|
assault rifles
It seems natural, to me, that in the wake of tragedies like the Colorado shootings, that folks turn their attention to gun control.
It's a complicated issue for me, and I don't claim to have any brilliant answers. First, I like the notion that we respect the constitution. And I really don't like the prospect of ignoring parts of the constitution that we don't happen to like. Along those lines, I believe that law-abiding folks ahould have reasonable access to guns for hunting, target shooting, and/or protection. But I don't get the availability of assault rifles. Now, I do have an assault rifle in my house that I kept from my days in the USMC. However, I tinkered with it so that it doesn't fire, and would be just about impossible to fix. I do look at it sometimes, usually on Memorial Day, when I'm feeling nostalgic. I don't keep it because it makes me feel tough, I keep it for deep sentimental reasons. But I guess I'm not sure I see any rational reasons for anyone owning these weapons. I'd love to see them banned from public availability. They are designed to kill as many people as possible, in as short a time as possible. Only law enforcement and the military are legitimately in need of that ability. Seems to me that most people buy them to feel like a tough guy. It's a lot harder to kill large numbers of people with a handgun than it is to do it with these weapons. If these guns were banned, it seem sto me that we all become a bit safer, and I don't feel that amounts to a significant loss of freedom. |
We can agree on this one to a T.
why did the AZ guy need the extended magazines for his Glocks? why did CO shooter need the drum mag (I don't care if it jammed, he still had it) Because people 'need' them? As far as the 2nd ammendment, it was written at a time when we had single shot muskets... do you think they would support the right to own fully-auto machine guns? I dunno.... |
Quote:
It's difficult to speculate on whether or not these rare mass-killings would be less deadly if it weren't for these weapons. But it seems like common sense to me. I mean, lots of people get killed in car accidents, but no rational person is suggesting that we outlaw cars. Because collectively, wwe agree that the utility and freedom that the automobile provides, are worth the cost. However, I don't see a big benefit to society, thanks to the availability of these guns. |
Quote:
|
I feel like I wrote the original post (with the exception of the USMC part).
|
The constitution states that the people should have the right to bear arms for an important reason.. Our founding fathers wanted a small efficient government, and they wanted the masses to have the firepower to stand up to take down the government by force if needed when and if the government became large, out of control and was oppressing the people. I'm all for the ownership of assault weapons... I think every non felon should own one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
This is like some kind of Bizarro world I've wandered into....:huh:
|
:hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Chris Rock on Gun Control - YouTube
In all seriousness, I agree with this post. I grew up with long guns, hunting was a big part of my earlier years... But I never understood the fascination with automatic weapons, and to an extent handguns. A gun is a tool for hunting, IMHO. And while I respect the right of people to carry concealed weapons for personal protection, if handguns were illegal the need for said protection would be far less. (But let's not go off on a tangent... I understand that if handguns were illegal, criminals would still find a way to obtain them anyway. I'm not advocating outlawing handguns) What's extremely disconcerting to me is that Holmes was able to purchase so much unregulated ammunition (appx. $15,000) in a few months without someone taking notice. In this day and age most people are paranoid that a google search for "how to make a pipe bomb" or "jihaad" will put them on a federal watch list. While I don't know if those examples are true or not, it seems clear to me that there should be regulations on the purchase of ammunition, and if an individual is purchasing such a great quantity in a short period of time (along with body armor, knives, mag holders, etc...) it should raise some red flags. |
Im gonna cause some ruckus here but can't help myself.
Im torn on the issue, but my gut tells me its about freedom. I get labeled and sometimes label myself as a conservative but in reality Im a libertarian. I dont like being limited and other people monitoring me. 20 million people will drink some beer tonight, 2 will get killed or kill someone in an accident. Do we punish everyone? I can guarantee you if you ban alcohol, hundreds of lives will be saved. More that die in 10 yrs from automatic weapons. One wacko killed a lot of innocent people. I dont know if the solution is to ban the weapons he used. I understand the response, but dont know if its appropriate. I know you wont agree, but to me, its the same senitment as banning large sodas in NYC. |
Quote:
Quote:
Which brings up the issue of responsibility. People aren't allowed some weapons not just because they don't need them but there's the risk of irresponsible use or care. Hence gun safety requirements or a clean record to own a firearm or permit to carry. Those with legal access to automatic weapons have usually gone through more intensive police or military training and they have strict rules that govern their use. Remember back in the 1980's the big argument was that gun control advocates were trying to bad guns that "looked" more dangerous than they really were. I always found this silly because even a semi-auto with the right stock or extended round clip changes the function dramatically. Guns are certainly fun to shoot, but I'd agree that to own an AR-15 for instance has little value to the individual other than the cool factor. Even if it's not the military version it was still designed to be an offensive weapon. -spence |
Quote:
You can't equip a gang with large sodas and challenge the police or terrorize a neighborhood. I think there's quite a difference. Sure, banning assault weapons won't fix the problem, but the widespread availability certainly makes unnecessary violence more likely. As Jack noted, how so much ammo could be acquired on short notice online is astonishing. Perhaps part of the answer is stiffer penalties on merchants who sell illegally, closing the gun show loophole etc... -spence |
Ban them! Quickly! They're scary looking!
Apparently Jim is a closet liberal. Quote:
Look it up. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
No reason to ban them. |
Quote:
|
I like them. Would like to add another to the collection. Might even build a custom I have in mind. I designed a muzzle brake for long guns ten years ago and it has been well received in its reductiion of signature, especially in dusty environments. (I could probably get your weapon operational, Jim..... as long as you did not remove mass from the action...)
That said, I would be for taking them out of the hands of the public, as long as they can assure that they have gotten them all..... only then would I be willing to put myself at a disadvantage..... Hi Ben......I know you are reading this one...... |
Quote:
Nope! But I have often said that I think for myself, I don't blindly follow any one ideology. I also believe, for example, that conservatives (and my church) are wrong on gay marriage. "Virginia Tech Massacre. Look it up" I don't need to look it up, I know all about it. It's because I know about that incident that I said it's harder to kill large numbers of folks with a handgun than with an assault rifle. I didn't say it was impossible to kill many people with a handgun...I said it's easier to do it with an assault rifle. That's what I said, and I cannot believe you disagree with me. |
Quote:
That soda ban is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. People can get 2 small sodas instead, and restaurants often offer free refills. Does Bloomberg really think that there won't be a need for dentists anymore? Does he think he's found the formula for creating a city of Supermen? |
The shooter in the theater massacre would not have entered the property to do what he did if he thought he was going to get shot back at. If one person had been carrying in the theater, and that one persn shot back at the orange haired puke, a lot less people would have been injured and killed. So for all the guns around, how come there was only one person carrying inside the theater in Aurora?
If assault weapons are banned again, the only people who have them will be the government and the criminals. I don't want that to happen. I could have bought a Thompson years ago, # 266 of the first run of them since production ended after WWII. I had no desire. But if I knew what it would have sold for 20 years later I would have joined my co-worker and invested the $800.00 that day. Wonder what it cost now to empty a 100 round drum of .45 amunition in just a few seconds? Some people buy fishing equipment and some people buy guns. |
Quote:
Why can't everybody talk this way to each other in all the Political threads.....life would be so much easier |
Quote:
Also, let's put to rest the extensive amount of ignorance in here. A fully automatic M16 rifle is an assault weapon. A semi-automatic AR15 is not an assault weapon. The gun control fanatics have decided to try and label just about any modern long gun as an assault rifle because the term is scary. Not a single firearm used in the Colorado shootings was an assault weapon or had the capabilities of a full-auto fire mode. Now, in this thread we have people saying that extended magazines in Glocks are unneeded, the general public should not have access to fully automatic weapons (again, these were not used in the CO shooting), there needs to be more gun control... why? "Because why do people *need* access to these things that cause death?" Ok... let's look at mortality rates and apply that philosophy: 2008 Gun Deaths in America - About 30.4k (18.2 of which were suicides - people that could have killed themselves another way if guns weren't avail) http://www.cdc.gov/Injury/wisqars/pd..._US_2008-a.pdf 2000 - 20004 Mortality rate related to tobacco products - Approximately 443,000 deaths per year CDC - Fact Sheet - Fast Facts - Smoking & Tobacco Use 2001 - 2005 Alcohol Related Deaths - Approximately 75,000 per year CDC - Alcohol-Related Disease Impact (ARDI) - Alcohol So, we should increase gun control and outlaw those scary "assault weapons" because of how many people die from them and "no one needs access to these guns and there's no purpose to them." Who needs alcohol? Who needs tobacco? Alcohol related deaths are 2.5x that of guns. Take out suicides and alcohol kills 6x as many people in this country as guns. Where's the outrage? Tobacco related deaths were over 14x as many people killed by guns, 37x as many when you take out suicides. Where's the outrage? And Jim in CT as a staunch Conservative, these socially liberal views of yours disappoint me: Quote:
Gun Control |
Quote:
Quote:
"Another hypocritical comment by a chicken-hawk who ducked Viet Nam by joining the national guard (which didn't have to fight back then). Speaking as a vet who was drafted, when guns start going off the noise and commotion makes it hard even for trained soldiers to think, and even in crack units a large proportion do not fire or do not fire meaningfully. In the dark it is worse. I recall sitting along a bunker line and watching a three way firefight break out, with tracers going between two locations in the paddies and then in and out of a bunker down the line. Turned out all three were on the same side. To think that untrained people packing guns in a surprise attack in a darkened movie theater could accomplish anything other than more slaughter is a total fantasy." I *am* highly amused that everyone who thinks someone carrying could have reduced/stopped the bloodshed either a: hasn't served or b: hasn't been in a firefight. Lots of Massoud the tool along with Guns & Ammo bravado being flung around. (I'm sure we'll agree on this point Jim) |
Quote:
Certainly he intended harm and could have found another way, but you'd hope his means could be limited. I've read the FBI stats on guns used in legal defense and it sure doesn't appear like it happens very often. -spence |
Quote:
Theatre In Aurora, Colorado, Was A Gun-Free Zone Like Virginia Tech - Investors.com In AZ, any private business can post signs to create a "Gun Free Zone" restricting the carrying of firearms into their establishment. Any person that violates the businesses' policy can be arrested for trespass. Questions and Answers: Concealed Weapons & Permits - Arizona Department of Public Safety |
Quote:
Quote:
Seems a bit more frequent than "doesn't appear like it happens very often." |
Quote:
You didn't put anything to rest. You did make yourself look pretty silly. -spence |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Are you asserting that the AR 15 is clearly not in fact an assault rifle? let's put this one to rest...there's an excessive amount of ignorance here that needs to be addressed. -spence |
It might not fit the exact definition of an "assault weapon". But it damn well is overkill for hunting deer.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
-spence |
Ya have to have an assault rifle to kill Zombies, everyone knows that
I'm a believer in the right tool for the job |
Quote:
So do cars. But cars and beer are not as inherently dangerous as firearms. "There are 70-80 million adults in this country of 300 million people that own a firearm" Yes. And I'm sure that a huge majority of those are handguns and hunting rifles. Not assault rifles. I include an AR-15 with a 60(?) round magazine as an 'assault rifle'. I have no issues with handguns or hunting rifles. I'm conflicted on this, I'm not an anti-gun radical. But I have reservations about these specific weapons. |
Quote:
-spence |
Interestingly enough, the new typical hunting gun more and more looks like an "assault" rifle. Modern rifles with that type of action look like that type of action, they don't look like a lever, bolt, pump or one of the WW2 style automatics. The sporting models shoot well, function well and have some other advantages I am told. To me they don't look like hunting guns but I am not very fashionable and still hunt deer with a 30-30. As for a wacko doing mass killings being a reason to outlaw anything sounds good politically but likely will not achieve the result. There are many ways to do evil things that rational people would not consider. Perhaps we should just medicate everyone and keep them in their spaces to prevent the bad things that occur when they interact. I think that was a novel, later a movie.
|
Quote:
Yes. Really. Harder. "VT proved that to be completely and utterly false." No. VT proved it's possible to kill many people with handguns. It did nothing to refute my claim that it's easier to kill many people with a rifle. Likwid, how many Americans troops stormed the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima with .45 pistols, and how many had rifles? Why do you think that is? I have never, ever, anywhere, heard anyone deny that rifles provide significant tactical advantages over handguns (unless you are within 18 inches of the person you are fighting). All other things being equal, rifles fire more rounds, and have much longer effective ranges, and the rounds do more damage. "I *am* highly amused that everyone who thinks someone carrying could have reduced/stopped " It's not reasonable to assume that the attack could have been prevented altogether. It is absolutely possible that an armed moviegoer or two might have resulted in a lower bodycount. And I've been in a firefight, with smkoe, noise, screaming, confusion. Not everyone is trained like a Marine, but it's certainly possible someone could have stopped this guy before he stopped on his own. I'm not saying I'd want to see 15 yahoos shooting up the theatre. But if I was in that theater, huddled over my wife, and I had my rosary beads in one pocket and a gun in the other, I'm safer with the gun in my hand, and so is evertyone else in there with me, no? |
Quote:
Yet all of them are too noisy. The best tool by far is the Dead On Annihilator Superhammer. Cost effective, doesn't rely on shady online ammo, and quiet. Won't attract others. /end tangent And its always appeared to me that there's much more outrage in this country about tobacco and alcohol... Seems like we're (rightfully) inundated with anti-smoking and drunk driving ads, and I've never seen an anti-gun possession commercial. Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Just think how much safer you would have been with an AR-15:rocketem:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:44 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com