***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (3 Viewers)

[timschochet]

I bet if you were able to get stats for guns sold in 2012 or even the last few years you would find a helluva lot more than 15% were semiautomatic. I would place more weight on recent gun sales as being more representative of active guns "in circulation" instead of segmenting all guns ever bought in the history of the US where a large percentage of those belong to multi-gun owners in their collection.

This doesn't seem unreasonable to me, and it makes me more sure than ever that there is no good reason to resume the AWB. My problem is this: I can't distinguish between these guns in terms of their effectiveness. It appears to me therefore that all attempts to ban "assault weapons" is based more on their looks than on what they can do. I don't love these weapons, but frankly I can't see the point of banning them. However, I remain convinced that the measures I AM for, (banning high capacity magazines and closing the loophole) not only make sense but will help save lives. And if a bill came out that banned Assault Weapons along with the other two items, I would be for it, reluctantly. Closing the private sales loophole is the first priority.

 

[Cookiemonster]

There aren't 250 million semi-automatic weapons either. In fact, according to this website:

http://www.nraila.or...0%9Cassaul.aspx

Semi-automatic weapons account for 15% of all guns owned in this country.

I can't find any real data regarding the types of guns owned by Joe Public, but from what I've seen in the gun stores and people I know that own guns, let me give this a shot. I understand that all of this is off the top of my head, and can easily be disputed to be way too low or way too high. I'm shooting (pun intended) for middle ground here.1st, lets consider that a heavily regulated country like Germany has 7 million registered firearms, yet is estimated to have 17 million unregistered firearms leads me to believe that the 250-300 million gun count in the US is very underestimated. 2nd, if pistols account for roughly 40% of all firearms and the majority of pistols are semi-auto, I'd say it's safe to say semi-auto pistols alone account for 15%. Even if you went with the low-end estimation of 30% off US guns being pistol and only 50% of those being semi-auto, the 15% would be covered by only pistols. Semi-auto rifles have surged in popularity for decades, and semi-auto shotguns are getting much more affordable and available in the last 5 years too. So, now that I've had a cup of coffee and am hopefully a little better at math, let's go with only 250 million guns and low estimates for each type...

only 30% (pistols) = 75 miliion x 50% semi auto = 37,500,000

70% rifles & shotguns = 175 million x 25% semi auto = 43,750,000

37,500,000 plus

43,750,000 equals

81,250,000 semi auto guns given the minimum numbers and not accounting for military, police, and illegal / hidden guns equates to 32.5%. If you want to include police guns, that number could go way up, since the majority of police weapons are semi-auto.

Found a good laugh for all of us. Here.

I bet if you were able to get stats for guns sold in 2012 or even the last few years you would find a helluva lot more than 15% were semiautomatic. I would place more weight on recent gun sales as being more representative of active guns "in circulation" instead of segmenting all guns ever bought in the history of the US where a large percentage of those belong to multi-gun owners in their collection.

Agree that the last 10-20 years would significantly increase the number for semi auto guns and believe more in the high numbers, but wanted to discuss a high to low and show that the low would still be more than many people believe. The people that believe the low numbers are also the ones I would like to most educate about what an assault rifle is not, since they believe that airsoft guns and Ruger 10/22s are assault rifles.

 

[Slingblade]

http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2012/12/29/why-good-people-need-semiautomatic-firearms-and-high-capacity-magazines-part-i/

WHY GOOD PEOPLE NEED SEMIAUTOMATIC FIREARMS AND “HIGH CAPACITY” MAGAZINES … Part I

by Massad Ayoob

If you’re reading this, you’ve probably had a conversation with someone in the last few days who asked, “Why do ordinary law-abiding people need those semiautomatic firearms with magazines that can hold more than ten cartridges?” There are lots of sound answers.

For one thing, defensive firearms are meant to be “equalizers,” force multipliers that can allow one good person to defend against multiple evil people. To allow one good person to defend against a single evil person so much stronger and/or bigger and/or more violent than he or she, that the attacker’s potentially lethal assault can be stopped. History shows that it often takes many gunshots to stop even a single determined aggressor. Most police officers have seen the famous autopsy photo in the cops-only text book “Street Survival” of the armed robber who soaked up 33 police 9mm bullets before he stopped trying to kill the officers. Consider Lance Thomas, the Los Angeles area watch shop owner who was in many shootouts with multiple gang bangers who tried to rob and murder him. He shot several of them, and discovered that it took so many hits to stop them that he placed multiple loaded handguns every few feet along his workbench. That’s not possible in a home, or when lawfully carrying concealed on the street: a semiautomatic pistol with a substantial cartridge capacity makes much more sense for that defensive application.

Semiautomatic rifles? Consider this heart-breaking, fatal home invasion in Florida http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Byrd_and_Melanie_Billings and ask yourself if it might have turned out differently had the homeowners been able to access and competently deploy something like, oh, a Bushmaster AR15 with 30 round magazine. I teach every year in Southern Arizona, and each year I see more Americans along the border with AR15s and similar rifles in their ranch vehicles and even their regular cars. There have been cases where innocent ranchers and working cops alike have been jeopardized by multiple, heavily armed drug smugglers and human traffickers in desert fights far from police response and backup. A semiautomatic rifle with a substantial magazine capacity can be reassuring in such situations, as seen here: http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/risk-of-violence-keeps-ranchers-on-alert/article_adb7ca9a-14a3-5d63-8788-34bef7e77220.html

In the last twenty years, we have seen epic mob violence in American streets. During the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, Korean storekeepers armed with AR15s kept their stores and livelihoods – and lives – from the torches of inflamed crowds because the mob feared their force multipliers. Read this, for a survivor’s account: http://www.seraphicpress.com/jew-without-a-gun/. There have been bands of roving, violent predators as lately as this year during the Sandy storm. And the “flash mob violence” phenomenon of recent years has left many urban dwellers picturing themselves as the lone victim of a feral human wolfpack.

And, if you will, one more stark and simple thing: Americans have historically modeled their choices of home protection and personal defense handguns on what the cops carried. When the police carried .38 revolvers as a rule, the .38 caliber revolver was the single most popular choice among armed citizens. In the 1980s and into the 1990s, cops switched en masse to semiautomatic pistols. So did the gun-buying public. Today, the most popular handgun among police seems to be the 16-shot, .40 caliber Glock semiautomatic. Not surprisingly, the general public has gone to pistols bracketing that caliber in power (9mm, .40, .45) with similar enthusiasm. The American police establishment has also largely switched from the 12 gauge shotgun which was also the traditional American home defense weapon, to the AR15 patrol rifle with 30-round magazine…and, not surprisingly, the law-abiding citizenry has followed suit there, too.

The reasoning is strikingly clear. The cops are the experts on the current criminal trends. If they have determined that a “high capacity” semiautomatic pistol and a .223 semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines are the best firearms for them to use to protect people like me and my family, they are obviously the best things for us to use to protect ourselves and our families .

 

[boots11234]

I bet if you were able to get stats for guns sold in 2012 or even the last few years you would find a helluva lot more than 15% were semiautomatic. I would place more weight on recent gun sales as being more representative of active guns "in circulation" instead of segmenting all guns ever bought in the history of the US where a large percentage of those belong to multi-gun owners in their collection.

This doesn't seem unreasonable to me, and it makes me more sure than ever that there is no good reason to resume the AWB. My problem is this: I can't distinguish between these guns in terms of their effectiveness. It appears to me therefore that all attempts to ban "assault weapons" is based more on their looks than on what they can do. I don't love these weapons, but frankly I can't see the point of banning them. However, I remain convinced that the measures I AM for, (banning high capacity magazines and closing the loophole) not only make sense but will help save lives. And if a bill came out that banned Assault Weapons along with the other two items, I would be for it, reluctantly. Closing the private sales loophole is the first priority.

Are there any stats showing loophole purchases and guns used in crimes?

 

[timschochet]

I bet if you were able to get stats for guns sold in 2012 or even the last few years you would find a helluva lot more than 15% were semiautomatic. I would place more weight on recent gun sales as being more representative of active guns "in circulation" instead of segmenting all guns ever bought in the history of the US where a large percentage of those belong to multi-gun owners in their collection.

This doesn't seem unreasonable to me, and it makes me more sure than ever that there is no good reason to resume the AWB. My problem is this: I can't distinguish between these guns in terms of their effectiveness. It appears to me therefore that all attempts to ban "assault weapons" is based more on their looks than on what they can do. I don't love these weapons, but frankly I can't see the point of banning them. However, I remain convinced that the measures I AM for, (banning high capacity magazines and closing the loophole) not only make sense but will help save lives. And if a bill came out that banned Assault Weapons along with the other two items, I would be for it, reluctantly. Closing the private sales loophole is the first priority.

Are there any stats showing loophole purchases and guns used in crimes?

It's a commonly held statistic that 40% all gun sales are private sales and not recorded. (Don't ask me to link this; I have heard it several times on TV and elsewhere.) That's a pretty big number. It's not unreasonable to assume that a significant portion of these guns are used for crimes. Even 1% would be significant, according to law enforcement. Whatever the number, we need to remove the loophole and slow it down. I have yet to hear a good reason not to.

 

[Cookiemonster]

This doesn't seem unreasonable to me, and it makes me more sure than ever that there is no good reason to resume the AWB. My problem is this: I can't distinguish between these guns in terms of their effectiveness. It appears to me therefore that all attempts to ban "assault weapons" is based more on their looks than on what they can do. I don't love these weapons, but frankly I can't see the point of banning them.

For one, caliber. 5.56 and .223 are nearly identical, and commonly used by the AR platform. They are actually an underpowered round by rifle standards and are useful in combat because of is's light weight per round, making it a good way to carry an adequate number of rounds when on long patrols where ounces make a difference (you will literally find soldiers carrying small pocket knives instead of a combat-style ka bar for weight savings). It is also understood (or at least told to us as Marines) that the 5.56mm is a less lethal round, favored more for it's likelyhood to tumble post impact and to bounce off bones crating a more complex but less life-threatening wound channel with the theory being that it is better to wound an enemy and in essence take two more opponents to extract and care for the wounded than it did to outright kill them.For two, a true assault rifle has select fire, meaning that you can select SAFE, SEMI or AUTO / BURST. It is a semi auto or full / partial automatic depending on which mode the selector switch is in. Main stream media (majority being anti-gun and supported / owned / funded by the liberal left wing) has used buzzwords and fear-mongering in an attempt to criminalize whatever weapons they think they can. "Evil features," like a flash hider, telescoping stocks, pistol grips, accessory rails, optics, bayonet lugs (not even the military uses these anymore), synthetic materials and many others have been portrayed as dangerous to the general public and used to label certain guns to further restrictions on the 2nd Amendment.I'll make another post discussing the utility of those features in a bit. Any questions (as long as it's not more math ), I'd be happy to entertain.

 

[timschochet]

http://backwoodshome...gazines-part-i/

The reasoning is strikingly clear. The cops are the experts on the current criminal trends. If they have determined that a "high capacity" semiautomatic pistol and a .223 semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines are the best firearms for them to use to protect people like me and my family, they are obviously the best things for us to use to protect ourselves and our families .

This statement represents the epitome of nonsensical thinking on the part of the gun lobby. The notion that, if law enforcement uses a weapon, the private citizen has a right to use the same weapon, is astounding and I have trouble believing that anyone could actually argue this point. Beyond that, I have to note again that law enforcement records not only every firearm they use, but every bullet they fire. Yet the gun folks want the right to continue to purchase their high capacity magazines in secret.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Why are the anti-gun-nuts (see what I did there?) paying so much attention to 1 data point?

Which one? I see lots of people talking about lots of things in here. Is there some particular thing you want to talk about? Maybe you could find another definition of a common term and post it to explain it to all of us.

Top 5 posters in this thread:298 Otis 292 timschochet 239 ATC1 187 Henry Ford 154 Apple Jack Thread started on 12/14/12, 98 pages longSandy Hook Elementary School shooting took place on 12/14/12I see 4 people sharing the same POV repeatedly focusing on 1 event 2 weeks later.What common term did I post are you talking about, "Pyrrhic victory"?

You think all those posters have the same POV? And that we are all focused on one event?

I don't have the interest or inclination to go through all of your posts but a quick look over the last 5 pages you have 21 posts:Gun regulationx1Assault Weapons Ban/Semi-automatic weapons/Sandy Hookx122nd Amendment / Bill of Rightsx3Elitest comment, making fun of answering door with gunx5If you take away the "noise" posts where you are trying to be clever, you get 12/16 (75%) HTH

 

[Cookiemonster]

http://backwoodshome...gazines-part-i/

The reasoning is strikingly clear. The cops are the experts on the current criminal trends. If they have determined that a "high capacity" semiautomatic pistol and a .223 semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines are the best firearms for them to use to protect people like me and my family, they are obviously the best things for us to use to protect ourselves and our families .

This statement represents the epitome of nonsensical thinking on the part of the gun lobby. The notion that, if law enforcement uses a weapon, the private citizen has a right to use the same weapon, is astounding and I have trouble believing that anyone could actually argue this point. Beyond that, I have to note again that law enforcement records not only every firearm they use, but every bullet they fire. Yet the gun folks want the right to continue to purchase their high capacity magazines in secret.

Actually, Mas Ayoob is a cop, and probably the most sensible voice in the gun rights world. He is often called (and well paid) as an expert witness for defensive shooting testimony. If you were going to read / listen to anyone on this topic it should be him.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

http://backwoodshome...gazines-part-i/

The reasoning is strikingly clear. The cops are the experts on the current criminal trends. If they have determined that a "high capacity" semiautomatic pistol and a .223 semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines are the best firearms for them to use to protect people like me and my family, they are obviously the best things for us to use to protect ourselves and our families .

This statement represents the epitome of nonsensical thinking on the part of the gun lobby. The notion that, if law enforcement uses a weapon, the private citizen has a right to use the same weapon, is astounding and I have trouble believing that anyone could actually argue this point. Beyond that, I have to note again that law enforcement records not only every firearm they use, but every bullet they fire. Yet the gun folks want the right to continue to purchase their high capacity magazines in secret.

Tactical teams in LE have access to fully automatic weapons such as MP5's, Colt 9mm SMG's and M16A1'sI don't think anyone is suggesting these should be made available to the general public.

 

[Henry Ford]

Why are the anti-gun-nuts (see what I did there?) paying so much attention to 1 data point?

Which one? I see lots of people talking about lots of things in here. Is there some particular thing you want to talk about? Maybe you could find another definition of a common term and post it to explain it to all of us.

Top 5 posters in this thread:298 Otis 292 timschochet 239 ATC1 187 Henry Ford 154 Apple Jack Thread started on 12/14/12, 98 pages longSandy Hook Elementary School shooting took place on 12/14/12I see 4 people sharing the same POV repeatedly focusing on 1 event 2 weeks later.What common term did I post are you talking about, "Pyrrhic victory"?

You think all those posters have the same POV? And that we are all focused on one event?

I don't have the interest or inclination to go through all of your posts but a quick look over the last 5 pages you have 21 posts:Gun regulationx1Assault Weapons Ban/Semi-automatic weapons/Sandy Hookx122nd Amendment / Bill of Rightsx3Elitest comment, making fun of answering door with gunx5If you take away the "noise" posts where you are trying to be clever, you get 12/16 (75%) HTH

So... no? Also, how are all my discussions about the assault weapons ban and the North Hollywood Shootout a Sandy Hook discussion?

 

[timschochet]

http://backwoodshome...gazines-part-i/

The reasoning is strikingly clear. The cops are the experts on the current criminal trends. If they have determined that a "high capacity" semiautomatic pistol and a .223 semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines are the best firearms for them to use to protect people like me and my family, they are obviously the best things for us to use to protect ourselves and our families .

This statement represents the epitome of nonsensical thinking on the part of the gun lobby. The notion that, if law enforcement uses a weapon, the private citizen has a right to use the same weapon, is astounding and I have trouble believing that anyone could actually argue this point. Beyond that, I have to note again that law enforcement records not only every firearm they use, but every bullet they fire. Yet the gun folks want the right to continue to purchase their high capacity magazines in secret.

Actually, Mas Ayoob is a cop, and probably the most sensible voice in the gun rights world. He is often called (and well paid) as an expert witness for defensive shooting testimony. If you were going to read / listen to anyone on this topic it should be him.

I don't care who he is. As far as I am concerned, the moment he makes such a ludicrous assertion he loses all credibility and I have no interest in what he has to say. If this is truly the "most sensible voice" in the gun rights world, I can only imagine what the rest of that world sounds like.

 

[Slingblade]

http://backwoodshome...gazines-part-i/

The reasoning is strikingly clear. The cops are the experts on the current criminal trends. If they have determined that a "high capacity" semiautomatic pistol and a .223 semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines are the best firearms for them to use to protect people like me and my family, they are obviously the best things for us to use to protect ourselves and our families .

This statement represents the epitome of nonsensical thinking on the part of the gun lobby. The notion that, if law enforcement uses a weapon, the private citizen has a right to use the same weapon, is astounding and I have trouble believing that anyone could actually argue this point. Beyond that, I have to note again that law enforcement records not only every firearm they use, but every bullet they fire. Yet the gun folks want the right to continue to purchase their high capacity magazines in secret.

Actually, Mas Ayoob is a cop, and probably the most sensible voice in the gun rights world. He is often called (and well paid) as an expert witness for defensive shooting testimony. If you were going to read / listen to anyone on this topic it should be him.

I don't care who he is. As far as I am concerned, the moment he makes such a ludicrous assertion he loses all credibility and I have no interest in what he has to say. If this is truly the "most sensible voice" in the gun rights world, I can only imagine what the rest of that world sounds like.

Tim, #### off and die. Thanks.

 

[timschochet]

http://backwoodshome...gazines-part-i/

The reasoning is strikingly clear. The cops are the experts on the current criminal trends. If they have determined that a "high capacity" semiautomatic pistol and a .223 semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines are the best firearms for them to use to protect people like me and my family, they are obviously the best things for us to use to protect ourselves and our families .

This statement represents the epitome of nonsensical thinking on the part of the gun lobby. The notion that, if law enforcement uses a weapon, the private citizen has a right to use the same weapon, is astounding and I have trouble believing that anyone could actually argue this point. Beyond that, I have to note again that law enforcement records not only every firearm they use, but every bullet they fire. Yet the gun folks want the right to continue to purchase their high capacity magazines in secret.

Tactical teams in LE have access to fully automatic weapons such as MP5's, Colt 9mm SMG's and M16A1'sI don't think anyone is suggesting these should be made available to the general public.

That is exactly the implication of this guy's argument. And if he denies it, then he is contradicting himself. Furthermore, anyone who argues that banning high capacity magazines is a violation of the 2nd Amendment (and in this thread, several people have done exactly that) cannot then logically support a ban on fully automatic weapons, as we have now. If you're going to interpret the 2nd Amendment so broadly you have to include fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers, even hand-held nuclear suitcase bombs.

 

[timschochet]

http://backwoodshome...gazines-part-i/

The reasoning is strikingly clear. The cops are the experts on the current criminal trends. If they have determined that a "high capacity" semiautomatic pistol and a .223 semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines are the best firearms for them to use to protect people like me and my family, they are obviously the best things for us to use to protect ourselves and our families .

This statement represents the epitome of nonsensical thinking on the part of the gun lobby. The notion that, if law enforcement uses a weapon, the private citizen has a right to use the same weapon, is astounding and I have trouble believing that anyone could actually argue this point. Beyond that, I have to note again that law enforcement records not only every firearm they use, but every bullet they fire. Yet the gun folks want the right to continue to purchase their high capacity magazines in secret.

Actually, Mas Ayoob is a cop, and probably the most sensible voice in the gun rights world. He is often called (and well paid) as an expert witness for defensive shooting testimony. If you were going to read / listen to anyone on this topic it should be him.

I don't care who he is. As far as I am concerned, the moment he makes such a ludicrous assertion he loses all credibility and I have no interest in what he has to say. If this is truly the "most sensible voice" in the gun rights world, I can only imagine what the rest of that world sounds like.

Tim, #### off and die. Thanks.

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. It's as worthwhile as ever.

 

[Dvorak]

http://backwoodshome...gazines-part-i/

The reasoning is strikingly clear. The cops are the experts on the current criminal trends. If they have determined that a "high capacity" semiautomatic pistol and a .223 semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines are the best firearms for them to use to protect people like me and my family, they are obviously the best things for us to use to protect ourselves and our families .

This statement represents the epitome of nonsensical thinking on the part of the gun lobby. The notion that, if law enforcement uses a weapon, the private citizen has a right to use the same weapon, is astounding and I have trouble believing that anyone could actually argue this point. Beyond that, I have to note again that law enforcement records not only every firearm they use, but every bullet they fire. Yet the gun folks want the right to continue to purchase their high capacity magazines in secret.

Actually, Mas Ayoob is a cop, and probably the most sensible voice in the gun rights world. He is often called (and well paid) as an expert witness for defensive shooting testimony. If you were going to read / listen to anyone on this topic it should be him.

I don't care who he is. As far as I am concerned, the moment he makes such a ludicrous assertion he loses all credibility and I have no interest in what he has to say. If this is truly the "most sensible voice" in the gun rights world, I can only imagine what the rest of that world sounds like.

Tim only listens to those that hold HIS views as experts in the field. If their views go against his, they are crackpots. No matter how highly respected in the field they might be.Mind you, Tim also thinks guns in schools is a completely ridiculous idea. He praises those that promote this view. Who cares if those same "no guns in schools, period!" people actually send their kids to Sidwell Friends, where an armed security team is in place to protect them.

 

[tom22406]

http://backwoodshome...gazines-part-i/

The reasoning is strikingly clear. The cops are the experts on the current criminal trends. If they have determined that a "high capacity" semiautomatic pistol and a .223 semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines are the best firearms for them to use to protect people like me and my family, they are obviously the best things for us to use to protect ourselves and our families .

This statement represents the epitome of nonsensical thinking on the part of the gun lobby. The notion that, if law enforcement uses a weapon, the private citizen has a right to use the same weapon, is astounding and I have trouble believing that anyone could actually argue this point. Beyond that, I have to note again that law enforcement records not only every firearm they use, but every bullet they fire. Yet the gun folks want the right to continue to purchase their high capacity magazines in secret.

Actually, Mas Ayoob is a cop, and probably the most sensible voice in the gun rights world. He is often called (and well paid) as an expert witness for defensive shooting testimony. If you were going to read / listen to anyone on this topic it should be him.

He has a ton of very informative videos on youtube for anyone that may want to learn something and I highly suggest checking them out.The guy knows his stuff.

 

[timschochet]

http://backwoodshome...gazines-part-i/

The reasoning is strikingly clear. The cops are the experts on the current criminal trends. If they have determined that a "high capacity" semiautomatic pistol and a .223 semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines are the best firearms for them to use to protect people like me and my family, they are obviously the best things for us to use to protect ourselves and our families .

This statement represents the epitome of nonsensical thinking on the part of the gun lobby. The notion that, if law enforcement uses a weapon, the private citizen has a right to use the same weapon, is astounding and I have trouble believing that anyone could actually argue this point. Beyond that, I have to note again that law enforcement records not only every firearm they use, but every bullet they fire. Yet the gun folks want the right to continue to purchase their high capacity magazines in secret.

Actually, Mas Ayoob is a cop, and probably the most sensible voice in the gun rights world. He is often called (and well paid) as an expert witness for defensive shooting testimony. If you were going to read / listen to anyone on this topic it should be him.

I don't care who he is. As far as I am concerned, the moment he makes such a ludicrous assertion he loses all credibility and I have no interest in what he has to say. If this is truly the "most sensible voice" in the gun rights world, I can only imagine what the rest of that world sounds like.

Tim only listens to those that hold HIS views as experts in the field. If their views go against his, they are crackpots. No matter how highly respected in the field they might be.Mind you, Tim also thinks guns in schools is a completely ridiculous idea. He praises those that promote this view. Who cares if those same "no guns in schools, period!" people actually send their kids to Sidwell Friends, where an armed security team is in place to protect them.

I think you're confusing me with yourself. As for me, the reason I am opposed to the AWB is because of the arguments I have read against it from the gun lobby, which I found compelling. I don't find THIS guy's arguments compelling.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

http://backwoodshome...gazines-part-i/

The reasoning is strikingly clear. The cops are the experts on the current criminal trends. If they have determined that a "high capacity" semiautomatic pistol and a .223 semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines are the best firearms for them to use to protect people like me and my family, they are obviously the best things for us to use to protect ourselves and our families .

This statement represents the epitome of nonsensical thinking on the part of the gun lobby. The notion that, if law enforcement uses a weapon, the private citizen has a right to use the same weapon, is astounding and I have trouble believing that anyone could actually argue this point. Beyond that, I have to note again that law enforcement records not only every firearm they use, but every bullet they fire. Yet the gun folks want the right to continue to purchase their high capacity magazines in secret.

Tactical teams in LE have access to fully automatic weapons such as MP5's, Colt 9mm SMG's and M16A1'sI don't think anyone is suggesting these should be made available to the general public.

That is exactly the implication of this guy's argument. And if he denies it, then he is contradicting himself. Furthermore, anyone who argues that banning high capacity magazines is a violation of the 2nd Amendment (and in this thread, several people have done exactly that) cannot then logically support a ban on fully automatic weapons, as we have now. If you're going to interpret the 2nd Amendment so broadly you have to include fully automatic weapons, rocket launchers, even hand-held nuclear suitcase bombs.

As usual you are going off on a tangent trying to prove your point.Tactical teams are a very tiny subset of "cops", they are specialists that are used for unique circumstances. When he writes about cops:

And, if you will, one more stark and simple thing: Americans have historically modeled their choices of home protection and personal defense handguns on what the cops carried.

He is talking about patrol cops not tactical teams.

 

[Glass Joe]

http://backwoodshome...gazines-part-i/

The reasoning is strikingly clear. The cops are the experts on the current criminal trends. If they have determined that a "high capacity" semiautomatic pistol and a .223 semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines are the best firearms for them to use to protect people like me and my family, they are obviously the best things for us to use to protect ourselves and our families .

This statement represents the epitome of nonsensical thinking on the part of the gun lobby. The notion that, if law enforcement uses a weapon, the private citizen has a right to use the same weapon, is astounding and I have trouble believing that anyone could actually argue this point. Beyond that, I have to note again that law enforcement records not only every firearm they use, but every bullet they fire. Yet the gun folks want the right to continue to purchase their high capacity magazines in secret.

Actually, Mas Ayoob is a cop, and probably the most sensible voice in the gun rights world. He is often called (and well paid) as an expert witness for defensive shooting testimony. If you were going to read / listen to anyone on this topic it should be him.

I don't care who he is. As far as I am concerned, the moment he makes such a ludicrous assertion he loses all credibility and I have no interest in what he has to say. If this is truly the "most sensible voice" in the gun rights world, I can only imagine what the rest of that world sounds like.

Tim only listens to those that hold HIS views as experts in the field. If their views go against his, they are crackpots. No matter how highly respected in the field they might be.Mind you, Tim also thinks guns in schools is a completely ridiculous idea. He praises those that promote this view. Who cares if those same "no guns in schools, period!" people actually send their kids to Sidwell Friends, where an armed security team is in place to protect them.

If you want a secret service team in every school, lets tax you gun nuts to pay for it. But something tells me we wouldn't get the same kind of resources.

 

[Cookiemonster]

http://backwoodshome...gazines-part-i/

The reasoning is strikingly clear. The cops are the experts on the current criminal trends. If they have determined that a "high capacity" semiautomatic pistol and a .223 semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines are the best firearms for them to use to protect people like me and my family, they are obviously the best things for us to use to protect ourselves and our families .

This statement represents the epitome of nonsensical thinking on the part of the gun lobby. The notion that, if law enforcement uses a weapon, the private citizen has a right to use the same weapon, is astounding and I have trouble believing that anyone could actually argue this point. Beyond that, I have to note again that law enforcement records not only every firearm they use, but every bullet they fire. Yet the gun folks want the right to continue to purchase their high capacity magazines in secret.

Actually, Mas Ayoob is a cop, and probably the most sensible voice in the gun rights world. He is often called (and well paid) as an expert witness for defensive shooting testimony. If you were going to read / listen to anyone on this topic it should be him.

I don't care who he is. As far as I am concerned, the moment he makes such a ludicrous assertion he loses all credibility and I have no interest in what he has to say. If this is truly the "most sensible voice" in the gun rights world, I can only imagine what the rest of that world sounds like.

Tim, #### off and die. Thanks.

That will not help to make anybody more sympathetic to your point of view.Tim, the police are the ones that have to put on a uniform every day knowing that they may have to face the worst of our criminals. They are always evolving to make the best use of technology and tactics. Why is it that what they determine to be the most useful tools to save their lives and our lives are not good for us to have to serve the same purpose? Keep in mind that the police have a goal of detention and stopping threats and not killing.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Tim, the police are the ones that have to put on a uniform every day knowing that they may have to face the worst of our criminals. They are always evolving to make the best use of technology and tactics. Why is it that what they determine to be the most useful tools to save their lives and our lives are not good for us to have to serve the same purpose? Keep in mind that the police have a goal of detention and stopping threats and not killing.

Doesn't a lot of it have to do with the likelihood that we'll be faced with such a dangerous situation? Cops routinely interact with these scary bad guys. Regular folks frequently will go their entire lives without needing to use a gun for protection. So in weighing the pros and cons of owning these firearms, the "pro" side is for greater for cops than it is for ordinary citizens.

 

[Cookiemonster]

http://backwoodshome...gazines-part-i/

The reasoning is strikingly clear. The cops are the experts on the current criminal trends. If they have determined that a "high capacity" semiautomatic pistol and a .223 semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines are the best firearms for them to use to protect people like me and my family, they are obviously the best things for us to use to protect ourselves and our families .

This statement represents the epitome of nonsensical thinking on the part of the gun lobby. The notion that, if law enforcement uses a weapon, the private citizen has a right to use the same weapon, is astounding and I have trouble believing that anyone could actually argue this point. Beyond that, I have to note again that law enforcement records not only every firearm they use, but every bullet they fire. Yet the gun folks want the right to continue to purchase their high capacity magazines in secret.

Actually, Mas Ayoob is a cop, and probably the most sensible voice in the gun rights world. He is often called (and well paid) as an expert witness for defensive shooting testimony. If you were going to read / listen to anyone on this topic it should be him.

I don't care who he is. As far as I am concerned, the moment he makes such a ludicrous assertion he loses all credibility and I have no interest in what he has to say. If this is truly the "most sensible voice" in the gun rights world, I can only imagine what the rest of that world sounds like.

Tim only listens to those that hold HIS views as experts in the field. If their views go against his, they are crackpots. No matter how highly respected in the field they might be.Mind you, Tim also thinks guns in schools is a completely ridiculous idea. He praises those that promote this view. Who cares if those same "no guns in schools, period!" people actually send their kids to Sidwell Friends, where an armed security team is in place to protect them.

If you want a secret service team in every school, lets tax you gun nuts to pay for it. But something tells me we wouldn't get the same kind of resources.

I am only for allowing teachers who already want or have their own CCW to carry at schools. It would cost us nothing in tax dollars, and for the fact that someone may be armed and you don't know who, would serve as a nearly sufficient deterrent to attacks on school campuses. You can't legislate out crazy and full-prevention is unrealistic. I think it would be cost prohibitive to provide a cop or armed security at every school in America. We are looking to decrease government spending right now, not see where we can spend more.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Tim, the police are the ones that have to put on a uniform every day knowing that they may have to face the worst of our criminals. They are always evolving to make the best use of technology and tactics. Why is it that what they determine to be the most useful tools to save their lives and our lives are not good for us to have to serve the same purpose? Keep in mind that the police have a goal of detention and stopping threats and not killing.

Doesn't a lot of it have to do with the likelihood that we'll be faced with such a dangerous situation? Cops routinely interact with these scary bad guys. Regular folks frequently will go their entire lives without needing to use them. So in weighing the pros and cons of owning these firearms, the "pro" side is for greater for cops than it is for ordinary citizens.

Many cops go their entire careers without drawing their sidearm, and MANY more without ever firing. So by that argument, the police should only carry .38 revolvers with the exception of SWAT?

 

[Glass Joe]

http://backwoodshome...gazines-part-i/

The reasoning is strikingly clear. The cops are the experts on the current criminal trends. If they have determined that a "high capacity" semiautomatic pistol and a .223 semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines are the best firearms for them to use to protect people like me and my family, they are obviously the best things for us to use to protect ourselves and our families .

This statement represents the epitome of nonsensical thinking on the part of the gun lobby. The notion that, if law enforcement uses a weapon, the private citizen has a right to use the same weapon, is astounding and I have trouble believing that anyone could actually argue this point. Beyond that, I have to note again that law enforcement records not only every firearm they use, but every bullet they fire. Yet the gun folks want the right to continue to purchase their high capacity magazines in secret.

Actually, Mas Ayoob is a cop, and probably the most sensible voice in the gun rights world. He is often called (and well paid) as an expert witness for defensive shooting testimony. If you were going to read / listen to anyone on this topic it should be him.

I don't care who he is. As far as I am concerned, the moment he makes such a ludicrous assertion he loses all credibility and I have no interest in what he has to say. If this is truly the "most sensible voice" in the gun rights world, I can only imagine what the rest of that world sounds like.

Tim only listens to those that hold HIS views as experts in the field. If their views go against his, they are crackpots. No matter how highly respected in the field they might be.Mind you, Tim also thinks guns in schools is a completely ridiculous idea. He praises those that promote this view. Who cares if those same "no guns in schools, period!" people actually send their kids to Sidwell Friends, where an armed security team is in place to protect them.

If you want a secret service team in every school, lets tax you gun nuts to pay for it. But something tells me we wouldn't get the same kind of resources.

I am only for allowing teachers who already want or have their own CCW to carry at schools. It would cost us nothing in tax dollars, and for the fact that someone may be armed and you don't know who, would serve as a nearly sufficient deterrent to attacks on school campuses. You can't legislate out crazy and full-prevention is unrealistic. I think it would be cost prohibitive to provide a cop or armed security at every school in America. We are looking to decrease government spending right now, not see where we can spend more.

Right, I get that. My point is I trust the secret service with protection. I don't trust Mrs. Crabtree with her CCW. Sorry.

 

[Cookiemonster]

I am only for allowing teachers who already want or have their own CCW to carry at schools. It would cost us nothing in tax dollars, and for the fact that someone may be armed and you don't know who, would serve as a nearly sufficient deterrent to attacks on school campuses. You can't legislate out crazy and full-prevention is unrealistic. I think it would be cost prohibitive to provide a cop or armed security at every school in America. We are looking to decrease government spending right now, not see where we can spend more.

Right, I get that. My point is I trust the secret service with protection. I don't trust Mrs. Crabtree with her CCW. Sorry.

And how many people do you know with a CCW?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Tim, the police are the ones that have to put on a uniform every day knowing that they may have to face the worst of our criminals. They are always evolving to make the best use of technology and tactics. Why is it that what they determine to be the most useful tools to save their lives and our lives are not good for us to have to serve the same purpose? Keep in mind that the police have a goal of detention and stopping threats and not killing.

Doesn't a lot of it have to do with the likelihood that we'll be faced with such a dangerous situation? Cops routinely interact with these scary bad guys. Regular folks frequently will go their entire lives without needing to use them. So in weighing the pros and cons of owning these firearms, the "pro" side is for greater for cops than it is for ordinary citizens.

Many cops go their entire careers without drawing their sidearm, and MANY more without ever firing. So by that argument, the police should only carry .38 revolvers with the exception of SWAT?

I believe you that some cops never draw their gun, but my suspicion is that it is far more common for a cop to need to pull a gun than for an average Joe. Do you have any stats on the percentage of cops that are involved with a situation where a gun is necessary compared to the percentage of civilians who are involved with such a situation?

 

[Glass Joe]

Obama finally can legitimately take credit for jobs his government has created, as gun and ammo sales are now through the ####### roof!

Do you live in a city or in the country? Is where you live crime plagued?

I live about 30 miles from Houston and live in one of the safest neighbors I know of in the area. How is this relevant?

My question is - why do you feel like you have an imminent need to protect yourself if you live in a safe neighborhood? I don't have guns and don't feel like I'm just about to be attacked. I'm just trying to understand what left you so on edge...

Bump. Do you guns rights people live in bad neighborhoods? Why are you so convinced you're in danger?

 

[Glass Joe]

I am only for allowing teachers who already want or have their own CCW to carry at schools. It would cost us nothing in tax dollars, and for the fact that someone may be armed and you don't know who, would serve as a nearly sufficient deterrent to attacks on school campuses. You can't legislate out crazy and full-prevention is unrealistic. I think it would be cost prohibitive to provide a cop or armed security at every school in America. We are looking to decrease government spending right now, not see where we can spend more.

Right, I get that. My point is I trust the secret service with protection. I don't trust Mrs. Crabtree with her CCW. Sorry.

And how many people do you know with a CCW?

One. And I am sure he's safe. But I don't want him in my kids school.

 

[Slingblade]

http://backwoodshome...gazines-part-i/

The reasoning is strikingly clear. The cops are the experts on the current criminal trends. If they have determined that a "high capacity" semiautomatic pistol and a .223 semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines are the best firearms for them to use to protect people like me and my family, they are obviously the best things for us to use to protect ourselves and our families .

This statement represents the epitome of nonsensical thinking on the part of the gun lobby. The notion that, if law enforcement uses a weapon, the private citizen has a right to use the same weapon, is astounding and I have trouble believing that anyone could actually argue this point. Beyond that, I have to note again that law enforcement records not only every firearm they use, but every bullet they fire. Yet the gun folks want the right to continue to purchase their high capacity magazines in secret.

Actually, Mas Ayoob is a cop, and probably the most sensible voice in the gun rights world. He is often called (and well paid) as an expert witness for defensive shooting testimony. If you were going to read / listen to anyone on this topic it should be him.

I don't care who he is. As far as I am concerned, the moment he makes such a ludicrous assertion he loses all credibility and I have no interest in what he has to say. If this is truly the "most sensible voice" in the gun rights world, I can only imagine what the rest of that world sounds like.

Tim, #### off and die. Thanks.

That will not help to make anybody more sympathetic to your point of view.Tim, the police are the ones that have to put on a uniform every day knowing that they may have to face the worst of our criminals. They are always evolving to make the best use of technology and tactics. Why is it that what they determine to be the most useful tools to save their lives and our lives are not good for us to have to serve the same purpose? Keep in mind that the police have a goal of detention and stopping threats and not killing.

As if his viewpoint is going to change or become sympathetic? He is stuck in his fantasy world; let him rot in his ignorance.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Obama finally can legitimately take credit for jobs his government has created, as gun and ammo sales are now through the ####### roof!

Do you live in a city or in the country? Is where you live crime plagued?

I live about 30 miles from Houston and live in one of the safest neighbors I know of in the area. How is this relevant?

My question is - why do you feel like you have an imminent need to protect yourself if you live in a safe neighborhood? I don't have guns and don't feel like I'm just about to be attacked. I'm just trying to understand what left you so on edge...

Bump. Do you guns rights people live in bad neighborhoods? Why are you so convinced you're in danger?

I'd say that my neighborhood is pretty good. We are however, targeted very often for break ins and property theft by a neighborhood about a mile away that is full of drug users and dealers. We live pretty close to an elementary school, but Megan's Law still shows quite a few sex offenders registered nearby. I often find myself shopping at Walmart and Winco which are always sites for aggressive panhandling, assaults, robberies and general butthole behavior. I go to school in a pretty seedy part of Sacramento. I often find myself stopping for gas in this part of town with a few hookers patrolling the parking lot and their drug-dealing, thug pimps congregating on the side of the building nearby. I have kids that I want to be able to protect and make it home to. I'm not convinced I'm in danger, but I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

 

[Cookiemonster]

I am only for allowing teachers who already want or have their own CCW to carry at schools. It would cost us nothing in tax dollars, and for the fact that someone may be armed and you don't know who, would serve as a nearly sufficient deterrent to attacks on school campuses. You can't legislate out crazy and full-prevention is unrealistic. I think it would be cost prohibitive to provide a cop or armed security at every school in America. We are looking to decrease government spending right now, not see where we can spend more.

Right, I get that. My point is I trust the secret service with protection. I don't trust Mrs. Crabtree with her CCW. Sorry.

And how many people do you know with a CCW?

One. And I am sure he's safe. But I don't want him in my kids school.

What are you afraid he'd do at your kid's school?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I often find myself stopping for gas in this part of town with a few hookers patrolling the parking lot and their drug-dealing, thug pimps congregating on the side of the building nearby.

Hmmm.

 

[Cookiemonster]

http://backwoodshome...gazines-part-i/

The reasoning is strikingly clear. The cops are the experts on the current criminal trends. If they have determined that a "high capacity" semiautomatic pistol and a .223 semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines are the best firearms for them to use to protect people like me and my family, they are obviously the best things for us to use to protect ourselves and our families .

This statement represents the epitome of nonsensical thinking on the part of the gun lobby. The notion that, if law enforcement uses a weapon, the private citizen has a right to use the same weapon, is astounding and I have trouble believing that anyone could actually argue this point. Beyond that, I have to note again that law enforcement records not only every firearm they use, but every bullet they fire. Yet the gun folks want the right to continue to purchase their high capacity magazines in secret.

Actually, Mas Ayoob is a cop, and probably the most sensible voice in the gun rights world. He is often called (and well paid) as an expert witness for defensive shooting testimony. If you were going to read / listen to anyone on this topic it should be him.

I don't care who he is. As far as I am concerned, the moment he makes such a ludicrous assertion he loses all credibility and I have no interest in what he has to say. If this is truly the "most sensible voice" in the gun rights world, I can only imagine what the rest of that world sounds like.

Tim, #### off and die. Thanks.

That will not help to make anybody more sympathetic to your point of view.

As if his viewpoint is going to change or become sympathetic? He is stuck in his fantasy world; let him rot in his ignorance.

Maybe so, but he's not the only one reading this. By your statement, you could be viewed as just as bigoted as him and your statements would end up dismissed just as easily. It's easy to get sucked in by the schtick in the FFA but if you're really trying to make a point, you can't be dragged down into the muck and still come out clean.

 

[Glass Joe]

I am only for allowing teachers who already want or have their own CCW to carry at schools. It would cost us nothing in tax dollars, and for the fact that someone may be armed and you don't know who, would serve as a nearly sufficient deterrent to attacks on school campuses. You can't legislate out crazy and full-prevention is unrealistic. I think it would be cost prohibitive to provide a cop or armed security at every school in America. We are looking to decrease government spending right now, not see where we can spend more.

Right, I get that. My point is I trust the secret service with protection. I don't trust Mrs. Crabtree with her CCW. Sorry.

And how many people do you know with a CCW?

One. And I am sure he's safe. But I don't want him in my kids school.

What are you afraid he'd do at your kid's school?

I don't trust that he's got the proper judgement as to when deadly force is necessary. At my kids age, boys get rambunctious and angry - there's nothing to say they couldn't try to mess with him, and I don't want to think of a kid trying to take his gun away from him. I don't feel like exposing my kids to deadly weapons is appropriate. Lets say he felt the need to use his gun. I can't imagine what would happen if he shot and missed. And again- who's to say he used proper judgement in pulling the gun?All in all, I see nothing gained.

 

[tom22406]

Obama finally can legitimately take credit for jobs his government has created, as gun and ammo sales are now through the ####### roof!

Do you live in a city or in the country? Is where you live crime plagued?

I live about 30 miles from Houston and live in one of the safest neighbors I know of in the area. How is this relevant?

My question is - why do you feel like you have an imminent need to protect yourself if you live in a safe neighborhood? I don't have guns and don't feel like I'm just about to be attacked. I'm just trying to understand what left you so on edge...

Bump. Do you guns rights people live in bad neighborhoods? Why are you so convinced you're in danger?

My town has always been one of the safer places to live but with 2 home invasions within 3 miles of my home made me think otherwise.Not convinced in the least I'm in danger,just prepared if it ever does happen.Part of that included a local buddy who is a cop showing me what I needed to do in case that went down.You choose to not carry and I respect that as well.

 

[timschochet]

http://backwoodshome...gazines-part-i/

The reasoning is strikingly clear. The cops are the experts on the current criminal trends. If they have determined that a "high capacity" semiautomatic pistol and a .223 semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines are the best firearms for them to use to protect people like me and my family, they are obviously the best things for us to use to protect ourselves and our families .

This statement represents the epitome of nonsensical thinking on the part of the gun lobby. The notion that, if law enforcement uses a weapon, the private citizen has a right to use the same weapon, is astounding and I have trouble believing that anyone could actually argue this point. Beyond that, I have to note again that law enforcement records not only every firearm they use, but every bullet they fire. Yet the gun folks want the right to continue to purchase their high capacity magazines in secret.

Actually, Mas Ayoob is a cop, and probably the most sensible voice in the gun rights world. He is often called (and well paid) as an expert witness for defensive shooting testimony. If you were going to read / listen to anyone on this topic it should be him.

I don't care who he is. As far as I am concerned, the moment he makes such a ludicrous assertion he loses all credibility and I have no interest in what he has to say. If this is truly the "most sensible voice" in the gun rights world, I can only imagine what the rest of that world sounds like.

Tim, #### off and die. Thanks.

That will not help to make anybody more sympathetic to your point of view.

As if his viewpoint is going to change or become sympathetic? He is stuck in his fantasy world; let him rot in his ignorance.

Maybe so, but he's not the only one reading this. By your statement, you could be viewed as just as bigoted as him and your statements would end up dismissed just as easily. It's easy to get sucked in by the schtick in the FFA but if you're really trying to make a point, you can't be dragged down into the muck and still come out clean.

Just as bigoted as me? OK

 

[5 digit know nothing]

http://backwoodshome...gazines-part-i/

The reasoning is strikingly clear. The cops are the experts on the current criminal trends. If they have determined that a "high capacity" semiautomatic pistol and a .223 semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines are the best firearms for them to use to protect people like me and my family, they are obviously the best things for us to use to protect ourselves and our families .

This statement represents the epitome of nonsensical thinking on the part of the gun lobby. The notion that, if law enforcement uses a weapon, the private citizen has a right to use the same weapon, is astounding and I have trouble believing that anyone could actually argue this point. Beyond that, I have to note again that law enforcement records not only every firearm they use, but every bullet they fire. Yet the gun folks want the right to continue to purchase their high capacity magazines in secret.

Actually, Mas Ayoob is a cop, and probably the most sensible voice in the gun rights world. He is often called (and well paid) as an expert witness for defensive shooting testimony. If you were going to read / listen to anyone on this topic it should be him.

I don't care who he is. As far as I am concerned, the moment he makes such a ludicrous assertion he loses all credibility and I have no interest in what he has to say. If this is truly the "most sensible voice" in the gun rights world, I can only imagine what the rest of that world sounds like.

Tim only listens to those that hold HIS views as experts in the field. If their views go against his, they are crackpots. No matter how highly respected in the field they might be.Mind you, Tim also thinks guns in schools is a completely ridiculous idea. He praises those that promote this view. Who cares if those same "no guns in schools, period!" people actually send their kids to Sidwell Friends, where an armed security team is in place to protect them.

If you want a secret service team in every school, lets tax you gun nuts to pay for it. But something tells me we wouldn't get the same kind of resources.

I am only for allowing teachers who already want or have their own CCW to carry at schools. It would cost us nothing in tax dollars, and for the fact that someone may be armed and you don't know who, would serve as a nearly sufficient deterrent to attacks on school campuses. You can't legislate out crazy and full-prevention is unrealistic. I think it would be cost prohibitive to provide a cop or armed security at every school in America. We are looking to decrease government spending right now, not see where we can spend more.

Right, I get that. My point is I trust the secret service with protection. I don't trust Mrs. Crabtree with her CCW. Sorry.

So you see the only options as the secret service or Mrs. Crabtree? That doesn't sound close minded at all.

 

[Glass Joe]

Obama finally can legitimately take credit for jobs his government has created, as gun and ammo sales are now through the ####### roof!

Do you live in a city or in the country? Is where you live crime plagued?

I live about 30 miles from Houston and live in one of the safest neighbors I know of in the area. How is this relevant?

My question is - why do you feel like you have an imminent need to protect yourself if you live in a safe neighborhood? I don't have guns and don't feel like I'm just about to be attacked. I'm just trying to understand what left you so on edge...

Bump. Do you guns rights people live in bad neighborhoods? Why are you so convinced you're in danger?

My town has always been one of the safer places to live but with 2 home invasions within 3 miles of my home made me think otherwise.Not convinced in the least I'm in danger,just prepared if it ever does happen.Part of that included a local buddy who is a cop showing me what I needed to do in case that went down.You choose to not carry and I respect that as well.

Do you carry flood insurance? Tornado insurance? Umbrella policy?We all measure risks. Seems to me your preparations outweigh the risk.

 

[Glass Joe]

http://backwoodshome...gazines-part-i/

The reasoning is strikingly clear. The cops are the experts on the current criminal trends. If they have determined that a "high capacity" semiautomatic pistol and a .223 semiautomatic rifle with 30-round magazines are the best firearms for them to use to protect people like me and my family, they are obviously the best things for us to use to protect ourselves and our families .

This statement represents the epitome of nonsensical thinking on the part of the gun lobby. The notion that, if law enforcement uses a weapon, the private citizen has a right to use the same weapon, is astounding and I have trouble believing that anyone could actually argue this point. Beyond that, I have to note again that law enforcement records not only every firearm they use, but every bullet they fire. Yet the gun folks want the right to continue to purchase their high capacity magazines in secret.

Actually, Mas Ayoob is a cop, and probably the most sensible voice in the gun rights world. He is often called (and well paid) as an expert witness for defensive shooting testimony. If you were going to read / listen to anyone on this topic it should be him.

I don't care who he is. As far as I am concerned, the moment he makes such a ludicrous assertion he loses all credibility and I have no interest in what he has to say. If this is truly the "most sensible voice" in the gun rights world, I can only imagine what the rest of that world sounds like.

Tim only listens to those that hold HIS views as experts in the field. If their views go against his, they are crackpots. No matter how highly respected in the field they might be.Mind you, Tim also thinks guns in schools is a completely ridiculous idea. He praises those that promote this view. Who cares if those same "no guns in schools, period!" people actually send their kids to Sidwell Friends, where an armed security team is in place to protect them.

If you want a secret service team in every school, lets tax you gun nuts to pay for it. But something tells me we wouldn't get the same kind of resources.

I am only for allowing teachers who already want or have their own CCW to carry at schools. It would cost us nothing in tax dollars, and for the fact that someone may be armed and you don't know who, would serve as a nearly sufficient deterrent to attacks on school campuses. You can't legislate out crazy and full-prevention is unrealistic. I think it would be cost prohibitive to provide a cop or armed security at every school in America. We are looking to decrease government spending right now, not see where we can spend more.

Right, I get that. My point is I trust the secret service with protection. I don't trust Mrs. Crabtree with her CCW. Sorry.

So you see the only options as the secret service or Mrs. Crabtree? That doesn't sound close minded at all.

I see the police as our protection. BTW, do you think we need guards everywhere kids would go?

 

[tom22406]

Obama finally can legitimately take credit for jobs his government has created, as gun and ammo sales are now through the ####### roof!

Do you live in a city or in the country? Is where you live crime plagued?

I live about 30 miles from Houston and live in one of the safest neighbors I know of in the area. How is this relevant?

My question is - why do you feel like you have an imminent need to protect yourself if you live in a safe neighborhood? I don't have guns and don't feel like I'm just about to be attacked. I'm just trying to understand what left you so on edge...

Bump. Do you guns rights people live in bad neighborhoods? Why are you so convinced you're in danger?

My town has always been one of the safer places to live but with 2 home invasions within 3 miles of my home made me think otherwise.Not convinced in the least I'm in danger,just prepared if it ever does happen.Part of that included a local buddy who is a cop showing me what I needed to do in case that went down.You choose to not carry and I respect that as well.

Do you carry flood insurance? Tornado insurance? Umbrella policy?We all measure risks. Seems to me your preparations outweigh the risk.

To each his own.

 

[Hoosier16]

Obama finally can legitimately take credit for jobs his government has created, as gun and ammo sales are now through the ####### roof!

Do you live in a city or in the country? Is where you live crime plagued?

I live about 30 miles from Houston and live in one of the safest neighbors I know of in the area. How is this relevant?

My question is - why do you feel like you have an imminent need to protect yourself if you live in a safe neighborhood? I don't have guns and don't feel like I'm just about to be attacked. I'm just trying to understand what left you so on edge...

Bump. Do you guns rights people live in bad neighborhoods? Why are you so convinced you're in danger?

Maybe I'm thinking about this all wrong but shouldn't you be asking them if they live in nice neighborhoods? I'd guess that it's not their neighbors who are a threat. It's more likely someone outside of the neighborhood who is a concern.

 

[Glass Joe]

Obama finally can legitimately take credit for jobs his government has created, as gun and ammo sales are now through the ####### roof!

Do you live in a city or in the country? Is where you live crime plagued?

I live about 30 miles from Houston and live in one of the safest neighbors I know of in the area. How is this relevant?

My question is - why do you feel like you have an imminent need to protect yourself if you live in a safe neighborhood? I don't have guns and don't feel like I'm just about to be attacked. I'm just trying to understand what left you so on edge...

Bump. Do you guns rights people live in bad neighborhoods? Why are you so convinced you're in danger?

Maybe I'm thinking about this all wrong but shouldn't you be asking them if they live in nice neighborhoods? I'd guess that it's not their neighbors who are a threat. It's more likely someone outside of the neighborhood who is a concern.

I can see a need for protection when you're likely to be in danger. Why prepare for something which statistically is very unlikely? I just don't see where most of this board, IMO, encounters such dangers. I am left with trying to understand the real motivations.

 

[timschochet]

Obama finally can legitimately take credit for jobs his government has created, as gun and ammo sales are now through the ####### roof!

Do you live in a city or in the country? Is where you live crime plagued?

I live about 30 miles from Houston and live in one of the safest neighbors I know of in the area. How is this relevant?

My question is - why do you feel like you have an imminent need to protect yourself if you live in a safe neighborhood? I don't have guns and don't feel like I'm just about to be attacked. I'm just trying to understand what left you so on edge...

Bump. Do you guns rights people live in bad neighborhoods? Why are you so convinced you're in danger?

Maybe I'm thinking about this all wrong but shouldn't you be asking them if they live in nice neighborhoods? I'd guess that it's not their neighbors who are a threat. It's more likely someone outside of the neighborhood who is a concern.

It's this kind of thinking that got Trayvon Martin murdered.

 

[tom22406]

Obama finally can legitimately take credit for jobs his government has created, as gun and ammo sales are now through the ####### roof!

Do you live in a city or in the country? Is where you live crime plagued?

I live about 30 miles from Houston and live in one of the safest neighbors I know of in the area. How is this relevant?

My question is - why do you feel like you have an imminent need to protect yourself if you live in a safe neighborhood? I don't have guns and don't feel like I'm just about to be attacked. I'm just trying to understand what left you so on edge...

Bump. Do you guns rights people live in bad neighborhoods? Why are you so convinced you're in danger?

Maybe I'm thinking about this all wrong but shouldn't you be asking them if they live in nice neighborhoods? I'd guess that it's not their neighbors who are a threat. It's more likely someone outside of the neighborhood who is a concern.

I can see a need for protection when you're likely to be in danger. Why prepare for something which statistically is very unlikely? I just don't see where most of this board, IMO, encounters such dangers. I am left with trying to understand the real motivations.

Sounds like the classic it will never happen to me argument and more than likely you are correct but you never really know for sure do you?Some want the added protection of a firearm,others don't.It all comes down to a personal choice and should be weighed rather heavily on both sides in either case.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I know it's week 17 and all but maybe you guys could take a little time off from the round and round and watch some football? There are some interesting playoff scenarios going on this week......

 

[boots11234]

I bet if you were able to get stats for guns sold in 2012 or even the last few years you would find a helluva lot more than 15% were semiautomatic. I would place more weight on recent gun sales as being more representative of active guns "in circulation" instead of segmenting all guns ever bought in the history of the US where a large percentage of those belong to multi-gun owners in their collection.

This doesn't seem unreasonable to me, and it makes me more sure than ever that there is no good reason to resume the AWB. My problem is this: I can't distinguish between these guns in terms of their effectiveness. It appears to me therefore that all attempts to ban "assault weapons" is based more on their looks than on what they can do. I don't love these weapons, but frankly I can't see the point of banning them. However, I remain convinced that the measures I AM for, (banning high capacity magazines and closing the loophole) not only make sense but will help save lives. And if a bill came out that banned Assault Weapons along with the other two items, I would be for it, reluctantly. Closing the private sales loophole is the first priority.

Are there any stats showing loophole purchases and guns used in crimes?

It's a commonly held statistic that 40% all gun sales are private sales and not recorded. (Don't ask me to link this; I have heard it several times on TV and elsewhere.) That's a pretty big number. It's not unreasonable to assume that a significant portion of these guns are used for crimes. Even 1% would be significant, according to law enforcement. Whatever the number, we need to remove the loophole and slow it down. I have yet to hear a good reason not to.

Timmy, this just makes no sense. Use logic, you're saying 40% of all sales at gun shows are private? LOL. Gun shows consist of licensed FFL holders and are primarily put on for them. Private sales are folks who are selling their private collections. So in order to have a stat of 40% it would seem reasonable that 20to30% of tables selling guns at gun shows would be private. I've been to many shows and can tell you that maybe one or two tables are private depending on the show. No way is that stat correct. Further. according to the ATF, 93% of criminals obtain their guns – wait for it – illegally! Yes that’s right, criminals don’t obey the law. Who’d-a thunk it? Also according to the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. According to an NIJ study released in December 1997 (“Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities,” a report that covers much more than homicide), only 2 percent of criminal guns come from gun shows. Regarding your 1% as being too high, closing the gun show loophole would not help with face to face sales. How would you handle a dad passing a firearm down to his kid or if I had one I wanted to sell.What is your purpose with all these laws? If its to save kids lives it would be more beneficial to restrict cars to 55mph max speed then try to restrict a right given to us by our founders. So what is your purpose

 

[Glass Joe]

Obama finally can legitimately take credit for jobs his government has created, as gun and ammo sales are now through the ####### roof!

Do you live in a city or in the country? Is where you live crime plagued?

I live about 30 miles from Houston and live in one of the safest neighbors I know of in the area. How is this relevant?

My question is - why do you feel like you have an imminent need to protect yourself if you live in a safe neighborhood? I don't have guns and don't feel like I'm just about to be attacked. I'm just trying to understand what left you so on edge...

Bump. Do you guns rights people live in bad neighborhoods? Why are you so convinced you're in danger?

Maybe I'm thinking about this all wrong but shouldn't you be asking them if they live in nice neighborhoods? I'd guess that it's not their neighbors who are a threat. It's more likely someone outside of the neighborhood who is a concern.

I can see a need for protection when you're likely to be in danger. Why prepare for something which statistically is very unlikely? I just don't see where most of this board, IMO, encounters such dangers. I am left with trying to understand the real motivations.

Sounds like the classic it will never happen to me argument and more than likely you are correct but you never really know for sure do you?Some want the added protection of a firearm,others don't.It all comes down to a personal choice and should be weighed rather heavily on both sides in either case.

You said it - in all likelihood, nothing will happen. My question then - when does justified concern become paranoia?

 

[Cookiemonster]

"Evil features," like a flash hider, telescoping stocks, pistol grips, accessory rails, optics, bayonet lugs (not even the military uses these anymore), synthetic materials and many others have been portrayed as dangerous to the general public and used to label certain guns to further restrictions on the 2nd Amendment.

1) Flash hider: directs the muzzle flash away from the sight line of the shooter. Very useful in the dark to maintain natural night vision. Since most home invasions happen at night, and most homes are dark at night, this makes a lot of sense for the bedroom defensive rifle or shotgun. Maintaining night vision is a good thing, as you don't want to shoot if you can't identify your target and what is beyond it.

2) Telescoping stocks: allows for length of pull (distance from buttstock to trigger) adjustments for a custom fit between taller and shorter people allowing a proper fit. Very useful if a long gun is to be shared by people with varying stature. Think 6'2" husband and 5'1" wife.

3) Pistol grip: Makes it easier and more comfortable to operate without having the butt tucked into the shoulder in a conventional rifle style. This would be most useful in close quarters combat, such as home defense where space and movement is limited. This also allows better weapon retention by offering a stronger hold, and allowing the weapon to be held lower and closer to the body to as not to announce or make a snatch more successful when rounding a corner (say a hallway or doorway).

4) Accessory rails: An attachment point for flashlights and optics. Makes it much easier to use a light while wielding a two-handed weapon. Allows for versatility to mount a scope or laser sight in lieu of iron sights.

5) Optics: Whether a good guy or bad guy, accuracy with a firearm is a good thing. Stray bullets hitting unintended targets is always bad. A scope is just a mini-telescope, adjusted to point of aim with crosshairs or a reticle. Good for long distance accuracy. Iron sights were good enough in my experience to hit a human sized target 90% from 500 yards. For a hunter, it is very beneficial to take a heart shot from 300 yards and waste minimal meat. For combat and urban warfare, scopes are prohibitive IMO. They tend to shrink the field of vision to below useful levels and make acquiring multiple targets much slower. Laser sights are a very good thing for acquiring a target when normal sighting is dangerous or impossible (think from a position like on your back, or when you have a peephole to see your target and can avoid exposing your head to opponent). Normally only good for dusk and darker conditions.

6) Bayonet lugs: I'm not even going to bother with this one. It's scary looking, and was probably more dangerous to comrades than opponents as of WWI.

7) Synthetic materials: Evil black plastic is a moderate weight savings and is not nearly as prone to decay as wood and won't rust like metal.

8) Barrel shroud: Heat shield covering the barrel to prevent the user from burning their hands.

 

[Glass Joe]

I know it's week 17 and all but maybe you guys could take a little time off from the round and round and watch some football? There are some interesting playoff scenarios going on this week......

I'm a browns fan.