The stupidity about banning guns never ends...

[chrlswltrs]

We're going back in circles here though because a Lamborghini is not designed to kill, a gun is and has no other really useful purpose. I know an AR15 is only semi auto. But you can convert them into fully auto, or even pick up the slide fire and make it shoot as if it were fully automatic.

You can not legally convert them into an automatic weapon, and if if you do manage to buy all of the proper pieces it requires a skilled gunsmith willing to break the law to do so. Yes, the SlideFire stock is a gimmick that can make an AR15 fire very rapidly and not accurately. I would have no problem with a stock like the SlideFire being banned.

There is no reason to buy a Lamborghini instead of a Ford Focus for example other than you find it more enjoyable to drive, so the analogy is perfectly valid. Banning an AR15 is no different than banning Lamborghinis

 

[A.Nonymous]

Yeah, I am so jealous of the right to be shot at if I leave my greened suburbs.

If we want to play with guns we can just play video games.

I wonder where this idea comes from that Americans are all terrified to leave their homes and afraid of walking the streets unarmed. It's just not reality at all.

 

[sntaylor]

I wonder where this idea comes from that Americans are all terrified to leave their homes and afraid of walking the streets unarmed. It's just not reality at all.

Personally I never did until I read the comments on the gun discussion threads, and how they are needed for defence etc etc!

This has given me the view point that you must live in fear of being attacked, of the government hell pretty much anything!(but of a urine take their, not being serious!)

Will reply to copestag tomorrow, or Saturday as its late, I'm tired and up early tomorrow! Lol

 

[JohnLaird]

Personally I never did until I read the comments on the gun discussion threads, and how they are needed for defence etc etc!

This has given me the view point that you must live in fear of being attacked, of the government hell pretty much anything!(but of a urine take their, not being serious!)

Will reply to copestag tomorrow, or Saturday as its late, I'm tired and up early tomorrow! Lol

I'm not speaking for anyone else...but it is not so much fear...closer to self reliance...knowing that I can protect myself from without having to rely exclusively on police has a certain appeal to me. It is not that I don't like police...they just seem much better at picking up the pieces after incidents and assigning blame than actually preventing crimes from happening.

 

[chrlswltrs]

I'm not speaking for anyone else...but it is not so much fear...closer to self reliance...knowing that I can protect myself from without having to rely exclusively on police has a certain appeal to me. It is not that I don't like police...they just seem much better at picking up the pieces after incidents and assigning blame than actually preventing crimes from happening.

You are correct. Police can not prevent crime, they are not everywhere all the time. All they can do is respond after someone calls 911. Then they investigate after the crime has been committed and the criminal has got away.

 

[Bob Maxey]

I wonder where this idea comes from that Americans are all terrified to leave their homes and afraid of walking the streets unarmed. It's just not reality at all.

Are all Americans afraid? Some might be, perhaps, but not all of us are scared and quite likely, most gun owners do not leave the house packing. I am certainly not scared to leave my house and I do not carry.

I know where to go and where not to go, so I never put myself in a place where I might find a spot of trouble. Unfortunately, you really never know when something bad will happen.

 

[Speed Daemon]

We're going back in circles here though because a Lamborghini is not designed to kill, a gun is and has no other really useful purpose. I know an AR15 is only semi auto. But you can convert them into fully auto, or even pick up the slide fire and make it shoot as if it were fully automatic.

The thing about that talking point is that it's simply not true.

An electric chair is designed to kill. A gas chamber is designed to kill. A firearm is designed to launch a projectile. Because it's not a sentient being, it is equally happy shooting at (and not killing) paper targets all day long as it is firing its projectiles at living beings.

The arguments made for the various gun bans are about as sensible as seeking to ban chicken eggs as a "resolution" to the old "which came first?" puzzle. I welcome an informed discussion. By the same token I refuse to have laws foist upon me based on arguments as capricious as those that, in essence say "it's okay if a murderer kills ten people, but that's the limit!"

That's where the wrong-minded mob stands on the issues, and it's simply not acceptable for life-and-death decision making.

 

[JimmyRayBob]

Guns don't kill people .... people kill people. It sounds like a cliche' at this point, but when someone is killed "by a gun", we don't melt down the gun, we lock up the PERSON that shot the gun.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Guns don't kill people .... people kill people. It sounds like a cliche' at this point, but when someone is killed "by a gun", we don't melt down the gun, we lock up the PERSON that shot the gun.

In all fairness, that argument can be used for all tools of killing too. Doesn't mean civilians should have RPGs.

 

[lightsleeper23]

The thing about that talking point is that it's simply not true.

An electric chair is designed to kill. A gas chamber is designed to kill. A firearm is designed to launch a projectile. Because it's not a sentient being, it is equally happy shooting at (and not killing) paper targets all day long as it is firing its projectiles at living beings.

The arguments made for the various gun bans are about as sensible as seeking to ban chicken eggs as a "resolution" to the old "which came first?" puzzle. I welcome an informed discussion. By the same token I refuse to have laws foist upon me based on arguments as capricious as those that, in essence say "it's okay if a murderer kills ten people, but that's the limit!"

That's where the wrong-minded mob stands on the issues, and it's simply not acceptable for life-and-death decision making.

oh that's ridiculous. You're twisting words to suit your own needs. Yes, strictly technically speaking of gun is designed to fire a projectile... With the purpose of killing something with that projectile! it doesn't matter what you think about guns the fact is there original intent and purpose from the time they were created was to kill things. I could say the same lame argument about your electric chair and gas chamber examples: electric chair is not designed to kill, it's designed to simply produce an electric charge into a chair. A gas chamber isnt design to kill, it's just designed to emit gas into a small room. Its people that do the killing...I'm sure an electric chair would be perfectly happy electrocuting nothing but melons all day, and a gas chamber would be perfectly happy emitting nothing but harmless air.


the problem with your argument is that people aren't running around out there murdering each other with electric chairs and gas chambers. your chicken and the egg thing doesn't even make sense in the context of the conversation so I won't even touch it.but we already don't allow certain weapons to be in the hands of civilians because they're far too dangerous, like rockets for example. There's nothing wrong with legislating to decide to certain type of weapon is too dangerous, it already happens all the time. Now I think assault rifles walk a fine line and it's a very reasonable debate to have. As far as the 10 round limit in magazines, this gibberish about lawmakers saying it's okay to murder 10 people but no more is ludicrous. Nobody is saying in any way shape or form that it is okay to murder any people. But this is America and we can't just ban bullets all together, so they are trying to find a reasonable way to make it harder for these crazy people to slaughter dozens of people at 1 time really quickly.now as far as what constitutes an assault rifle and what doesn't, that's another good debate to be had.

 

[Speed Daemon]

I think it's pretty obvious who's rationalizing, taking things way out of context and reading between the lines here. I'm just going by what people have actually said. Not my fault that the narrative is faulty.

 

[A.Nonymous]

In all fairness, that argument can be used for all tools of killing too. Doesn't mean civilians should have RPGs.

In all fairness, people don't exactly sit around and say, "Man, I'd love to kill Joe Schmoe today, but I can't get a gun. Guess I won't kill 'im after all." People just go get a knife, or a club, or some rat poison instead.

 

[lightsleeper23]

In all fairness, people don't exactly sit around and say, "Man, I'd love to kill Joe Schmoe today, but I can't get a gun. Guess I won't kill 'im after all." People just go get a knife, or a club, or some rat poison instead.

Innocent kids don't get caught in the crossfire of a knife though do they.

 

[chrlswltrs]

In all fairness, people don't exactly sit around and say, "Man, I'd love to kill Joe Schmoe today, but I can't get a gun. Guess I won't kill 'im after all." People just go get a knife, or a club, or some rat poison instead.

They also don't see a "gun free zone" sign and say "guns aren't allowed here, better go somewhere else for my killing spree"

 

[copestag]

Innocent kids don't get caught in the crossfire of a knife though do they.

nope they sure dont

do you believe any law suggested (including a complete and total ban) will prevent crossfire from people who are obtaining their guns illegaly?

or for that matter....... lets stretch it a bit..... lets say gang members go through background checks and register their guns..... lets also say the 10rd laws are further reduced to 1rd laws...... gang members who fire a single shot could still miss and could still kill an innocent kid..... which of your suggested laws will do anything about this crossfire?

so back to what someone said earlier....... the talking point line is by proxy saying its ok to kill 10 people but no more...... as long as your gun didnt fire more than 10 shots without reloading and as long as it was registered and you had a background check

none of that idiocy prevents a single death....... NONE

 

[lightsleeper23]

The only idiocy I see personally, in regards to the issues, are the arguments against the current proposed legislation. I do believe these new suggested laws can save lives and I will urge my local representative to vote to pass them.

 

[chrlswltrs]

The only idiocy I see personally, in regards to the issues, are the arguments against the current proposed legislation. I do believe these new suggested laws can save lives and I will urge my local representative to vote to pass them.

And I urge mine not to. There is no proposed law that will save any lives. Lanza failed his background check and couldn't purchase a gun, that didn't stop him. I might be a little more open to more gun regulation if law enforcement even attempted to enforce the current laws and arrested someone for trying to purchase a gun that is legally not allowed to own one. More gun laws will have 0 (zero, no, none, nothing) effect on criminals, only law abiding citizens.

I haven't heard one singe reason to ban any current firearms. Can you give one legitimate reason to ban any gun, that at the same time will not affect someone who uses that gun for self defense. An AR15 is the single best rifle for self defense in a home due to ease of use, adaptability to various body types, low recoil, accuracy, accessories (grips, flashlights, laser sight, etc), and enough ammo to stop an intruder when adrenalin can cause inaccuracy and there may be more than 1 intruder on drugs that doesn't feel pain and will continue advancing even after being shot.

Plus, the AR15 has been the focus of a ban since Sandy Hook where one wasn't even used. And please answer this.... If the AR15 is a military assault rifle, weapon of war, etc then why doesn't the military use them?

 

[A.Nonymous]

The only idiocy I see personally, in regards to the issues, are the arguments against the current proposed legislation. I do believe these new suggested laws can save lives and I will urge my local representative to vote to pass them.

Yet you have failed to cite a single instance where a firearm death was prevented by a law. Let's be honest here. It's already against the law to kill someone. People are clearly disregarding that law. Why would they pay attention to firearm regs?

 

[Speed Daemon]

The only idiocy I see personally, in regards to the issues, are the arguments against the current proposed legislation. I do believe these new suggested laws can save lives and I will urge my local representative to vote to pass them.

Unfortunately that's not a valid argument for the proposed legislation.

Liberals know all too well that this same style of disinformation and uninformed hubris practiced by the Bush administration to get the US to start Gulf War II as the aggressor was criminal. But now they're using exactly the same dishonest rhetoric to drive through their agenda. Well it's not magically OK when your side does it! Those kinds of tactics are wrong, wrong wrong and there are no exceptions.

 

[JohnLaird]

An AR15 is the single best rifle for self defense in a home due to ease of use, adaptability to various body types, low recoil, accuracy, accessories (grips, flashlights, laser sight, etc), and enough ammo to stop an intruder when adrenalin can cause inaccuracy and there may be more than 1 intruder on drugs that doesn't feel pain and will continue advancing even after being shot.

The AR-15 is a fine rifle. However, I don't think it is well suited to home defense unless you are in an isolated area. The rifle has an effective range of about 600-700 yards with a human size target (killing range, not extreme range...I think that is about 1 mile). You won't have any trouble taking down whoever broke in. The problem is that any stray rounds will go through >1 house before they stop. The police will have to check every adjacent house for dead or injured people...not cool.

A shotgun or a pistol is a much better choice unless you happen to live on a ranch or something. Unless of course you can get the Colt 9mm AR variant...kind of hard to find.

 

[Speed Daemon]

The AR-15 is a fine rifle. However, I don't think it is well suited to home defense unless you are in an isolated area. The rifle has an effective range of about 600-700 yards with a human size target (killing range, not extreme range...I think that is about 1 mile). You won't have any trouble taking down whoever broke in. The problem is that any stray rounds will go through >1 house before they stop. The police will have to check every adjacent house for dead or injured people...not cool.

Penetration is a major worry in any firefight!

Before the ban hubbub broke out I saw some apparently good (I say "apparently" because these were people who seemed to be selling the AR platform) arguments for using the .223 cartridge in close combat situations, claiming that "fast but light" ammo has low penetration. Frankly I was surprised! It's not like Massad Ayoob was saying it, so...a grain of salt.

I agree with the Vice President: a shotgun is still one scary personal defense weapon! In practical terms you can do a LOT of tuning by the load you choose and the choke setting. From rock salt to a devastating 3100 lb.-ft. slug! But any long gun takes a lot of practice to use effectively indoors. Even pistol owners need to practice how to hold their weapons close, to keep from having it taken away from them as they go around a corner.

Unless of course you can get the Colt 9mm AR variant...kind of hard to find.

Did you notice how many officials at Newtown were carrying "short ammo" magazines in their Stoner rifles? I saw a lot of magazines that looked like they came out of a MP5, but were in a M4 or M16. IJS

Speaking of Massad Ayoob, I read a magazine article that he wrote in the early '80s addressing in great detail why we use firearms against paople. It was something to the effect of "we shoot people to stop an attack, period." He went on to describe the mechanics, about how a successful shot causes "sudden loss of consciousness due to loss of blood pressure" and how the unfortunate consequence of a successful "stop shot" was an irreparable wound. It was well-stated; better than I can repeat from memory.

It was an important reminder that intent is everything. No matter who you are, if you raise a muzzle with the intention of taking a human life, you're a felon. Self-defense is all about stopping the attack, and nothing more.

 

[lightsleeper23]

Yet you have failed to cite a single instance where a firearm death was prevented by a law. Let's be honest here. It's already against the law to kill someone. People are clearly disregarding that law. Why would they pay attention to firearm regs?

How is a person supposed to site a death, or crime that DIDN'T happen? I have stated my case over and over, even citing a couple theoretical examples, which I should not have even done here. I knew they would be ignored.

And the comparison to Bush lying about Iraq having nukes is the most ludicrous thing I've heard yet. Every single argument I've heard against this is nothing but senseless drivel. That you claim to know for a fact that these can't possibly save even one life shows how irrational your side of the argument is. You can't know that. You can state reasons as to why you don't THINK they will, but that's it. I believe they can save some, and that's my reason for supporting them. I'll always choose the mere possibility of saving a human life over the tantrums of the gun lovers.

 

[EarlyMon]

Ok, the edge is rapidly approaching, yeah?

Now, both sides have addressed the Bush/Iraq liberal/conservative thing.

That's equal time in my book, so let's please make this here post the last on that, yeah?

The issue is about banning guns - effective or stupid - and not every possible attribute associated with or attributed to those across the aisle from you, ok.

In the end, this will come down to agreeing to disagree, and it's the open political debate that we enjoy as a freedom that sets us apart. Please cherish that right as you debate here, it's often how we've gotten to the best of our history.

Cheers, thanks!

 

[msndrstood]

And I urge mine not to. There is no proposed law that will save any lives. Lanza failed his background check and couldn't purchase a gun, that didn't stop him. I might be a little more open to more gun regulation if law enforcement even attempted to enforce the current laws and arrested someone for trying to purchase a gun that is legally not allowed to own one. More gun laws will have 0 (zero, no, none, nothing) effect on criminals, only law abiding citizens.

I haven't heard one singe reason to ban any current firearms. Can you give one legitimate reason to ban any gun, that at the same time will not affect someone who uses that gun for self defense. An AR15 is the single best rifle for self defense in a home due to ease of use, adaptability to various body types, low recoil, accuracy, accessories (grips, flashlights, laser sight, etc), and enough ammo to stop an intruder when adrenalin can cause inaccuracy and there may be more than 1 intruder on drugs that doesn't feel pain and will continue advancing even after being shot.

Plus, the AR15 has been the focus of a ban since Sandy Hook where one wasn't even used. And please answer this.... If the AR15 is a military assault rifle, weapon of war, etc then why doesn't the military use them?

You keep saying that an AR 15 wasn

 

[chrlswltrs]

You keep saying that an AR 15 wasn