Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Zow said:

Stealthy, I genuinely don't know what you're trying to say here or what you're asking me. Politically, I'm a registered Republican and, legally and philosophically, I generally would argue in favor of individual gun ownership and against overly restrictive gun laws. I am unaware of some of the bans you reference 

The point that I was trying to make was in response to your suggestion that schools be heavily armed and trained. My fear of that is that having guns in most classrooms may lead to deaths resulting from negligent, reckless, and accidental deaths. And, if those deaths outweigh the deaths saved by school shootings, then the "expected value" of your proferred solution is in the negative. This isn't politics or law. This is merely statistics and looking at your suggested solution from a cost-benefit perspective. 

that's what you/I/we have had for 30 years, unarmed schools

do you like how that went ? I don't

 

A lot of gun laws trying to be pushed/passed by Democrats focus on accessories that guns can have on them - magazine capacity, muzzle brakes, bump stocks etc etc

 

the shooter at the church in Texas the other day used a shotgun - what are your thoughts on stopping someone like that ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 22.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Stealthycat

    3808

  • KCitons

    2840

  • KarmaPolice

    1614

  • -fish-

    1078

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It's TOTALLY the title of the thread.  Here's why:  Over the last year or so I finally figured out that we don't actually care about gun violence.  When I say "we" I mean everyone, generally.  But als

So I have never gotten too deep into gun conversations here, mostly because guns are as close to religion in the US as you can get. I'm decidedly pro 2nd Amendment, but I also recognize that was

I would love to see civil and criminal liability attached to gun owners as well as shooters. If your gun is used in the commission of a crime, you're responsible unless you can show that the gun was o

1 hour ago, parrot said:

It isn't?  How does the gun violence/death rate compare to the pool noodle violence/death rate?  or the loaf of bread violence/death rate?  

I'll tell you this, more people are strangled to death, beaten to death and knifed to death than are killed with AR15's every year

did you not know that ? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

that's what you/I/we have had for 30 years, unarmed schools

do you like how that went ? I don't

 

A lot of gun laws trying to be pushed/passed by Democrats focus on accessories that guns can have on them - magazine capacity, muzzle brakes, bump stocks etc etc

 

the shooter at the church in Texas the other day used a shotgun - what are your thoughts on stopping someone like that ?

1. Of course I don't like it. But I wouldn't like an increase in gun-related deaths in schools due to accident/negligence, either. 

2. Okay. I guess I view those proposed laws like I view speed limit laws. 

3. I'm glad the Texas church shooter was stopped so early in his mayhem? I'm not entirely certain what you're asking here. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

I'll tell you this, more people are strangled to death, beaten to death and knifed to death than are killed with AR15's every year

did you not know that ? 

 

What does that have to do with the question I asked you or your contention that violence doesn't tie to "inanimate objects"?  Upwards of 3/4 of homicides in this country tie to one class of inanimate object.  Did you not know that?   And I'll give you a hint, it's not pool noodles.  

Edited by parrot
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Zow said:

Stealthy, I genuinely don't know what you're trying to say here or what you're asking me. Politically, I'm a registered Republican and, legally and philosophically, I generally would argue in favor of individual gun ownership and against overly restrictive gun laws. I am unaware of some of the bans you reference 

The point that I was trying to make was in response to your suggestion that schools be heavily armed and trained. My fear of that is that having guns in most classrooms may lead to deaths resulting from negligent, reckless, and accidental deaths. And, if those deaths outweigh the deaths saved by school shootings, then the "expected value" of your proferred solution is in the negative. This isn't politics or law. This is merely statistics and looking at your suggested solution from a cost-benefit perspective. 

Indeed.

 

Picture a school shooting.  The normal hustle and bustle of the school day is fractured when a couple of shots ring out.  Screams are heard and kids start running this way and that.  Some kids shelter in place as taught and some just run.  there is acrid gun smoke in the air and maybe that sets off fire sprinklers.  Regardless probably the fire alarms are going off adding to the cacophony and confusion.  Teachers reach for their guns while their kids are asking them what to do.  There are bangs as desks are flipped over and books dropped, confusing where the gunshots are coming from with all the noise.  The teachers go out into the hall to bravely hunt down the shooter, or maybe they train their weapon on their classroom door.  There is sudden movement, an opening of the door, or an unknown adult moving in the hallway.  The teacher shoots, and misses, because that is what even experienced shooters do in such circumstances more often than not.  Good thing too as the person they saw was a parent who had been lawfully admitted to the school for a parent/teacher conference.  Sadly though the bullet does not stop upon the miss but travels through the wall into the next classroom, school walls not being designed to stop bullets.  It hits little Meaghan who does not die instantly, but messily, bleeding all over the floor and defying her teachers efforts to stem the bleeding by applying pressure.  her class mates are terrified and some try to flee, adding to the confusion. 

 

Me, the most force I can advocate for non-professionals in a school setting is nonlethal force, Tasers or bean bag weapons perhaps.  I know this, I would not want the responsibility of being the shooter in such a scenario.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Indeed.

 

Picture a school shooting.  The normal hustle and bustle of the school day is fractured when a couple of shots ring out.  Screams are heard and kids start running this way and that.  Some kids shelter in place as taught and some just run.  there is acrid gun smoke in the air and maybe that sets off fire sprinklers.  Regardless probably the fire alarms are going off adding to the cacophony and confusion.  Teachers reach for their guns while their kids are asking them what to do.  There are bangs as desks are flipped over and books dropped, confusing where the gunshots are coming from with all the noise.  The teachers go out into the hall to bravely hunt down the shooter, or maybe they train their weapon on their classroom door.  There is sudden movement, an opening of the door, or an unknown adult moving in the hallway.  The teacher shoots, and misses, because that is what even experienced shooters do in such circumstances more often than not.  Good thing too as the person they saw was a parent who had been lawfully admitted to the school for a parent/teacher conference.  Sadly though the bullet does not stop upon the miss but travels through the wall into the next classroom, school walls not being designed to stop bullets.  It hits little Meaghan who does not die instantly, but messily, bleeding all over the floor and defying her teachers efforts to stem the bleeding by applying pressure.  her class mates are terrified and some try to flee, adding to the confusion. 

 

Me, the most force I can advocate for non-professionals in a school setting is nonlethal force, Tasers or bean bag weapons perhaps.  I know this, I would not want the responsibility of being the shooter in such a scenario.

You could have used this same thing to describe the church shooting this week. Perhaps, in the chaos, other parishioners were hit by friendly fire. I've made this argument already and am not looking to rehash it. 

But, in your story, you only give one possible solution. But, as was the case with this reason church shooting, the shooter began to fire, someone pulled out their weapon and neutralized the shooter. Preventing further deaths. 

I didn't need to paint a vivid picture, or name the victim (little Meaghan) in order to prove my point. It removes the emotion from the equation. 

Edited by KCitons
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Zow said:

1. Of course I don't like it. But I wouldn't like an increase in gun-related deaths in schools due to accident/negligence, either. 

2. Okay. I guess I view those proposed laws like I view speed limit laws. 

3. I'm glad the Texas church shooter was stopped so early in his mayhem? I'm not entirely certain what you're asking here. 

example

Virginian

https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+ful+SB16

 

the below would impact many hunters and people with self defense. How?  because of the provision of being a firearm with a clip or magazine feed AND one of a set of accessories

"assault" weapon is being redefined to include semi-auto hunting rifles with certain accessories. What gun owners have warned about all along, the true goal is to eliminate guns from law abiding people

specifically in RED - and this is what I've said and ya'll aint listening .... a turkey hunting shogun with a pistol grip allows better control. the rail allows for a red dot scope. The adjustable stock has allows people to grow older, get bigger and adjust the gun to allow them to keep it and hunt with it. 

that it is now an assault weapon ?  INSANE

 

 

 

 

 

A. For the purposes of this section:

"Assault firearm" means:

1. A semi-automatic center-fire rifle that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material with a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 10 rounds;

2. A semi-automatic center-fire rifle that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has one of the following characteristics: (i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the rifle; (iii) a thumbhole stock; (iv) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand; (v) a bayonet mount; (vi) a grenade launcher; (vii) a flare launcher; (viii) a silencer; (ix) a flash suppressor; (x) a muzzle brake; (xi) a muzzle compensator; (xii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting (a) a silencer, (b) a flash suppressor, (c) a muzzle brake, or (d) a muzzle compensator; or (xiii) any characteristic of like kind as enumerated in clauses (i) through (xii);

3. A semi-automatic center-fire pistol that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material with a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 10 rounds;

4. A semi-automatic center-fire pistol that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has one of the following characteristics: (i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a thumbhole stock; (iii) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand; (iv) the capacity to accept a magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip; (v) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the pistol with the non-trigger hand without being burned; (vi) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; (vii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting (a) a silencer, (b) a flash suppressor, (c) a barrel extender, or (d) a forward handgrip; or (viii) any characteristic of like kind as enumerated in clauses (i) through (vii);

5. A shotgun with a revolving cylinder that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material; or

6. A semi-automatic shotgun that expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material that has one of the following characteristics: (i) a folding or telescoping stock, (ii) a thumbhole stock, (iii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the shotgun, (iv) the ability to accept a detachable magazine, (v) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of seven rounds, or (vi) any characteristic of like kind as enumerated in clauses (i) through (v).

"Assault firearm" includes any part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert, modify, or otherwise alter a firearm into an assault firearm, or any combination of parts that may be readily assembled into an assault firearm. "Assault firearm" does not include (i) a firearm that has been rendered permanently inoperable, (ii) an antique firearm as defined in § 18.2-308.2:2, or (iii) a curio or relic as defined in § 18.2-308.2:2.

 

 

 

Edited by Stealthycat
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, parrot said:

What does that have to do with the question I asked you or your contention that violence doesn't tie to "inanimate objects"?  Upwards of 3/4 of homicides in this country tie to one class of inanimate object.  Did you not know that?   And I'll give you a hint, it's not pool noodles.  

which inanimate object is that?

be specific - hint, its not semi-auto rifles

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

which inanimate object is that?

be specific - hint, its not semi-auto rifles

Guns.  70%+ of our homicides are with guns. Period.  Full stop.   You said violence can't be tied to "inanimate objects" but 7 in 10 killings in this country happen with a gun. That's a pretty strong correlation.  I know it's inconvenient for you so you have to try to backtrack and narrow your search terms now, but those are the facts.  

Edited by parrot
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, parrot said:

Guns.  70%+ of our homicides are with guns. Period.  Full stop.   You said violence can't be tied to "inanimate objects" but 7 in 10 killings in this country happen with a gun. That's a pretty strong correlation.  I know it's inconvenient for you so you have to try to backtrack and narrow your search terms now, but those are the facts.  

which guns?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stealthycat said:

which guns?

The kind that fire bullets.  70%.  More than twice as many people are killed with guns than all other forms of homicide combined in this country.  Three times as many in a lot of years.  And we have more gun suicides than homicides by a large margin.  Guns kill a lot of people.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, parrot said:

The kind that fire bullets.  70%.  More than twice as many people are killed with guns than all other forms of homicide combined in this country.  Three times as many in a lot of years.  And we have more gun suicides than homicides by a large margin.  Guns kill a lot of people.  

WHAT KIND OF GUNS ?

You either won't say or don't know. Which is it ?

Guns have never killed anyone. Fact

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stealthycat said:

WHAT KIND OF GUNS ?

You either won't say or don't know. Which is it ?

Guns have never killed anyone. Fact

ALL KINDS OF GUNS. 70%. TWICE AS MANY HOMICIDES AS ALL OTHER METHODS COMBINED.  GUNS TIE TO VIOLENCE AND DEADLY VIOLENCE IS PARTICULARLY CLOSELY TIED TO GUNS.  Can't really blame you for trying to restrict the discussion to a certain self-selected subset - or play semantical games - because those facts are really inconvenient.  Have a great weekend.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, parrot said:

ALL KINDS OF GUNS. 70%. TWICE AS MANY HOMICIDES AS ALL OTHER METHODS COMBINED.  GUNS TIE TO VIOLENCE AND DEADLY VIOLENCE IS PARTICULARLY CLOSELY TIED TO GUNS.  Can't really blame you for trying to restrict the discussion to a certain self-selected subset - or play semantical games - because those facts are really inconvenient.  Have a great weekend.  

guns never kill - people using them do

you don't want to answer - so I will

 

the guns the anti-gunners are going after account for less than 5% of all the guns used in violence where guns are the weapons ... 3% I think is the real number

 

amazing isn't it? focusing on the LEAST used guns that violent people use

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, KCitons said:

You could have used this same thing to describe the church shooting this week. Perhaps, in the chaos, other parishioners were hit by friendly fire. I've made this argument already and am not looking to rehash it. 

But, in your story, you only give one possible solution. But, as was the case with this reason church shooting, the shooter began to fire, someone pulled out their weapon and neutralized the shooter. Preventing further deaths. 

I didn't need to paint a vivid picture, or name the victim (little Meaghan) in order to prove my point. It removes the emotion from the equation. 

Remove the emotion then.  Shooting accuracy by Cops, so persons with some training and likely more than one is going to get with armed teachers or security guards rarely exceeds 40% and is often fair less.  Lack of accuracy in a crowded school in a chaotic situation ought to concern anybody.  You sound like a fairly experienced shooter.  Tell me, is it wise to shoot with persons in the background?  Is it wise with an undetermined background?  I get that lack of intervention allows ongoing carnage by a shooter.  All I am suggesting is that intervention with a lethal firearm may not be wise.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Remove the emotion then.  Shooting accuracy by Cops, so persons with some training and likely more than one is going to get with armed teachers or security guards rarely exceeds 40% and is often fair less.  Lack of accuracy in a crowded school in a chaotic situation ought to concern anybody.  You sound like a fairly experienced shooter.  Tell me, is it wise to shoot with persons in the background?  Is it wise with an undetermined background?  I get that lack of intervention allows ongoing carnage by a shooter.  All I am suggesting is that intervention with a lethal firearm may not be wise.

 

I don't disagree that one armed person with a gun trying to hit a shooter in a room full of 100 people is not the best solution. But, if we are going to play "what ifs" would you agree that if all 100 people were armed that the odds would be greater to stop a shooter? (without regard to crossfire)

The solution probably lies somewhere in the middle. Too many people shooting at once has a higher odds of someone being hit by friendly fire. At some point on the venn diagram, there are enough armed people to be in the perfect position to safely take down the shooter without putting others at risk. And since the weapons will be concealed, the shooter wouldn't know how to position himself to sway the odds in his favor. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, KCitons said:

I don't disagree that one armed person with a gun trying to hit a shooter in a room full of 100 people is not the best solution. But, if we are going to play "what ifs" would you agree that if all 100 people were armed that the odds would be greater to stop a shooter? (without regard to crossfire)

The solution probably lies somewhere in the middle. Too many people shooting at once has a higher odds of someone being hit by friendly fire. At some point on the venn diagram, there are enough armed people to be in the perfect position to safely take down the shooter without putting others at risk. And since the weapons will be concealed, the shooter wouldn't know how to position himself to sway the odds in his favor. 

My studies of police shooting encounters leads me to believe that this is not so. That said, you are entitled to your opinion.  Also, I know that you are at least partially motivated by a desire to advocate a safety or security issue so I appreciate your thoughts.  We all, I presume, would like to see our children safe and to not be exposed to the mental illness or emotional depravity of school shooters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

My studies of police shooting encounters leads me to believe that this is not so. That said, you are entitled to your opinion.  Also, I know that you are at least partially motivated by a desire to advocate a safety or security issue so I appreciate your thoughts.  We all, I presume, would like to see our children safe and to not be exposed to the mental illness or emotional depravity of school shooters.

We are on the same page. At this point, I'm just working the fringes. Because, quite frankly, nothing else really matters. We know that we aren't going to remove all guns from society. And even with certain regulations, only the people that don't want to shoot up a church, are the ones that won't be owning certain weapons. Everyone else will still find a way. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

All I am suggesting is that intervention with a lethal firearm may not be wise.

then sit back and do nothing, that's your choice and truth is, many people are cowards and unable to act in situations, they're forever victims

there are people not like that, there are people who can act and people who are brave and people who are not victims. that's their choice

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

then sit back and do nothing, that's your choice and truth is, many people are cowards and unable to act in situations, they're forever victims

there are people not like that, there are people who can act and people who are brave and people who are not victims. that's their choice

I did not suggest doing nothing.  

 

I am suggesting that not all are capable of acting in emergency situations even when they believe they might be, even when they train to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

then sit back and do nothing, that's your choice and truth is, many people are cowards and unable to act in situations, they're forever victims

there are people not like that, there are people who can act and people who are brave and people who are not victims. that's their choice

I have never in my life seen anybody more afraid than you are. May want to reconsider this kind of talk.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

I did not suggest doing nothing.  

 

I am suggesting that not all are capable of acting in emergency situations even when they believe they might be, even when they train to do so.

I can show you how to use a gun to protect yourself in 2 minutes. 

If I am ever in a bad situation with you and there is a shooter in our midst, please with that 2 minutes of training, take the chance you'll shoot and hit me vs doing nothing and letting him kill us all. Please

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Apple Jack said:

I have never in my life seen anybody more afraid than you are. May want to reconsider this kind of talk.

do you know me ? 

I don't think you do

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/1/2020 at 2:50 PM, Apple Jack said:

It's not a fairytale. There are examples all over the world.

Why isn't it working here?  The guy was a Felon correct?  Felon's can't have guns, correct?  Did he not know the law?  Did he forget to follow it when he decided to murder innocent people in a church?  What went wrong here?  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

I can show you how to use a gun to protect yourself in 2 minutes. 

If I am ever in a bad situation with you and there is a shooter in our midst, please with that 2 minutes of training, take the chance you'll shoot and hit me vs doing nothing and letting him kill us all. Please

That's a generous offer.  I think I am fine when it comes to handling firearms.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Choke said:

:lmao::lmao:

Imagine this used at Vegas or anywhere and saying its gonna miss because of innacuary, and look at how quiet it is, ... https://youtu.be/BczhT1ByrXA?t=13

why did you post a pic of a fully auto that's illegal for almost every American to own?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jm192 said:

Why isn't it working here?  The guy was a Felon correct?  Felon's can't have guns, correct?  Did he not know the law?  Did he forget to follow it when he decided to murder innocent people in a church?  What went wrong here?  

 

anti-gun people will say that because there was a shotgun available, that it lured him into using it I guess??  that if there were no guns anywhere, he'd not have been violent and wanted to hurt others ???? I guess ??

we DO have a violence issue in the USA, that's true ..... I personally think its because we're such a melting pot of ethnicity and religions etc unlike many countries. That's one reason IMO

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

That's a generous offer.  I think I am fine when it comes to handling firearms.

Prove it.

Duel at high noon.

You can choose the place.

I'll use my sling shot.

 

Serious part: If I had to select one FBG to speak on my behalf in regard to gun issues, it would be DW. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Man of Constant Sorrow said:

Prove it.

Duel at high noon.

You can choose the place.

I'll use my sling shot.

 

Serious part: If I had to select one FBG to speak on my behalf in regard to gun issues, it would be DW. 

I've always wondered.  Is there a low noon?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://summit.news/2019/12/05/new-atf-study-423-million-guns-in-hands-of-americans/?fbclid=IwAR0fFbnVqn5ab01Xx9EbJJ-vVJiVodMPtK3acBdSyKWbiWHoReeuSLQsUxc

New ATF Study: 423 MILLION Guns In Hands Of Americans

 

lets say that's accurate .... and last year, lets say 12,000 violent people used handguns to kill innocent people AND that only 1/2 those were legally acquired (I'd bet its much lower, but lets assume 1/2) and lets say that 75 million American's own those 423 million handguns

0.00008 % would be the percentage of legal gun owners using their guns wrong

AR15 / semi-auto rifle numbers would be another couple of zeroes

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2020 at 9:28 AM, Stealthycat said:

anti-gun people will say that because there was a shotgun available, that it lured him into using it I guess??  that if there were no guns anywhere, he'd not have been violent and wanted to hurt others ???? I guess ??

we DO have a violence issue in the USA, that's true ..... I personally think its because we're such a melting pot of ethnicity and religions etc unlike many countries. That's one reason IMO

It’s not like he had a shotgun because there weren’t more lethal options available. Had he chosen a different weapon it may have ended with more casualties. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, miapug said:

Why does the public need access to AR 15 assault rifles?  Are these used in hunting?  Seems like an easy thing to do is to ban them.

Why does the public need access to a car the goes 200mph (or zero to 60 in 3 seconds)? Are they used to get to work or deliver goods?

The answer to both is probably the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, miapug said:

Car "accidents" do not equate to terrorist type murders, sorry

You asked if the public needed access to assault rifles. You also asked if they were used for hunting. Maybe we should start at the origin and ask, "does the public need to hunt"?

Anything else is a freedom or a luxury. Where we draw the line, whether it's cars, guns, booze, drugs, etc is always going to be up for debate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

They don't need them. They should be banned or at the very least have massive restrictions and quarterly registrations.

 

7 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

They dont. You are right. That shouldnt be allowed. 

And that's how we have arrived at the situation we are in. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Well the solution isnt to argue that because products abc also cause death we shouldnt ban product x. 

It's not the solution. It's the cause. 

I'm on record stating that unbridled freedom is what has got us into this situation. Why should someone have the freedom to drive 200 miles an hour, putting innocent people at risk, while someone else is told they can't have an assault rifle that could put innocent people at risk. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KCitons said:

It's not the solution. It's the cause. 

I'm on record stating that unbridled freedom is what has got us into this situation. Why should someone have the freedom to drive 200 miles an hour, putting innocent people at risk, while someone else is told they can't have an assault rifle that could put innocent people at risk. 

Because arguing that we should have more bad decisions rather than fewer is dumb? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Because arguing that we should have more bad decisions rather than fewer is dumb? 

Who's arguing more bad decisions. My point is that we don't regulate things the same when it comes to saving lives. You admit that we shouldn't have cars that go 200 mph. Why? Because speed kills. There's nowhere, other than a racetrack where a car like that can be used. But, because of unbridled freedom in this country, we are allowed to have cars like that. Apply the same to assault weapons. They are limited in their use. More at at a gun range (racetrack) vs real world application of hunting (daily commute).

Unless we are going to apply rules equally, I don't see how I can take any of this seriously. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Snorkelson said:

It’s not like he had a shotgun because there weren’t more lethal options available. Had he chosen a different weapon it may have ended with more casualties. 

do you know anything about shotguns?  he wasn't supposed to have guns at all was he? but he did

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, miapug said:

Why does the public need access to AR 15 assault rifles?  Are these used in hunting?  Seems like an easy thing to do is to ban them.

yes, I acquired an AK47 in a 7.62 x 39 and it has ballistics similar to a .308, a fine deer/hog gun if I'm hunting places that isn't long distance shooting. 

people don't hunt in the USA with a .404 Jeffery, .416 Rigby, .416 Rem., .458 Win. Mag. or .470 Nitro Express .... do you want to ban those calibers too ?

remember - an AR15/assault weapon isn't anything more than a semi-auto rifle - that's it, nothing more. You know that right ??

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:

They don't need them. They should be banned or at the very least have massive restrictions and quarterly registrations.

you are talking about banning semi-auto rifle that people use to hunt with and use for self protection right ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

it amazes me that people still do not understand AR15 / assault weapons

they are - literally - semi-auto rifles

that's it, nothing more, nothing less, the actions on them are the same as any other semi-auto rifle and that's hunting rifles that's been used for decades and there are tens of millions of them in the USA
 

what makes an "assault" weapon different is the accessories

please, if you don't understand that, do some research. its not the caliber, its not the actions .... its the pistol grip, the muzzle reducers, the folding stock, the clip or magazine that detaches etc is what makes them look "scary" and people so misunderstand that, they get behind bans that take away people's hunting guns and self protection guns. 

under some bans and proposed bans, my turkey hunting shotgun is illegal because its semi-auto and has an adjustable stock and a pistol grip. crazy isn't it ?

 

the craziest is this - that banning a type of semi-auto gun that truly is used in less than 4-5% of all violence every year that involves a gun will be hailed as a great difference make. FYI - it will not make a difference, it will simply take guns from the hands of legal law abiding people

 

see those numbers i posted on handguns? those are real ... and not 1 anti-gun person here wanted to talk about them

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

you are talking about banning semi-auto rifle that people use to hunt with and use for self protection right ?

I am talking about banning AR15s. I dont care if people hunt with them. Its a dumb rifle to hunt with. Hey look at me firing 35 rounds at a varmint!!!!

I also dont care if we deprive some neck tatter of having an AR15 instead of a handgun for his personal defense armory.

What other great, tired, repeated arguments you got? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, parasaurolophus said:

I am talking about banning AR15s. I dont care if people hunt with them. Its a dumb rifle to hunt with. Hey look at me firing 35 rounds at a varmint!!!!

I also dont care if we deprive some neck tatter of having an AR15 instead of a handgun for his personal defense armory.

What other great, tired, repeated arguments you got? 

 

ok, #1 if you are varmint hunting, the objective is likely to be killing varmints because they're too many of them and if you're firing 35 shots? you're likely not hitting anything, very few people would shoot like that. VERY FEW

#2 you don't care because you're not being infringed on. That's typical

 

what specifically about an AR15 don't you like ? Do you like an AK47 ? do you like a Ruger 10/22 ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...