". If the end result is the same why does it really matter?

 

[[icon]]

Me, I'd rather that IF in the UNLIKELY scenario #3 comes to pass,

You expecting to be in a situation where the government response is so very slow that you will have to fend off massive hordes or people with malicious intent? Seems to me that barring a complete and total breakdown of the government to a dystopian post-apocalyptic state that is an unrealistic scenario. If you think it is a realistic scenario perhaps you should audition for Doomsday Hoarders.

Bold sums it up. It's always amazing to me how many white males in this country live in such a high state of fear.

you guys are a riot.

 

[[icon]]

n I can't see a single reason why any citizen would need a semi-automatic rifle (which we all know can be converted to burst fire or full auto with some bubble gum a couple of paper clips and a five minute YouTube video) with high capacity magazines.

Thank God you have no say over gun legislation

The only defense you have proffered for owning an AR-15 is that they are fun to shoot (something I agree with BTW).

The only reason you've provided for banning them is that they look scary. You want to go after a gun that kills a lot of people? Go after handguns.

 

[Chaka]

Me, I'd rather that IF in the UNLIKELY scenario #3 comes to pass,

You expecting to be in a situation where the government response is so very slow that you will have to fend off massive hordes or people with malicious intent? Seems to me that barring a complete and total breakdown of the government to a dystopian post-apocalyptic state that is an unrealistic scenario. If you think it is a realistic scenario perhaps you should audition for Doomsday Hoarders.

Bold sums it up. It's always amazing to me how many white males in this country live in such a high state of fear.

you guys are a riot.

You're the one who feels a need to have a semi-automatic rifle to defend against looters. I think my shotgun, 30-06 and .40 handgun will do just fine in that situation.

 

[Chaka]

n I can't see a single reason why any citizen would need a semi-automatic rifle (which we all know can be converted to burst fire or full auto with some bubble gum a couple of paper clips and a five minute YouTube video) with high capacity magazines.

Thank God you have no say over gun legislation

The only defense you have proffered for owning an AR-15 is that they are fun to shoot (something I agree with BTW).

The only reason you've provided for banning them is that they look scary. You want to go after a gun that kills a lot of people? Go after handguns.

Actually I am opposed to them because they can do more damage per second than most handguns due to their increased accuracy, high rate of fire and massive clip sizes.

 

[Chaka]

Handguns are a huge problem, I absolutely agree. If only we had a way of tracking guns used in crimes to their owners.

 

[lod01]

Me, I'd rather that IF in the UNLIKELY scenario #3 comes to pass,

You expecting to be in a situation where the government response is so very slow that you will have to fend off massive hordes or people with malicious intent? Seems to me that barring a complete and total breakdown of the government to a dystopian post-apocalyptic state that is an unrealistic scenario. If you think it is a realistic scenario perhaps you should audition for Doomsday Hoarders.

Bold sums it up. It's always amazing to me how many white males in this country live in such a high state of fear.

you guys are a riot.

You're the one who feels a need to have a semi-automatic rifle to defend against looters. I think my shotgun, 30-06 and .40 handgun will do just fine in that situation.

What is your order of use? Is it situation dependent or do you go with the shotgun first everytime?

 

[[icon]]

. But the most popular semi-automatic rifle, by a wide margin, is the AR-15 which can be modified to fully automatic with little experience or effort.

Link?

I've had some friends of mine who own guns, who have made this claim in the past. I have no idea if it's true.

It's not true with the AR-15 platform. I'm eager to see this documentation There is a bump fire stock that mimics full auto by absorbing recoil and bumping back against the finger. It doesn't make the rifle full auto but instead facilitates fast pulling of the trigger. This is not the "gum and paperclip modification" crap that Chaka is talking about. For the record I'd have no problem with anyone making bump-recoil stocks like these illegal. They're fun but it's not a hill worth dying on for me, personally.

Okay I was wrong and am happy to own that. Apparently it's the "bump stock". If the end result is the same why does it really matter?

Then petition to make the bump stock illegal and quit making up bull#### facts

 

[Chaka]

. But the most popular semi-automatic rifle, by a wide margin, is the AR-15 which can be modified to fully automatic with little experience or effort.

Link?

I've had some friends of mine who own guns, who have made this claim in the past. I have no idea if it's true.

It's not true with the AR-15 platform. I'm eager to see this documentation There is a bump fire stock that mimics full auto by absorbing recoil and bumping back against the finger. It doesn't make the rifle full auto but instead facilitates fast pulling of the trigger. This is not the "gum and paperclip modification" crap that Chaka is talking about. For the record I'd have no problem with anyone making bump-recoil stocks like these illegal. They're fun but it's not a hill worth dying on for me, personally.

Okay I was wrong and am happy to own that. Apparently it's the "bump stock". If the end result is the same why does it really matter?

Then petition to make the bump stock illegal and quit making up bull#### facts

I am sorry to have offended you so much. I am in here looking for solid argument on both sides to better inform my own opinions. You seem to be pretty knowledgeable and I hope you keep posting...in between finishing up burying that shipping container in your backyard and making Wal-Mart runs to stock up on ammo

 

[ATC1]

I believe most mass shootings occur because the targets are in areas where people can not carry for self defense. Sandhook, Aurora movie theater, VTech, Colombine and the recent stabbings on a college campus were all mass shootings/stabbings in gun free zones because their targets where easy and had less resistance to worry about.

ICON posted a link early in this thread of all the shootings that have occurred and someone was able to intervene. The number of victims greatly decrease when someone is there to resist the criminal. (Salt Lake City stabbing, the mall shooting in Oregon) I think there were only 2 victims in each case? One held the suspect at gun point until the police arrived. The other pointed the gun and the shooter shot himself before police arrived.

Limiting magazine capacity is just dumb. If someone plans a shooting are you really going to think they are going to care about the law that limits a magazines ammo capacity? It will not have any affect on the real problem you mention and that is accidental shootings. We need a better way to make people more aware in the proper care and safety in owning a gun.

I have discussed before in this thread that a lot of accidental shootings involve someone carrying needing to take a holster off before they enter a building that permits carry. Or it involves showing off guns to buddies that could be prevented if they were properly trained to disarm a weapon.

I don't think you can claim with much certainty that those targets were chosen because they were gun free zones. If you are going to include Aurora in that list then most of the public space in this country is gun free.

The shootings it sounds like you are talking about are Clackmas, where a break in fire allowed Nick Miel to draw his weapon and target the shooter but I am not sure you can argue he saved any lives. I am not saying he didn't just that it is unclear. The other one is probably Pearl high school where the assistant principle detained the shooter in the parking lot as he was leaving the scene, it is very possible he saved lives of others in doing so. I would really like to see the list of others, any idea what page it is on?

Accidental shootings are part of the problem but hardly the entirety of it, I mentioned it simply to point we have lost far more citizens to accidental gun death than all mass shootings or kill sprees combined. And I wouldn't be surprised, if we could somehow compile the data, to learn that we lose more citizens to accidental shootings than lives that are saved by armed citizens.

I am all for a proper training mandate prior to being allowed to purchase a firearm.

I have no proof that they chose those locations because they were gun free zones. However, I will point out that it seems these guys will shoot themselves once met with resistance. Also, Aurora movie theater was not the closest theater to the shooter's house. However, it was the closest theater that had a gun free sign on the front door. Coincidence? maybe, maybe not, but odd. No other reason he picked that particular one I found.

Salt Lake City - http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

There was a discharge malfunction in the Oregon shooting. However, when he met resistance he shot himself. I don't think he would have done that if there was no resistance there. The police were not there yet. He could have cleared the jam and proceed to fire. Only having 2 or 3 victims in a crowded food court area of a mall is a very small number then it could have been if a person with a CCP was not there IMO.

If I knew the page it was on I would share the link ICON posted.

 

[[icon]]

Handguns are a huge problem, I absolutely agree. If only we had a way of tracking guns used in crimes to their owners.

Handguns are THE problem. Yet you fools focus on something that accounts for a fraction of the issue that handguns are. And I can already see all those criminals rushing to register their firearms! Great idea... I'm not sure why nobody thought of that before.

 

[Chaka]

I have no proof that they chose those locations because they were gun free zones. However, I will point out that it seems these guys will shoot themselves once met with resistance. Also, Aurora movie theater was not the closest theater to the shooter's house. However, it was the closest theater that had a gun free sign on the front door. Coincidence? maybe, maybe not, but odd. No other reason he picked that particular one I found.

Salt Lake City - http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

There was a discharge malfunction in the Oregon shooting. However, when he met resistance he shot himself. I don't think he would have done that if there was no resistance there. The police were not there yet. He could have cleared the jam and proceed to fire. Only having 2 or 3 victims in a crowded food court area of a mall is a very small number then it could have been if a person with a CCP was not there IMO.

If I knew the page it was on I would share the link ICON posted.

Interesting although a "No Guns" sign doesn't seem like a very effective deterrent. Was it the nearest theater that was premiering The Dark Knight Rises?

Yes it was a gun jam in Oregon, it was also a break in fire. I agree that it is very possible that Miel saved lives but it was the break in fire that allowed him to act in the first place. It doesn't really matter why the break occurred.

 

[Chaka]

Handguns are a huge problem, I absolutely agree. If only we had a way of tracking guns used in crimes to their owners.

Handguns are THE problem. Yet you fools focus on something that accounts for a fraction of the issue that handguns are.And I can already see all those criminals rushing to register their firearms! Great idea... I'm not sure why nobody thought of that before.

I am not focusing on semi-automatic rifles exclusively that is just where our discussion took us.

And the criminals aren't just conjuring guns, perhaps if we had a way to track the guns from manufacturers to the sellers and buyers we could find the break in the chain that allows them to get into criminal hands in the first place.

Is the next argument that if we can't do anything about the guns already out there then we shouldn't do anything about the ones that are currently being manufactured?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Aside from taking your guns what, exactly, do people think the American Government will do to them if they somehow manage to take your guns? It will never happen but there seems to be a strong feeling among gun owners that the American Government would do something nefarious if they managed to confiscate all the guns, so what is it that the American Government would do that worries people? I mean something beyond the act of somehow managing to confiscate guns.

This is where the gun grabbers crowd lose any and all credibility.

It (It = gun confiscation) has already happened in the U.S., read the thread. State governments (NY and CA in particular) have already used gun registration lists to confiscate firearms. Anyone that thinks these lists could not be used again in the future to repeat this process is blind. You (and Tim and others) love making the jump from A->Z and assume every 2A-gun-loving American is expecting the U.S. Government to turn Tyrannical, yet you ignore all of the stepping stones in between that infringe on our rights and can have immediate consequences against criminals that remain armed and do not comply. Hell look at the recent manhunt in Boston with two criminals that possessed fully automatic weapons. Don't misinterpret this as a cry that every citizen needs a fully automatic weapon to defend against this, but rather take it in perspective of such ridiculous legislation of reducing weapons to carry only 7 bullets such as in NY where 10 (or more) would be better suited for home defense.

Now see Icon, this guy gets it. He has gone far lower than you seem to be capable of. Your paranoia is only a dim shadow of his. Look! Look how far ahead he is of you. But if you hurry, you might catch him...

What paranoia? Keep preaching about people that think about overthrowing a tyrannical government, Hitler and Nazis as their excuse to purchase firearms and how 90% of people support your views.

 

[[icon]]

Handguns are a huge problem, I absolutely agree. If only we had a way of tracking guns used in crimes to their owners.

Handguns are THE problem. Yet you fools focus on something that accounts for a fraction of the issue that handguns are.And I can already see all those criminals rushing to register their firearms! Great idea... I'm not sure why nobody thought of that before.

I am not focusing on semi-automatic rifles exclusively that is just where our discussion took us.

And the criminals aren't just conjuring guns, perhaps if we had a way to track the guns from manufacturers to the sellers and buyers we could find the break in the chain that allows them to get into criminal hands in the first place.

Is the next argument that if we can't do anything about the guns already out there then we shouldn't do anything about the ones that are currently being manufactured?

My argument is that you propose knee jerk misguided legislation that will have little to no impact on the actual crime and monumental impact on the rights of law abiding citizens. That's not a tradeoff I'm willing to make. You are. That's fine. Thankfully lawmakers agree with me

 

[[icon]]

. But the most popular semi-automatic rifle, by a wide margin, is the AR-15 which can be modified to fully automatic with little experience or effort.

Link?

I've had some friends of mine who own guns, who have made this claim in the past. I have no idea if it's true.

It's not true with the AR-15 platform. I'm eager to see this documentation There is a bump fire stock that mimics full auto by absorbing recoil and bumping back against the finger. It doesn't make the rifle full auto but instead facilitates fast pulling of the trigger. This is not the "gum and paperclip modification" crap that Chaka is talking about. For the record I'd have no problem with anyone making bump-recoil stocks like these illegal. They're fun but it's not a hill worth dying on for me, personally.

Okay I was wrong and am happy to own that. Apparently it's the "bump stock". If the end result is the same why does it really matter?

Then petition to make the bump stock illegal and quit making up bull#### facts

I am sorry to have offended you so much.

I just find it funny that you have to repeatedly make up crap to make some point.. then just walk away from it when you're called on your lies. The fact that you have to make up lies like this says volumes about your stance. I gotta get some work done... you gun grabbers keep kicking the brick wall in here. It ain't moving. Don't like it... I hear mexico has a nice gun ban in effect this time of year.

 

[jwp]

Handguns are a huge problem, I absolutely agree. If only we had a way of tracking guns used in crimes to their owners.

Can't do that. Then the big scary govt will have a list.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Handguns are a huge problem, I absolutely agree. If only we had a way of tracking guns used in crimes to their owners.

Handguns are THE problem. Yet you fools focus on something that accounts for a fraction of the issue that handguns are.And I can already see all those criminals rushing to register their firearms! Great idea... I'm not sure why nobody thought of that before.

I am not focusing on semi-automatic rifles exclusively that is just where our discussion took us.

And the criminals aren't just conjuring guns, perhaps if we had a way to track the guns from manufacturers to the sellers and buyers we could find the break in the chain that allows them to get into criminal hands in the first place.

Is the next argument that if we can't do anything about the guns already out there then we shouldn't do anything about the ones that are currently being manufactured?

My argument is that you propose knee jerk misguided legislation that will have little to no impact on the actual crime and monumental impact on the rights of law abiding citizens. That's not a tradeoff I'm willing to make. You are. That's fine. Thankfully lawmakers agree with me

MONUMENTAL!!!

 

[[icon]]

My argument is that you propose knee jerk misguided legislation that will have little to no impact on the actual crime and monumental impact on the rights of law abiding citizens. That's not a tradeoff I'm willing to make. You are. That's fine. Thankfully lawmakers agree with me

MONUMENTAL!!!

Not sure what country you live in, but removing rights of citizens outlined in the constitution is a pretty big deal to me.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Chaka, remember this is who you're dealing with. Doomsday Preppers indeed.

3 Cases of MRE's. 6 Blankets. 30 Gallons of water. Radio. Flashlights. Lots of batteries. Lighters. Ammo. Rolls of plastic. Medic Trauma Bag. Duct Tape. $500 in cash. some other stuff.... but yeah. I've got a "Trunk" in the corner of a storage room.

 

[Mookie]

Instead of participating here,

http://americansforresponsiblesolutions.org/

 

[ATC1]

I have no proof that they chose those locations because they were gun free zones. However, I will point out that it seems these guys will shoot themselves once met with resistance. Also, Aurora movie theater was not the closest theater to the shooter's house. However, it was the closest theater that had a gun free sign on the front door. Coincidence? maybe, maybe not, but odd. No other reason he picked that particular one I found.

Salt Lake City - http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

There was a discharge malfunction in the Oregon shooting. However, when he met resistance he shot himself. I don't think he would have done that if there was no resistance there. The police were not there yet. He could have cleared the jam and proceed to fire. Only having 2 or 3 victims in a crowded food court area of a mall is a very small number then it could have been if a person with a CCP was not there IMO.

If I knew the page it was on I would share the link ICON posted.

Interesting although a "No Guns" sign doesn't seem like a very effective deterrent. Was it the nearest theater that was premiering The Dark Knight Rises?

Yes it was a gun jam in Oregon, it was also a break in fire. I agree that it is very possible that Miel saved lives but it was the break in fire that allowed him to act in the first place. It doesn't really matter why the break occurred.

Only a deterrent to those who are law abiding. No idea if it was the nearest, but I think there were a number of other theaters in between his house and that one.

We certainly caught a break with the gun jamming. I still don't see how a ban on high capacity magazines will be a deterrent for criminals.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I have no proof that they chose those locations because they were gun free zones. However, I will point out that it seems these guys will shoot themselves once met with resistance. Also, Aurora movie theater was not the closest theater to the shooter's house. However, it was the closest theater that had a gun free sign on the front door. Coincidence? maybe, maybe not, but odd. No other reason he picked that particular one I found.

Salt Lake City - http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

There was a discharge malfunction in the Oregon shooting. However, when he met resistance he shot himself. I don't think he would have done that if there was no resistance there. The police were not there yet. He could have cleared the jam and proceed to fire. Only having 2 or 3 victims in a crowded food court area of a mall is a very small number then it could have been if a person with a CCP was not there IMO.

If I knew the page it was on I would share the link ICON posted.

Interesting although a "No Guns" sign doesn't seem like a very effective deterrent. Was it the nearest theater that was premiering The Dark Knight Rises?

Yes it was a gun jam in Oregon, it was also a break in fire. I agree that it is very possible that Miel saved lives but it was the break in fire that allowed him to act in the first place. It doesn't really matter why the break occurred.

Only a deterrent to those who are law abiding. No idea if it was the nearest, but I think there were a number of other theaters in between his house and that one.

We certainly caught a break with the gun jamming. I still don't see how a ban on high capacity magazines will be a deterrent for criminals.

Why not?

 

[[icon]]

Chaka, remember this is who you're dealing with. Doomsday Preppers indeed.

3 Cases of MRE's. 6 Blankets. 30 Gallons of water. Radio. Flashlights. Lots of batteries. Lighters. Ammo. Rolls of plastic. Medic Trauma Bag. Duct Tape. $500 in cash. some other stuff.... but yeah. I've got a "Trunk" in the corner of a storage room.

So a small trunk taking up a couple square feet in the corner of a storage room is doomsday preppers stuff now? Don't you guys throw your shoulders out with these reaches now.... wow. So does having a fridge stocked with food make me a caterer?

 

[ATC1]

I have no proof that they chose those locations because they were gun free zones. However, I will point out that it seems these guys will shoot themselves once met with resistance. Also, Aurora movie theater was not the closest theater to the shooter's house. However, it was the closest theater that had a gun free sign on the front door. Coincidence? maybe, maybe not, but odd. No other reason he picked that particular one I found.

Salt Lake City - http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

There was a discharge malfunction in the Oregon shooting. However, when he met resistance he shot himself. I don't think he would have done that if there was no resistance there. The police were not there yet. He could have cleared the jam and proceed to fire. Only having 2 or 3 victims in a crowded food court area of a mall is a very small number then it could have been if a person with a CCP was not there IMO.

If I knew the page it was on I would share the link ICON posted.

Interesting although a "No Guns" sign doesn't seem like a very effective deterrent. Was it the nearest theater that was premiering The Dark Knight Rises?

Yes it was a gun jam in Oregon, it was also a break in fire. I agree that it is very possible that Miel saved lives but it was the break in fire that allowed him to act in the first place. It doesn't really matter why the break occurred.

Only a deterrent to those who are law abiding. No idea if it was the nearest, but I think there were a number of other theaters in between his house and that one.

We certainly caught a break with the gun jamming. I still don't see how a ban on high capacity magazines will be a deterrent for criminals.

Why not?

Because their intent is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time.

Cutting down on magazine capacity will not affect a main issue gun control people have and that is accidental deaths and suicide by guns.

 

[Chaka]

I have no proof that they chose those locations because they were gun free zones. However, I will point out that it seems these guys will shoot themselves once met with resistance. Also, Aurora movie theater was not the closest theater to the shooter's house. However, it was the closest theater that had a gun free sign on the front door. Coincidence? maybe, maybe not, but odd. No other reason he picked that particular one I found.

Salt Lake City - http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

There was a discharge malfunction in the Oregon shooting. However, when he met resistance he shot himself. I don't think he would have done that if there was no resistance there. The police were not there yet. He could have cleared the jam and proceed to fire. Only having 2 or 3 victims in a crowded food court area of a mall is a very small number then it could have been if a person with a CCP was not there IMO.

If I knew the page it was on I would share the link ICON posted.

Interesting although a "No Guns" sign doesn't seem like a very effective deterrent. Was it the nearest theater that was premiering The Dark Knight Rises?

Yes it was a gun jam in Oregon, it was also a break in fire. I agree that it is very possible that Miel saved lives but it was the break in fire that allowed him to act in the first place. It doesn't really matter why the break occurred.

Only a deterrent to those who are law abiding. No idea if it was the nearest, but I think there were a number of other theaters in between his house and that one.

We certainly caught a break with the gun jamming. I still don't see how a ban on high capacity magazines will be a deterrent for criminals.

It's not a deterrent to criminals so much as offering an opportunity to victims.

 

[[icon]]

I have no proof that they chose those locations because they were gun free zones. However, I will point out that it seems these guys will shoot themselves once met with resistance. Also, Aurora movie theater was not the closest theater to the shooter's house. However, it was the closest theater that had a gun free sign on the front door. Coincidence? maybe, maybe not, but odd. No other reason he picked that particular one I found.

Salt Lake City - http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

There was a discharge malfunction in the Oregon shooting. However, when he met resistance he shot himself. I don't think he would have done that if there was no resistance there. The police were not there yet. He could have cleared the jam and proceed to fire. Only having 2 or 3 victims in a crowded food court area of a mall is a very small number then it could have been if a person with a CCP was not there IMO.

If I knew the page it was on I would share the link ICON posted.

Interesting although a "No Guns" sign doesn't seem like a very effective deterrent. Was it the nearest theater that was premiering The Dark Knight Rises?

Yes it was a gun jam in Oregon, it was also a break in fire. I agree that it is very possible that Miel saved lives but it was the break in fire that allowed him to act in the first place. It doesn't really matter why the break occurred.

Only a deterrent to those who are law abiding. No idea if it was the nearest, but I think there were a number of other theaters in between his house and that one.

We certainly caught a break with the gun jamming. I still don't see how a ban on high capacity magazines will be a deterrent for criminals.

It's not a deterrent to criminals so much as offering an opportunity to victims.

Know what offers more opportunity to victims? The ability to also be armed and defend themselves.

A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."

 

[Chaka]

. But the most popular semi-automatic rifle, by a wide margin, is the AR-15 which can be modified to fully automatic with little experience or effort.

Link?

I've had some friends of mine who own guns, who have made this claim in the past. I have no idea if it's true.

It's not true with the AR-15 platform. I'm eager to see this documentation There is a bump fire stock that mimics full auto by absorbing recoil and bumping back against the finger. It doesn't make the rifle full auto but instead facilitates fast pulling of the trigger. This is not the "gum and paperclip modification" crap that Chaka is talking about. For the record I'd have no problem with anyone making bump-recoil stocks like these illegal. They're fun but it's not a hill worth dying on for me, personally.

Okay I was wrong and am happy to own that. Apparently it's the "bump stock". If the end result is the same why does it really matter?

Then petition to make the bump stock illegal and quit making up bull#### facts

I am sorry to have offended you so much.

I just find it funny that you have to repeatedly make up crap to make some point.. then just walk away from it when you're called on your lies. The fact that you have to make up lies like this says volumes about your stance. I gotta get some work done... you gun grabbers keep kicking the brick wall in here. It ain't moving. Don't like it... I hear mexico has a nice gun ban in effect this time of year.

I can see you are passionate about this but there is no need to call me a liar. I was wrong and owned it, what more do you want? You are the one who corrected my error and pointed out that effectively the same thing can be done with the bump stock.

I sincerely want to know the nuanced arguments on this issue, I am sorry if you have trouble with that.

 

[Chaka]

My argument is that you propose knee jerk misguided legislation that will have little to no impact on the actual crime and monumental impact on the rights of law abiding citizens. That's not a tradeoff I'm willing to make. You are. That's fine. Thankfully lawmakers agree with me

MONUMENTAL!!!

Not sure what country you live in, but removing rights of citizens outlined in the constitution is a pretty big deal to me.

Sure but no one is sincerely suggesting that we not allow citizens to have guns at all.

 

[Chaka]

I have no proof that they chose those locations because they were gun free zones. However, I will point out that it seems these guys will shoot themselves once met with resistance. Also, Aurora movie theater was not the closest theater to the shooter's house. However, it was the closest theater that had a gun free sign on the front door. Coincidence? maybe, maybe not, but odd. No other reason he picked that particular one I found.

Salt Lake City - http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx

There was a discharge malfunction in the Oregon shooting. However, when he met resistance he shot himself. I don't think he would have done that if there was no resistance there. The police were not there yet. He could have cleared the jam and proceed to fire. Only having 2 or 3 victims in a crowded food court area of a mall is a very small number then it could have been if a person with a CCP was not there IMO.

If I knew the page it was on I would share the link ICON posted.

Interesting although a "No Guns" sign doesn't seem like a very effective deterrent. Was it the nearest theater that was premiering The Dark Knight Rises?

Yes it was a gun jam in Oregon, it was also a break in fire. I agree that it is very possible that Miel saved lives but it was the break in fire that allowed him to act in the first place. It doesn't really matter why the break occurred.

Only a deterrent to those who are law abiding. No idea if it was the nearest, but I think there were a number of other theaters in between his house and that one.

We certainly caught a break with the gun jamming. I still don't see how a ban on high capacity magazines will be a deterrent for criminals.

Why not?

Because their intent is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time.

Cutting down on magazine capacity will not affect a main issue gun control people have and that is accidental deaths and suicide by guns.

There are multiple big issues in this debate, suicide and accidental deaths, which account for tens of thousands of deaths annually (according to the CDC) are only two of them. The criminal violence element cannot be, and is not being, ignored.

 

[Novice2]

8th grade student in West Va. suspended,arrested for wearing a t-shirt supporting NRA and 2nd Amendment

When 8th grade Jared Marcum got dressed for school this morning he says he had no idea that his pro-Second Amendment shirt would initiate what he calls a fight over his First Amendment rights.

"I never thought it would go this far because honestly I don't see a problem with this, there shouldn't be a problem with this," Jared said.

It was the image of a gun printed on Jared's t-shirt that sparked a dispute between a Logan Middle School teacher and Jared, that ended with Jared suspended, arrested and facing two charges, obstruction and disturbing the education process, on his otherwise spotless record.

Jared's father Allen Lardieri says he's angry he had to rush from work to pick his son up from jail over something he says was blown way out of proportion.

"I don't' see how anybody would have an issue with a hunting rifle and NRA put on a t-shirt, especially when policy doesn't forbid it," Lardieri said.

The Logan County School District's dress code policy prohibits clothing that displays profanity, violence, discriminatory messages and more but nowhere in the document does it say anything about gun images.

"He did not violate any school policy," Lardieri reiterates. "He did not become aggressive."

Now, Lardieri says he's ready to fight until the situation is made right.

"I will go to the ends of the earth, I will call people, I will write letters, I will do everything in the legal realm to make sure this does not happen again," Lardieri said.

Logan City Police did confirm that Jared had been arrested and charged today.

13 news tried contacting the Logan County School District but has not heard anything back.

http://www.wowktv.com/story/22020264/8th-grade-student-arrested-over-gun-t-shirt

Sounds like the school needs to add guns to the dress code.

So you're ok with arresting the kid?

Probably, though I'd like to hear more details. Pretty sure he wasn't arrested for wearing the shirt, but for his actions afterward.

http://news.yahoo.com/w-va-teen-arrested-almost-012034855.htmlWonder when the video will be leaked.