Political ThreadsThis section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:
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.
Last edited by Jim in CT; 07-26-2012 at 10:59 AM..
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....
Bryan
Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
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....
It's embarassing to me that conservatives, as a group, seem to be on the wrong side of thi sissue. In some cases, they are on the wrong side because they take big $$ from the NRA.
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.
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.
Obviously, we can't make bad things not happen, but we can limit the tools used to do these bad things (within reason)
Bryan
Originally Posted by #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
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
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.
It's embarassing to me that conservatives, as a group, seem to be on the wrong side of thi sissue. In most cases, they are on the wrong side because they take big $$ from the NRA.
Fixed.
Quote:
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.
I think the difference is that cars are very rarely used as an offensive weapon, if they were you might see more concern. With DUI's for instance the vehicle is really an unintended weapon, but there's a stiff penalty for irresponsibility.
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.
I know you wont agree, but to me, its the same senitment as banning large sodas in NYC.
You can't steal a large soda and use it to kill someone.
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...
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.
You can't equip a gang with large sodas and challenge the police or terrorize a neighborhood.
I think there's quite a difference.
...
-spence
I agree, but more people will die from obesity, drunk driving accidents and domestic violence related to alcohol in one year than will die from auto weapons in 100 years. So why dont we ban all those bad things? As I always ask, where does it stop?
I agree, but more people will die from obesity, drunk driving accidents and domestic violence related to alcohol in one year than will die from auto weapons in 100 years. So why dont we ban all those bad things? As I always ask, where does it stop?
Soda/beer aren't scary looking.
No reason to ban them.
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......
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms.” – James Madison.
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.
I agree, but more people will die from obesity, drunk driving accidents and domestic violence related to alcohol in one year than will die from auto weapons in 100 years. So why dont we ban all those bad things? As I always ask, where does it stop?
The people who die from obesity are auffering, in most cases, from their own choices. Shooting victims don't get to choose what weapon their attackers will arm themselves with. I agree with you, I'm not big on limiting freedom. But millions and millions of peopl eenjoy beer. Only a very small number of people are the types that enjoy these weapons. I'm torn on the issue, very conflicted...
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.
Swimmer a.k.a. YO YO MA
Serial Mailbox Killer/Seal Fisherman
Tell me about it! I was half-expecting you to shut down the thread out of sheer habit...
I thought within the hour it would escalate to the point where I probably would have to.....but everybody is being civil to each other...I'm a little confused to say the least.
Why can't everybody talk this way to each other in all the Political threads.....life would be so much easier
"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
It makes me sad that we've shifted from a society of "don't do something if it's illegal" to a society of "you're only allowed to do such and such if it's made explicitly illegal".
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?"
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:
I agree with you, I'm not big on limiting freedom. But millions and millions of peopl eenjoy beer. Only a very small number of people are the types that enjoy these weapons.
There are 70-80 million adults in this country of 300 million people that own a firearm. I'm willing to bet that there are "millions and millions of people" that enjoy these types of weapons. Gun Control
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.
Really? harder? VT proved that to be completely and utterly false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swimmer
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.
This (fantastic comment by someone) was in response to some senator claiming the same bs.
"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)
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?
You're assuming a clearly irrational (i.e. bat#^&#^&#^&#^& crazy) person would behave in a rational manner...that's a stretch.
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.
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?
I've read the FBI stats on guns used in legal defense and it sure doesn't appear like it happens very often.
-spence
What do you consider not very often?
Quote:
Professor Emeritus James Q. Wilson, the UCLA public policy expert, says: "We know from Census Bureau surveys that something beyond 100,000 uses of guns for self-defense occur every year. We know from smaller surveys of a commercial nature that the number may be as high as 2 1/2 or 3 million. We don't know what the right number is, but whatever the right number is, it's not a trivial number."
Former Manhattan Assistant District Attorney David P. Koppel studied gun control for the Cato Institute. Citing a 1979-1985 study by the National Crime Victimization Survey, Koppel found: "When a robbery victim does not defend himself, the robber succeeds 88 percent of the time, and the victim is injured 25 percent of the time. When a victim resists with a gun, the robbery success rate falls to 30 percent, and the victim injury rate falls to 17 percent. No other response to a robbery -- from drawing a knife to shouting for help to fleeing -- produces such low rates of victim injury and robbery success."
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.
I believe the AR-15 was designed to be a military weapon. It has a detachable magazine so it can be rapidly reloaded. It accomidates many accessories rarely used for hunting and from what I hear is pretty easy to convert to full auto.
You didn't put anything to rest. You did make yourself look pretty silly.
DadF - please note who ratches this stuff up. Likwid and Spence cant help but be insulting.
Oops, it's the hall monitor
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.
Linear Mode
