Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Apple Jack said:

I am, yes. And we know what semi-auto/AR-15's are. But it's cute what amazes you.

same question to you

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
  • 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

6 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

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

 

 


Yep, they’re that easy to get, even when you’re not supposed to. What’s your point?

I know plenty about guns. So do other posters here. Don’t imply otherwise because we disagree with you. 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Snorkelson said:


Yep, they’re that easy to get, even when you’re not supposed to. What’s your point?

I know plenty about guns. So do other posters here. Don’t imply otherwise because we disagree with you. 
 

 

I feel like that's the norm on here.

Edited by jm192
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

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 ? 

Hey guys besides the fact that it is pretty much the most common choice of mass shooters these days what is not to like about this thing?  

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

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

Yes it is typical. Its like when AR15 owners want the guns to still be available as the weapon of choice for mass shooters because they didnt lose their kid to a mass shooter. They werent infringed upon.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

Hey guys besides the fact that it is pretty much the most common choice of mass shooters these days what is not to like about this thing?  

This is where I stand on this.  We need to eliminate the ease of mass shootings and if it means banning the AR 15's then so be it.  

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

Hey guys besides the fact that it is pretty much the most common choice of mass shooters these days what is not to like about this thing?  

 

1 minute ago, miapug said:

This is where I stand on this.  We need to eliminate the ease of mass shootings and if it means banning the AR 15's then so be it.  

But, you both fail to take into account that mass shootings have been carried out with handguns and shotguns. Removing AR15's won't change the behavior, it will only change the tool used. 

When are you going to make suggestions that will change the behavior?

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

 

But, you both fail to take into account that mass shootings have been carried out with handguns and shotguns. Removing AR15's won't change the behavior, it will only change the tool used. 

When are you going to make suggestions that will change the behavior?

I am open to ways to change behavior too.  However, reducing the speed of firing is critical so that has to be done to protect lives from the lunatics.

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

I am open to ways to change behavior too.  However, reducing the speed of firing is critical so that has to be done to protect lives from the lunatics.

Speed of firing? Can you unpack specifics on what laws would look like around that?

Can we apply the same principles to speed of travel when it comes to cars that can go over 75 mph?

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

 

But, you both fail to take into account that mass shootings have been carried out with handguns and shotguns. Removing AR15's won't change the behavior, it will only change the tool used. 

When are you going to make suggestions that will change the behavior?

This assumes that they dont choose the AR15 for a reason. That it is happenstance. 

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

Speed of firing? Can you unpack specifics on what laws would look like around that?

Can we apply the same principles to speed of travel when it comes to cars that can go over 75 mph?

I am talking about rapid fire assault weapons but I am sure you know this.  Simple as banning weapons such as AR 15s.  Handguns or shotguns don't fire as quickly correct?

Until cars are being used traveling over 75 mph for mass killings I see no reason to worry about them.  I do agree there is no reason for them to go over 100 mph.

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

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 ??

Some might for Grizzly.  Overkill in my mind, but some might.  I would go with .338 Lapua, because it is what I have though I do not hunt bear, don't believe there are enough left.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

This assumes that they dont choose the AR15 for a reason. That it is happenstance. 

My point was, if you remove AR15's, they will choose a different weapon. You haven't removed their desire to mass kill. We know that just as much carnage can be accomplished with handguns or shotguns. 

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

I am talking about rapid fire assault weapons but I am sure you know this.  Simple as banning weapons such as AR 15s.  Handguns or shotguns don't fire as quickly correct?

Until cars are being used traveling over 75 mph for mass killings I see no reason to worry about them.  I do agree there is no reason for them to go over 100 mph.

No.

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

I am talking about rapid fire assault weapons but I am sure you know this.  Simple as banning weapons such as AR 15s.  Handguns or shotguns don't fire as quickly correct?

Until cars are being used traveling over 75 mph for mass killings I see no reason to worry about them.  I do agree there is no reason for them to go over 100 mph.

Incorrect. Semi automatic weapons fire one round per trigger pull. It doesn't matter if it's a handgun, shotgun or rifle. 

Saving lives doesn't matter unless it's caused by guns. Got it. This is why the conversation breaks down. You see a problem with cars that go over 75 mph. But, you don't see a need to restrict them. I feel the same way about guns. Deaths are going to happen. Intent doesn't matter. 

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


Yep, they’re that easy to get, even when you’re not supposed to. What’s your point?

I know plenty about guns. So do other posters here. Don’t imply otherwise because we disagree with you. 
 

 

I have to question gun knowledge here because of all the uninformed posts

My point was, violent people find their way to be violent. When we stop those violent people, then the problem of violence is solved. Trying to keep certain weapons from being around isn't focusing on the core problem. Its like banning a certain color/make car to reduce car deaths or banning a certain type of alcohol to stop DUI's ..... literally, like that

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

Hey guys besides the fact that it is pretty much the most common choice of mass shooters these days what is not to like about this thing?  

link to " fact that it is pretty much the most common choice of mass shooters" 

hint - its not 

of course that depends maybe on your definition of mass shooting

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

Yes it is typical. Its like when AR15 owners want the guns to still be available as the weapon of choice for mass shooters because they didnt lose their kid to a mass shooter. They werent infringed upon.

link to "Its like when AR15 owners want the guns to still be available as the weapon of choice for mass shooters" please

nobody wants that - and to say they do ? please

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

However, reducing the speed of firing is critical so that has to be done to protect lives from the lunatics.

expand on that please ......... because now, you're not talking about a specific weapon, you're talking about the specific actions of many weapons (semi-automatic)

are you suggesting banning semi-automatic weapons ?

Quote

 

I am talking about rapid fire assault weapons but I am sure you know this.  Simple as banning weapons such as AR 15s.  Handguns or shotguns don't fire as quickly correct?

Until cars are being used traveling over 75 mph for mass killings I see no reason to worry about them.  I do agree there is no reason for them to go over 100 mph.

 

what is rapid fire ? 

ANY semi-automatic gun fires the same way, don't you know that ?

Edited by Stealthycat
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, miapug said:
31 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Some might for Grizzly.  Overkill in my mind, but some might.  I would go with .338 Lapua, because it is what I have though I do not hunt bear, don't believe there are enough left.

 

I didn't list a .338 .... some might use that for elk too or bison but the true big bore African guns ........... why not ban them? the suggestion was ban what hunter in the USA don't use right ? which of course is ridiculous 

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

expand on that please ......... because now, you're not talking about a specific weapon, you're talking about the specific actions of many weapons (semi-automatic)

are you suggesting banning semi-automatic weapons ?

what is rapid fire ? 

ANY semi-automatic gun fires the same way, don't you know that ?

I have never fired a gun in my life and do not know much about them.  If banning all semi-automatic weapons reduces the ease of mass killings I am for it. 

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

I am talking about rapid fire assault weapons but I am sure you know this.  Simple as banning weapons such as AR 15s.  Handguns or shotguns don't fire as quickly correct?

Your two main kinds of handguns are revolvers and semi-autos.  Both fire at about the same rate but a revolver will fire six (in some cases 7) shots and must be reloaded.  Most semi-auto handguns fire a minimum of 8-9 rounds (single stack) and more often 15-16 rounds (double stack).  Semi-autos generally have detachable magazines so reloading is simple and takes maybe a second a two for a practiced hand.   Although a good hand can reload a revolver relatively quickly, it's still much more involved than reloading a semi-auto; and you still only have 6-7 rounds as opposed to 15-16 or more (semi-auto handguns can also use extended mags that hold up to 30 rounds or more.)

Shotguns are generally semi-auto or pump.  A pump can be fired about as fast as a semi-auto, but the pumping can affect accuracy.  Most shotguns have a tube magazine that runs under the barrel.  These typically hold 5-10 shells and when empty must be reloaded one shell at a time.  Some shotguns - both pump and semi-auto - accept detachable magazines which allow for quick reloading, though these generally still only hold around 10 rounds, though some do hold more.  Contrast that with their assault weapon brethren which typically have mags which hold a  minimum of 30 rounds, and possibly up to 100 rounds.  And they have the same easy reload as other semi-autos. Again it takes one or two seconds tops and you have another 30 -100 rounds ready to fire. 

It's all about interchangeable magazines.  It's not so much "rapid fire" as it is sustained "rapid fire" - the ability to continue to fire pretty much uninterrupted until your barrel melts down - that makes semi-auto center-fire weapons with detachable magazines the weapon of choice for the majority of mass shooters.  

Edited by parrot
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, miapug said:

I have never fired a gun in my life and do not know much about them.  If banning all semi-automatic weapons reduces the ease of mass killings I am for it. 

Reduce the ease of mass killing?

Doesn't that have more to do with the psychological makeup of the shooter? 

 

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

I have never fired a gun in my life and do not know much about them.  If banning all semi-automatic weapons reduces the ease of mass killings I am for it. 

ok, honesty, thank you

so a pump shotgun would be ok, level action rifles would be ok, revolvers would be ok ?

why "mass killings" ?  do individual killings not bother you? 

 

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

A revolver will fire six (in some cases 7) shots and must be reloaded.

ever hear of speedloaders for revolvers?

39 minutes ago, parrot said:

It's all about interchangeable magazines.  It's not so much "rapid fire" as it is sustained "rapid fire" - the ability to continue to fire pretty much uninterrupted until your barrel melts down - that makes semi-auto center-fire weapons with detachable magazines the weapon of choice for the majority of mass shooters.

until barrel melts down .... really ?

shooters shoot until their gun jams, they run out of ammo ...... most often, shooters stop when a good guy with a gun stops them right ?

 

 

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

My point was, if you remove AR15's, they will choose a different weapon. You haven't removed their desire to mass kill. We know that just as much carnage can be accomplished with handguns or shotguns. 

We know it can be accomplished. But it pretty much never is. 

For every virginia tech shooter there are many more brooklyn parks. The actual numbers simply do not match up.  

 

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

We know it can be accomplished. But it pretty much never is. 

For every virginia tech shooter there are many more brooklyn parks. The actual numbers simply do not match up.  

 

Because the AR15 is available. Remove it from the equation and those shooters will use another weapon. The Virginia Tech shooter is just proof of concept. 

We know that next step is to  ban other weapons. Because you can't make a claim that you want to reduce mass shooters, only to have mass shooters choose a different gun. At some point, you will have banned every gun. But, mass killings will still happen. And you'll be left with trying to ban every object in the world. 

Or, you could concentrate on the behavior. Why does a very small percentage of people want to commit mass shootings? Why don't the millions of other gun owners want to commit mass shootings? I feels like we are concentrating on the wrong problem.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

ever hear of speedloaders for revolvers?

until barrel melts down .... really ?

shooters shoot until their gun jams, they run out of ammo ...... most often, shooters stop when a good guy with a gun stops them right ?

 

 

Of course I've heard of speed loaders.  That's partly why I said "Although a good hand can reload a revolver relatively quickly, it's still much more involved than reloading a semi-auto;".  I notice you ignored that passage, and it doesn't change the fact that you're reloading, and only putting in 6-7 shells.

A high-quality modern AR using good ammunition is rarely going to jam, and the possibility of running out of ammo has nothing to do with the capabilities of the platform, which is what I was explaining, fyi.  How mass shootings are generally stopped also has nothing to do with why shooters choose the platform they do.

Please stop with the red-herrings and straw-men.     :thumbup:

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

Of course I've heard of speed loaders.  That's partly why I said "Although a good hand can reload a revolver relatively quickly, it's still much more involved than reloading a semi-auto;".  I notice you ignored that passage, and it doesn't change the fact that you're reloading, and only putting in 6-7 shells.

A high-quality modern AR using good ammunition is rarely going to jam, and the possibility of running out of ammo has nothing to do with the capabilities of the platform, which is what I was explaining, fyi.  How mass shootings are generally stopped also has nothing to do with why shooters choose the platform they do.

Please stop with the red-herrings and straw-men.     :thumbup:

you didn't say speedloader - you said reloading which is putting in a shell in at a time, but I knew what you mean

"How mass shootings are generally stopped also has nothing to do with why shooters choose the platform they do."

and how many mass shootings are with AR15's?   provide link please and I'd also like to know the % that acquired them legally 

 

 

 

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

Or, you could concentrate on the behavior. Why does a very small percentage of people want to commit mass shootings? Why don't the millions of other gun owners want to commit mass shootings? I feels like we are concentrating on the wrong problem.

you will not get an answer from the anti-gun left, sorry

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/31/2019 at 11:41 AM, Stealthycat said:

35,000 dead on the highways each year and we are all comfortable with auto safety and highway safety and the success of all that huh ?

if we could rewind and put good people with guns in all the school shootings, mall shootings, concert shootings etc ......... I wonder how radically different the results of those shootings would be ?

I think we know far, far fewer would have been killed by the evil criminals of the world 

Not at all. I'm for as many restrictions on speed, engine size, harder licensing, etc.  I do not fear anyone in my family being killed by a gunshot I do however fear for more of my family being killed by being on the roads.   Way to many idiots speeding, playing on their phones, etc.

But as someone above said....it's to hard...whine.

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

and when wackos use "other guns" take them too ?

 

Well, after they've shot up everyone in the church, the police will arrive and disarm them.  And then that particular wacko will never harm anyone again.

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

Because the AR15 is available. Remove it from the equation and those shooters will use another weapon. The Virginia Tech shooter is just proof of concept. 

We know that next step is to  ban other weapons. Because you can't make a claim that you want to reduce mass shooters, only to have mass shooters choose a different gun. At some point, you will have banned every gun. But, mass killings will still happen. And you'll be left with trying to ban every object in the world. 

Or, you could concentrate on the behavior. Why does a very small percentage of people want to commit mass shootings? Why don't the millions of other gun owners want to commit mass shootings? I feels like we are concentrating on the wrong problem.

The virginia tech shooter is the exception not the rule. 

An AR15 isnt the choice just because. It is the choice because of how effective it is. 

Look at the list of shootings. Tell me how many times an AR15 was used and nobody died. 

Now to compare to handguns. 

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

The virginia tech shooter is the exception not the rule. 

An AR15 isnt the choice just because. It is the choice because of how effective it is. 

Look at the list of shootings. Tell me how many times an AR15 was used and nobody died. 

Now to compare to handguns. 

It's the choice because of the road map that has been set. I believe future shooters see how it's done and copy. 

You only need to start at the beginning to understand. Columbine started the pattern of school shootings. Others copied. 

What weapons were used at Columbine? It was an AR15. It was two semi automatic weapons that shoot handgun rounds. Tec 9 = 9mm and Hi Point carbine = 9mm. Both shooters also had shotguns. They killed 13 people and wounded 21. 

As copycats came along they adjusted what they used. Would you be satisfied with going back to Columbine type results?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/7/2020 at 9:55 AM, miapug said:

I have never fired a gun in my life and do not know much about them.  If banning all semi-automatic weapons reduces the ease of mass killings I am for it. 

 

On 1/7/2020 at 10:15 AM, KCitons said:

Reduce the ease of mass killing?

Doesn't that have more to do with the psychological makeup of the shooter? 

 

Hi @miapug, last night you posted in the Iran thread:

Quote

We need to get rid of the crazy folks in the world

I waited until today and wanted to respond here, where the same theory applies. 

How does banning semi automatic weapons rid the world of crazy folks? 

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

 

Hi @miapug, last night you posted in the Iran thread:

I waited until today and wanted to respond here, where the same theory applies. 

How does banning semi automatic weapons rid the world of crazy folks? 

Not sure that it does to answer your question.  My goal with guns is to limit the damage that can be done to the public and believe the pros of this outweighs the cons of infringing on Americans rights to bear arms.

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

Not sure that it does to answer your question.  My goal with guns is to limit the damage that can be done to the public and believe the pros of this outweighs the cons of infringing on Americans rights to bear arms.

If a "crazy" person (I know some here don't like that term) wants to kill people, will removing guns change those desires?

I'm not even arguing the pros/cons of the 2nd Amendment. I'm concentrating on the core of the problem. The people doing the shooting.

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

If a "crazy" person (I know some here don't like that term) wants to kill people, will removing guns change those desires?

I'm not even arguing the pros/cons of the 2nd Amendment. I'm concentrating on the core of the problem. The people doing the shooting.

I am not disagreeing at all with you here.  I am just trying to reduce the ease of carrying out evil acts.

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

I am not disagreeing at all with you here.  I am just trying to reduce the ease of carrying out evil acts.

 This is an evil act. No gun was used. 

Quote

Two toddlers died in Chicago early Thursday after police said a woman stabbed her father, left one of the children in a bathtub and then jumped from an 11th-floor apartment with the other child.

This article states:

Quote

The troubled young mum previously attempted suicide over the summer and prosecutors said she was taking medication for an unspecified mood disorder.

 

This isn't a murder out of hate. It's mental disorder that needed more attention. You can ban knives, bathtubs and tall buildings. But, the problem still remains. 

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

 This is an evil act. No gun was used. 

This article states:

 

This isn't a murder out of hate. It's mental disorder that needed more attention. You can ban knives, bathtubs and tall buildings. But, the problem still remains. 

Understood.  However, nobody is walking into a crowded shopping center and killing 40 people with a knife.

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

Understood.  However, nobody is walking into a crowded shopping center and killing 40 people with a knife.

There's a big difference between 3 and 40.

What is the threshold that would make you take notice if people were killed with something other than a gun?

What is the number of that are killed by a gun that you are trying to get it down to?

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

Well, after they've shot up everyone in the church, the police will arrive and disarm them.  And then that particular wacko will never harm anyone again.

no, I mean take fully auto weapons, so the violent people won't use them and the violent people use semi-auto ... take those, and violent people will use pump and lever action, take those, and violent people use single shot and shotguns, take those, and violent people use knives, take those and 

 

well, you get my point ... 

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, parasaurolophus said:

The virginia tech shooter is the exception not the rule. 

An AR15 isnt the choice just because. It is the choice because of how effective it is. 

Look at the list of shootings. Tell me how many times an AR15 was used and nobody died. 

Now to compare to handguns. 

the top mass shootings IIRC are like 60% with handguns, and the ones with AR15's also included handguns

a weapon is only as effective as the person shooting and actually AR15's were designed in many ways to wound people - they're small caliber (the common .556 nato)  and not big bullets, you know that right? 

 

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

My goal with guns is to limit the damage that can be done to the public and believe the pros of this outweighs the cons of infringing on Americans rights to bear arms.

because you wouldn't give up anything - but you'd demand literally tens of millions of American's to give up something to literally impact what, 200-300 incidents of violent people using semi-auto weapons annually ?

or ... we could focus on getting these violent people out of society and the tens of millions of guns owners wouldn't be impacted at all

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

a magazine fed shotgun is on my list ... the drum fed would have lots of failures I'd think 

alternating buckshot and saboted slug shots would be fantastic home defense, bear protection rounds, wild hog hunting ...... and God help us if violent people figure out how deadly semi-auto shotguns are in close quarters 

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...