The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/justice/texas-college-stabbing/

There was a mass stabbing at the CyFair campus of Lone Star College, in a Houston suburb.  Fourteen people were injured, and two remain in critical condition.  The attack was brought to a halt when a group of students tackled the assailant.

One of these students, Stephen Maida, was later interviewed by Fox News.  He was asked by Megyn Kelly what his thoughts were about allowing concealed carry of handguns on college campuses, and his response (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/this-kid-could-have-been-shooting-all-14-people-student-who-tackled-lone-star-stabber-opposes-concealed-carry-on-fox/) was, "There are some kids that are mature enough for it, but if you look at the kids at the school and more of the people that are around here, I wouldn't... seeing them with a gun would worry me more, and to know how easy they get provoked and how crazy they can be. This kid, instead of stabbing people, he could have been shooting all 14 people, and all 14 people could have been dead."

Like the school stabbing in China that happened the same day as the Sandy Hook massacre, a stark contrast is painted between these horrible acts when committed with knives vs. guns.

Well put, Spider.  Guns aren't the problem.  It's the people who are carrying them that are the problem.  That's why they need to back off on stricter gun control laws so those who ARE mature enough to handle a gun can defend themselves.

The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

As well the guy at UCF had plenty of guns and bombs and yet he is the only one that died.

Yesterday on the Today show they said that statistics show that almost 90% of people in prison for a (gun) weapons type charge got their weapons from a crime or the street.  I'm sure someone will say no big deal because ... but I found that pretty astonishing.

Since this is most certainly a gun debate I'll throw this out there. There are plenty of videos going around that show people shooting 3-10 mag clips vs 1- 30 mag clips. The difference is merely seconds even with a novice shooter.

That was really your take-away from Spidey's post?

i agree with CF . any form of gun is the problem .. not just ones bought legally

We should repeal the 2nd amendment and ban private gun ownership altogether.

If that proves to be impossible the least we can do is to add a $5 per bullet tax for private purchases.

It's time we stopped messing around with a gun manufacturers advocacy group (NRA) and people that hold the 2nd amendment as more important than any other part of the constitution.

I was wondering the same thing.

I don't think I took the same thing from CF's post either. I'm pretty sure he is a gun supporter. Repealing the amendment is just an absurd takeaway from this. CF pointed out that 90% of people who are punished for gun crimes obtained their weapons through a crime or the street (I assume illegally). Repealing the amendment changes none of that. It just takes guns away from responsible people.

I think Fau knew what he did. People are still focused on the wrong thing IMO.

Mental health options is what society needs to focus on. Finding the people who need help and then making sure they get it. More times than not these people have shown signs before cracking. I have a family member who is 50, alcoholic and severely depressed. I can't tell you how many times they have skirted getting into major trouble. The sad state is there is absolutely nothing we can do with this person even though they have been Baker acted and released. They would like to get help but can't. This has been ongoing for 20 years. One day they they will crack and others are going to get hurt.  I'm happy it hasn't already happened.

Criminals were criminals before guns and they will be long after guns get taken away.

While I'm not necessarily advocating repealing the 2nd amendment, I totally disagree with your statement above.  Outlawing guns would HUGELY decrease the amount of guns in criminal hands.  Sure, some criminals would still have guns, but the price, methods to get it, etc -- would all be greatly, greatly prohibitive.  You can steal a gun from your neighbor, which is illegal.  But if your neighbor doesn't have a gun, there's not one to steal.  The supply end of the chain would dip very, very low.  Even if you were a criminal that wanted a gun, it would raise the price to prohibitive levels, where your average "shoot up the school" weirdo wouldn't have the means to get one.

I think the real debate is this:

With every new regulation comes some loss of freedom and probably some increase in cost, in order to implement.  So, which regulations are worth those negatives?  It's a discussion that we need to have and not be afraid of a slippery slope.  I think that magazine size probably won't make a big difference in the vast majority of gun crimes, but in the cases of Newtown, it will.  A few seconds can mean life or death for many people.  I think that mental health and background checks are a must and a solution that will eventually get passed.  But I think the bigger problem is that we have a crazy gun culture.  We use tools made specifically for killing other people as a hobby.  That's a fucked up mentality and until we get to the root of that strange relationship, gun violence will continue to be a problem.

Hmmm...maybe if we had that Universal Healthcare the Republicans hate so much your relative could get the help he/she needs.

CF made a point that seemed to me was ridiculous on its face. The base narrative that CF put out there and that I've seen the NRA make before was that if the majority of gun crime is committed by guns acquired illegally, what's the point of making rules for the legal gun users when the illegal ones are just gonna ignore them anyways?

Well the point is these regulations affect the supply side and not the demand side.

My solution takes care of both.  The time for private recreational gun ownership is past. Just because it's in the 2nd amendment doesn't make it right, it makes it legal but it down't make it moral. We should repeal the 2nd amendment, institute a complete firearm ban, offer to buy back existing firearms and then after a period of time penalize private gun ownership.

Good points Dave. I have one issue with your position though. Your focus is singularly on guns (and this ties in a bit with Spider's original post). While I think we can say they are deadly, so is a katana and it has a singular purpose as well if you want to think of this so simplisticaly. Guns (in this general discussion) do have other purposes and I think anyone who considers the broad topic objectively can understand the hunting and target shooting aspects. Now are some guns designed specifically as a tool of killing people, I agree.

Now you can argue guns may be more deadly, I'm not here for a dispute on that. But sweeping repeal of guns #1 is not going to happen and #2 is a dangerous position if you want to start dialogue.

I think outlawing guns would make a small dent in the supply. Initially it would be greater but they would still be around. I watched the first episode of Vice on HBO and they discussed how people in the Phillipines (who also have quite the connection to guns and gun violence) make homemade guns illegally. These people are sitting in shacks with scrap metal forging homemade guns. In a more indistrialized country such as ours, guns would still be manufactured and sold.

I think using "ban all firearms and repeal the 2nd amendment" is about as valid a starting point as the NRA stance on handguns that summarized is 'ever teacher in every classroom should be armed, and every private individual should have a concealed carry permit and carry at all times"

one starts with all . .the other with none .. how is one reasonable and the other isn't

^^^ That is not a reasonable stance either and I never said it was. I have not seen anyone (here) say that or I would have addressed it as well. I'm only speaking to one side of the extreme here and I think that you immediately jumped to the other (when none of us involved took that stance) to explain yourself shows how fringe your position is.

OH i'm well aware that repealing the 2nd amendment is a fringe position .. i don't deny it. Even bleeding heart Dave isn't on board with it and that should tell you something.

It is the right thing to do however in my mind. We don't need to be killing other people .. we don't need tools to make that easier. We especially don't need tools to make it so easy that a mentally unstable kid can kill dozens of children at an elementary school.

It's funny how gun advocates claim that banning more guns won't make an impact on gun crime because criminals can just get guns anyway.  The ban on fully automatic weapons seems to have been pretty effective at stopping these kinds of massacres from being committed with fully automatic weapons!

Why are these mass murderers not bringing M16s or Tommy guns with them to shoot up a school?  Why do they always seem to use weapons that can be purchased and owned legally?

I concede that I'm singling out guns.  But, this is exactly the slippery slope I was talking about trying to avoid.  The problem is guns.  It is not kitanas.  If we put a ban on guns and then the number of kitana deaths on school-children skyrockets, then we can look at kitanas.  But you can't devolve any gun discussion into a discussion about other weapons, because then, you've solved nothing and you're talking about kitanas, which is not related to your original issue.


I agree with this, but not for the reasons Fau thinks.  If I were king of a new country, I wouldn't allow private gun ownership for recreation.  Also, I think it's archaic to think that the average man can or should be allowed to match arms with the military, in a world where we have nukes and missles and tanks.  Maybe it made sense in 1776, but it doesn't anymore.  That said, repealing the 2nd amendment, at this point in time, is not a position that has any possibility of doing anything but promoting the status quo.  It shuts down the discussion.  If you could wave a magic wand and make it happen, though, I'd personally be fine with it.

I would find this line of argument more compelling if the people who advocate "mental health" as the solution were not largely the same people who insist that we must cut government spending and get the government out of healthcare.  Mental health services cost money.

You can take the same argument for those that want to legalize drugs for freedom but take away guns because they decide it should  no longer be a right.

Could one of you please explain how taking guns from all law abiding citizens is going to be any more effective than taking marijuana from law abiding citizens. I mean, last time I checked everyone who wants dope can get it. Fortunately criminals do not typically use pot against law abiding citizens because outlawing it hasn't stopped the criminals and somewhat law abiding one bit.

Huh?  Conservatives argue for mental health as a substitute for increased gun regulation, yet they simultaneously work feverishly to de-fund government mental health programs.  The only analog to drug legalization I could see would be if liberals wanted to legalize drugs at the same time they wanted to drastically de-fund the FDA (or whoever was tasked with regulating these new legal drugs).  This is obviously not the case.

Such a position (arguing for a solution that you actively legislate against) is a rather transparent smokescreen.

Well, as I already said, taking away fully automatic machine guns from "all law-abiding citizens" seems to have effectively curtailed the use of such weapons in crimes.  I think guns are a better comparison to guns than drugs are to guns.

You could only take it as the same argument if people were attacking and killing other people with their bongs.

Two men with guns:  Disagreement leads to argument --> leads to one of them shooting the other.
Two men with bongs: Disagreement leads to a couple of bonghits --> leads to mellow conversation and perhaps some ice cream.

yea I don't think I have trouble understanding the concept although you and Spider might. How do we keep them out of the hands of people who want them when it's been proven you can't even keep drugs away? If my neighbor doesn't have a gun to steal I go to the hood and get them. So what's to stop it from happening?

growing a pot plant is way easier than growing an ak-47 tree

I now want a bazooka bush in my yard...thanks, Fau! ;)

Completely false in most instances. Maybe if you add other factors such as two drunk men, two gangsters, etc.

Maybe the third time is the charm:

Existing anti-automatic-weapon bans are remarkably effective at keeping them out of the hands of criminals.  So why are you comparing new gun regulation to drugs when a more relevant comparison (the effectiveness of existing gun bans) would seem to be more relevant?

It's like you're asking, "If we can't prevent people from speeding or cheating on their taxes or downloading music, why should we have new gun regulations?"

P.S. The incredibly ironic and enormous elephant in the room is, you appear to be making the argument that unenforceable laws should not exist.  How you square this with both drugs and guns is beyond me.

I can understand and appreciate your point, but feel neither of us is qualified to use the "in most instances" term, as neither of us has access to most instances.  If I replace "in most instances" with "in most instances involving respectable and responsible gun owners that I know" in your statement, I have no argument. I can only counter with the "respectable and responsible gun owners you know" doesn't totally match up with many of the private gun owners that I've been exposed to in my life.

People aren't using Tommy guns because they don't need them. That's like saying no one is using a 1934 Ford Model 730 Sedan to rob banks any longer. There are better alternatives. 

If we just want to reference drugs then we can. Why aren't people using opium and peyote any longer? I guess the war on drugs is working because no one I know has been arrested for using them nor have I ever known anyone to use them.

Questionable examples: Peyote has always been an extremely rare drug (even for those of us who grew up near Indian land), and lots of people use variations of opium, as opiate addiction is at an all-time high in this country.

Please explain how legal semi-automatic guns are "better alternatives" than illegal fully-automatic guns (including, but not limited to, Tommy guns) when it comes to the task of killing as many people as fast as possible.  This would appear to be a point that the United States military (and pretty much every other modern military on the planet) has missed, as they continue to issue fully-automatic weapons to their soldiers.

If you'd like to have a discussion solely about drug policy, I welcome it.  However, since the objection I made was that drugs are not a good analogy to guns, I think "OK, let's just talk about drugs instead" should involve you creating a new thread, instead of sidetracking this one.

Totally.  What you're asking is a fair question.

If your only goal is to get fewer people to use marijuana, prohibition has worked.  Fewer people use marijuana because it is against the law by considerable, considerable numbers.  Now, as a larger question of freedoms vs. expense vs. creating violent criminals by jailing people for its use, etc -- you can argue (and I would) that it hasn't worked.

For that same reason, a gun ban would "work" if your goal is to have fewer people own guns and for fewer shooting to happen.  The question is whether or not it would be worth it in other ways -- cost of loss of freedom, expense to mandate, money to gun traffickers, etc.

Another thing to point out is that marijuana crimes are non-violent and don't directly affect others.  Gun crimes do.  That's an important distinction, which makes for a poor comparison.

I think,I would be fine with repealing the 2nd amendment,I can't see it ever happening....The more I think about it (repealing it) the more problems I could see with it,especially in the short term. Go Bow Hunting! woohoo!

(excuse me while my love for things old come out)
The old guns would be the hardest to get rid of for me...

F-it..Leave the 2nd ammendment,let everyone keep the guns..Outlaw all the Ammunition...

 Even people who are not in gangs get murdered with this scenario. Anger is more than capable of pushing people to murder without needing alcohol, drugs, or criminal affiliations.

Rewriting what I said.

Take it how you want but common sense tells you that most gun owners are not shooting each other over an argument. While gun violence and gun ownership are high numbers, the number of disagreements far outweighs them. Think about how many disagreements happen each and every day.

Two things on that point:

1) I think it is implied that we are talking about "arguments" that escalate to violence.
2) The vast majority of gun owners don't actually have their guns on them most of the time.

Put another way: what percentage of scuffles would you say involved armed civilians who honorably chose not to use their sidearm?  I can't imagine this is very high.

Furthermore, just as the proliferation of Stand Your Ground laws has shown (http://www.npr.org/2013/01/02/167984117/-stand-your-ground-linked-to-increase-in-homicide), when you make it easier for people to use lethal force, more deaths are the result.  As in the case of the schoolteacher gunned down over a noise complaint, (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-06-27/texas-stand-your-ground-sentence/55868954/1) people are emboldened to initiate altercations when they are armed and feel the law will protect them if they use their weapon.

No pointing out how factually wrong it is. A lot of people are murdered who are not in a drunken altercation, nor involved with crime.

I'm still waiting for the one question to be answered which in my opinion nullifies every other talking point.

If we can't stop criminals from getting pot how can we stop them from getting guns? It doesnt matter how dangerpus it is the truth is only law abiding citizens arent getting it. The answer no one uses machine guns isn't an answer either as like I said no one uses opium as there are other alternatives.

Simple question with a rather difficult answer. How do you keep guns out of the hands of people who want them even if illegal? Since no one will answer it I will. You can't. Just like alcohol during prohibition, criminals and mentally ill will get it. So in the end banning guns, any type of gun, is useless except against the law abiding citizens.

And it makes law abiding citizens unable to defend themselves.

I believe I did answer your question.


Gun prohibition would severely hurt the supply side and make it more difficult to obtain.  Yes, some criminals would seek out guns.  However, your average thug or lunatic probably wouldn't have the means or want the unnecessary risk of jumping through hoops to find one...much less ammunition, a place to practice their craft, etc.


Alcohol prohibition was stupid, but it did mean that fewer people used alcohol.  What the hell are you talking about?  My Mom and Dad drink wine every night, but they aren't going to be sneaking kegs from the mob if it were made illegal.  The alcohol use in this country, percentagewise is WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY up from the days of prohibition.  Your argument is completely factually incorrect.

Prohibition was a failure. The war on drugs is a failure. The majority of firearms laws on the books aren't enforced or prosecuted. This assumption that "fully automatic weapons are illegal and therefore they aren't used in crimes  is not really a good argument to prove that the law works. First off, fully automatic weapons are regulated, not illegal. Anyone who passes the background check and pays the $200 tax stamp can legally own a fully automatic weapon. Next, fully automatic weapons are not "the best for killing as fast as possible" as some of you claim, you watch too much TV. Fully automatic is best used for suppressive fire where accuracy is not the objective, to use if for anything else is a waste of ammunition. Furthermore, the recoil from fully automatic fire is makes accuracy rates very low. Take it from someone that has fired both. The truth be known, a shotgun would work the best for these type of crazy mass shootings. The question of firearm prohibition is preposterous at best, it simply won't happen in my lifetime. There is a slight chance something may get through the senate and almost zero chance anything passes the house. Nothing with a realistic chance of passing into law would have stopped any of the shootings that I can remember. On earth people have always killed each and always will, you can't stop crazy or evil, it will always be here.

I agree that they were/are failures, but not because it was ineffective at making fewer people drink/use drugs.  Make no mistake: Prohibition lessens the amount of people that do something -- there are other trade-offs, but it does drastically cut down on the numbers of use.

The majority it lessens, is the law abiding citizen that would follow the law. If drug/drinking is illegal, then for the most part the law abiding citizen might not do it. If drugs/drinking is legal the law abiding citizen might choose to do it. The criminals are gonna do it either way. Same goes for gun restrictions. The law abiding citizens are going to follow the rules while the criminals are going to do whatever they want either way. Moot point anyhow, there will be no "gun prohibition" in the near future, if ever. Might as well talk about realistic solutions.

Seems like such a simple question for you to have waited so long for such an obvious answer. That answer is: "pot and guns aren't the same thing."  Any Joe Schmoe can grow pot in his basement. Are you arguing that every Joe Schmoe can manufacture guns in their basement with the same ease as he grows pot?

(Hint: If you answer "yes" to that question, you've either never grown pot, never manufactured a gun, or both)

This is a fallacy.  Only criminals break the law, because if they didn't break the law, they wouldn't be criminals.  Why not make murder level, because only criminals are murderers and they are going to murder anyway?  It's circular logic.

Are my friends that choose to smoke pot really "criminals" on the same level that a gun trafficker would be?

Why do you keep going back to drugs?  We CAN and DO stop them from getting illegal automatic guns.

Furthermore, your question ignores a simple truth: most of the people who commit these mass killings acquired their guns legally!  It's tautological to say that criminals will get guns anyway when the people committing these crimes were not even criminals when they got their guns.  Read this carefully: any attempt to prevent Jared Loughner or James Holmes from acquiring the number and type of weapons that they used in their massacres would have been decried as an attack on law-abiding citizens' constitutional rights.

So why are you continuing to lean on the "criminals get illegal drugs anyway" crutch, when the actual problem is "law-abiding citizens" LEGALLY stockpiling weapons and then committing crimes with them?

I believe I can jump through the hoop of semantics you have just constructed by proposing that assault weapons and high-capacity magazines be subjected to the same apparently-effective regulations (but not bans!) that automatic weapons are subject to now.

Please explain why modern militaries, who ostensibly issue lethal weapons with the goal of killing the enemy, issue fully-automatic weapons to their soldiers.  Thank you.

Tons of pot brought into the states illegally. If there's a market there will be a way.  That's the point I'm making about the comparison to pot or cocaine which isnt grown by anyone. Even if every John Doe wasnt using local stuff they would still be able to get it by driving through the hood and holding up five fingers. No big deal.

CF, if we can't stop criminals from stealing, why should we outlaw theft?  Criminals steal every day.  Any person that wants to can walk into any grocery store and slip a candy bar in their pocket or pop a grape in their mouth with a high probability of success.

Which other laws should we get rid of based on their probability for completely eliminating the targeted activity?

Seems pretty simple. Because no one gets safer by not outlawing theft.

(http://gunfreezone.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/chicago-v-houston.jpg)

Nice try but classic fallacy.  Higher crime rates cause stricter gun control.  Not the myth the the NRA loves to foster than stricter gun control causes higher crime.

How many banks get robbed if everyone in the bank has a gun strapped to their side?

How many banks were robbed in Jessie James day?  How many stage coaches were robbed?  Everyone was packing.

But Dave, we already do have laws against criminals owning firearms. You're proposing an outright ban for law abiding citizens which won't work and even more importantly, won't ever happen in this country. Owning a gun is no where near the same as murder. Murder is wrong and should be against the law. Law abiding citizens owning a firearm is not wrong and no law is being broken. The two can't be compared.

,

Again, another skewed comparison on your part. I would say that since pot is illegal, yes your friends are criminals. They are breaking the law. Now the second part of your question is where you have it backwards. Your friends smoking pot, they would be the end user who is not infringing on anyone else. Which would equate to someone simply owning a firearm if owning a firearm was illegal. A gun trafficker would be more on the level of a drug trafficker or dealer.

All due respect, but there are no hoops or semantics involved. You stated that fully automatic weapons were "illegal", your words not mine. In fact they are fully legal to own. Just pass a background check and pay the tax stamp. I know several people that own fully automatics, suppressors, and SBRs. You were simply wrong and couldn't admit it.




The US government found a vast difference in accuracy and ammo usage between Vietnam and WWII. They concluded that the fully auto M14 and M16 was the main cause due to the fully auto capabilities vs. the semi auto M1 in WWII. The recoil from the full auto caused a significant drop in accuracy and in turn wasted ammunition. This is the main reason they shifted the majority of rifles to a 3 round burst setup instead of fully auto. The military does still issue a smaller percentage of full auto weapons, but that is mostly for suppressive fire.  If you ask current military personal how they use their weapons, the majority will tell you that they rarely use 3 round burst or fully auto. It's just not practical.

Have you ever fired either a semi auto, 3 round burst, or fully automatic weapon? Judging from your answers, I bet you haven't. If you had, you would know exactly what I'm talking about.

Again, this is circular logic.  If you weren't allowed to own guns, EVERYONE who owned a gun would be a criminal.  (By the fact that they owned a gun.)

Just the same way that outlawing marijuana means only criminals smoke marijuana.  Ipso facto, man...

Does nobody else see what I'm saying here???

In point of fact, government entities (including, but not limited to, the U.S. military) can purchase fully-automatic weapons without background checks or tax stamps, so you were wrong when you claimed that those were necessary steps.  See how much fun it is to debate points of semantic order?

You are aware that 3-round-burst still classifies a weapon as a machine gun, and is therefore subject to the same federal regulations as a fully-automatic weapon, right?

So then, if semi-auto weapons are superior (<--- this word is important) for killing the enemy as rapidly as possible, why do militaries across the globe still issue machine guns?  Are you claiming that they issue them for reasons other than lethality?

What does my own personal experience has to do with the armament choices of the U.S. (and other) militaries?

This person didn't use a gun. I would expect bombings would become more common if guns were more difficult to get. Taking away guns isn't going to take away crazy people. I guess we can debate if an IED would be the next preferred method of mass urder if guns were relatively unavailable. I personally think they would.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/15/17764747-witnesses-2-explosions-heard-near-finish-line-of-boston-marathon?lite

Well, since IEDs are generally illegal and possessing one is a crime in and of itself, I'd say that would be a significant step up from the current situation of "You can pry my assault rifle with 30-round-magazines out of my cold, dead hands."

That's what the "criminals still acquire drugs!" arguments miss.  Today, because of the proliferation of guns, anyone who found out about James Holmes' stockpile of weapons could not have done anything about it until he piled them into his car on the way to the movie theater (at the earliest).  That's the difference: when possession of weapons like that is banned, it enables law enforcement to stop crimes BEFORE they occur.

If Timothy McVeigh can legally drive around town with a van full of explosives, then you can't stop him until he blows it up.

But Spider, you weren't reffering to government entities or the U.S Military when you stated that fully automatic weapons were illegal. Were you ? The following quote by you directly says full auto weapons are banned and that a mass murderer can buy and own a semi auto legally but not a fully auto. That was incorrect on your part.


You make no sense. If you can't man up and admit you were clearly wrong about automatic weapons being banned and illegal to own, then there is no point discussing this further with you.


Yes, you are correct on that. They are both classified as automatic weapons. However, I'm sure that you would agree that they are not the same thing with respect to accuracy or ammunition usage, right ? A diesel VW Jetta, a Jeep, and a Ferrari are all automobiles. Does that mean they all have the same fuel economy and ride smoothly ? I'm sorry, were you talking about killing efficientcy or BATF classification ? You keep changing channels on me.


I've already stated that for the vast majority of situations full auto would be used for suppressive fire. Full auto is highly inaccruate and wastes ammunition. If you think our soldiers go around zipping off hundreds of rounds cutting people in half, you watch too much TV. I'm sure you would agree that less wasted ammunition equates to it being possible to kill more people, right ?


Funny how you couldn't just answer the question. If you had any experience with the differnt weapon systems, you would know the reasons why it doesn't work the way you think it does. We're not talking about the weapon choice of militaries. We were talking about your false beliefs about the legality of ownership and accuracy of fully automatic firearms. Spray and pray or one shot/one kill ? 

You are correct Phish. People have been killing each other for thousands of years and they will continue to until we disappear all together. I guess by some peoples logic, we can gut the 1st amendment and ban free speech for everyone in the country because a small percentage of the population goes around yelling fire in crowded buildings.

Just to go on the record once again. This is not a position I take. I am more than willing to hear gun regulation discussion but the only argument you guys make is for complete repeal of the second amendment. It isn't going to happen. If you really want to discuss options let's do it. Otherwise this position is nothing but hot air.

Likewise, you said that fully-automatic weapons require a background check and tax stamp to purchase.  That was incorrect on your part.  I await your admission of a false statement.

It should be plainly obvious that I didn't believe that machine guns are completely illegal, as at a very minimum the government can have them.  They are heavily regulated, to an extent that they are effectively banned for normal citizens (and literally banned for individuals in 13 states).

But sure, if you also want to argue that it's technically not illegal to possess heroin if you are in possession of the appropriate medical licenses, then go right ahead.

I am confused as to why you continue to substitute accuracy for lethality.  Explosives are not particularly accurate compared to bullets; that doesn't make a gun a substitute for a rocket.

So then, why do militaries issue automatic weapons instead of semi-auto?

You still have yet to provide any sort of evidence to back up the claim that they are better at killing many people QUICKLY (<--- this word is important).  Accuracy and/or efficiency are not the same thing as speed.

That is only true in the sense that a knife can "kill more people" than a gun (because a knife can't run out of ammo).  You are presuming that efficiency of shots per kill is a metric that murderers should care about.

Um, actually, we are.

You claim that fully-automatic weapons are less effective at killing as many people as fast as possible.  I disagree, and as evidence, I cite the weapon choice of groups whose task it is to kill as many people as fast as possible: militaries.

My own personal experience is irrelevant, since I have no personal interest in killing people.

No, that isn't the only argument. There is exactly one person in this thread who has advocated repealing the second amendment (and I suspect it was partially sarcastic, as a response to the complete intransigence of NRA supporters).

Being in favor of moving the bar from machine guns to assault rifles and high-capacity magazines is not an argument for "complete repeal of the 2nd Amendment."

OK, maybe I misunderstood your position then. While you never specifically mention repealing the amendment, I sensed a tone of abolition of all guns. Maybe you are just concerned about assault style weapons and magazines. That has been the majority of your posts but I took the sound and familairity of past discussion to feel you wanted complete abolition. Fau is on record as saying he completely feels repealing the amendment is the only moral argument to gun control. I don't see how you take that to mean any sarcasm. Dave would like for the repeal to happen but doesn't believe it will. You are the three biggest posters for opposition to guns in this thread so excuse me if I misinterpreted.

I support guns for purposes of home protection (but I don't support guns powerful enough to travel across the street and kill your neighbor on a miss).
I support guns for local law enforcement (but I don't support the militarization of police; there is no place for tanks (http://endthelie.com/2013/03/07/cities-continue-to-get-tanks-they-dont-need-in-nationwide-police-militarization-trend/) in police departments).
I don't support concealed carry laws (you carry openly or not at all) and I don't support Stand Your Ground.

In your original statement you specified "mass murderers" and made the implication that fully automatic weapons were banned and illegal for the general public, therefore that is specifically what I was referring to. Your spin about the government being able to purchase these weapons to cover you ass that you didn't "really" believe they were banned and illegal is preposterous at best.  It is pretty common knowledge that the government and law enforcement are exempt from a vast majority of restrictions and regulations that apply to the general public, ie speeding, carrying weapons, blocking traffic, detaining people.  People don't know what you believe or think, they know what you say and you said they were banned and illegal. And you were wrong.


It is not a substitute, the two go hand in hand. Accuracy = hitting the target. Lethality is dependent on hitting the target. So long story short, if you don't hit the target, you can't be lethal. Simple enough.


I have answered this more than once, I will answer it one more time. Fully automatic is primarily used for suppressive fire in rare circumstances. 3 burst fire is rarely used either as it offers no advantages over semi auto with proper trigger control.

Also, again you are misinformed. They do not issue automatic, nor do they issue semi automatic in the AR platform. They issue select fire rifles, which fire either semi & 3 round burst or semi or fully auto. The majority of the rifles issued are 3 burst fire.



Accuracy and efficiency is directly related speed. Do you dispute that ?


I have no idea what killers care about. I'm only trying to help you understand your misinformed position about these firearms. If they don't care about efficiency, what do they care about


So according to you. Since the military is in the business of killing. And the military issues 3 round burst and automatic weapons. That, in fact 3 round burst and fully automatic mode are better for killing more people more quickly ? So it would stand to reason that automatic would be used the majority of the time. Is that your position ? Well read the following thread and you will see what actual soldiers say on the subject.

http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1425421 (http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1425421)

I have already explained to you that the full auto position of the fire control group is rarely used by the majority of military personal and the reasons for that. Just because the weapon will fire in full auto doesn't mean that its utilized.


I asked if you have ever fired any of the firearms you claim to know about. Simply shooting a weapon has nothing to do with killing people, that is an absurd position.  It has to do with knowing how the firearm operates and it's limitations. So you claim that you personal experience is irrelevant. Then how can you claim to know more than someone that actually does have experience ? Not to mention the real world experience of all the soldiers in the thread I kindly provided you above. You can believe whatever you want, I think I have provided you enough information regarding this topic to make an informed decision. Good luck to you sir.

If I was a single gunman, and wanted to kill a large group of what my twisted brain believes to be enemy combatants, in a relatively confined location, like, say, a school, or library, or a church...you know, popular hangouts for enemy combatants. My brain, speaking to me with Morgan Freeman's voice, would tell me that full automatic would be the way to go.

Very reasonable positions and definitely workable for gun control discussion.. I have to ask, in relation to Stand Your Ground. How do you feel about the Castle Doctrine?

Just to clarify, I don't want to repeal the 2nd amendment.  I only say that in the case that we can't enact sensible oversight because people hide behind a blanketing amendment.  If the 2nd amendment means that a private citizen can own a rocket launcher and live next to the airport, then yes-- repeal and rewrite to accommodate current circumstances.

If you're referring to what you think I implied then you probably should drop the semantic battle over what "illegal" means.  We all understand what is meant by "illegal" guns and "illegal" drugs even though neither of those things are actually illegal, but strictly regulated.

Yes, I dispute it.  A crossbow can be both extremely accurate and efficient (i.e. one shot, one kill), but still be much slower than an Uzi that uses 200 rounds to kill 40 people in 30 seconds.

You're presuming that murderers care about how many bullets they wasted instead of how many bodies they dropped.  If efficiency was the goal,  mass murderers would only use sniper rifles.

So then, why do militaries ISSUE fully-automatic weapons?

Why would a military equip its soldiers with LESS EFFECTIVE, MORE EXPENSIVE weapons?

No, because that's a non-sequitur.  They issue weapons with the greatest capability for lethality, but that doesn't mean that that's how they're actually used in practice (because in practice, maximum lethality is not ALWAYS the intended result).

I'm sorry, do you have experience in killing as many people as you can, as fast as possible?
No?
Then I think I'll take actions over words.

If semi-automatic weapons were really more effective at killing people quickly than machine guns, machine guns would have very little reason to exist.  They are more expensive and less ammo efficient.

And yet they do exist, and are widely used by every modern military on the planet.  Funny, that.

I'm not in favor of laws that provide blanket immunity for homicides.  There are already existing statutes for self-defense; one should be concerned about having to explain one's actions when one takes another person's life.

Like I said, believe what you want. You are wrong on several things, but I have no need to argue with you. The fact that you refuse to tell me what experience you have with firearms, if any. And your statements reflect a severe lack of knowledge on the subject. I think it's safe to say that you have very very limited experience shooting or working on a firearm, and more than likely none at all. Having said that, you either :

1. Like to argue and will argue your position even if you are wrong, no matter how ridiculous and fantastic your claims are.

2. Have to be right 100% of the time.

3. Use any information, factual or not, to push your political views.

I suspect a combination of all three.


You are aware that assault rifles are select fire and fully auto capable, and therefore already subject to NFA restrictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle)

I'm sure that you are also aware that a 30 round magazine is standard equipment on AR or AK platform rifles. The fact that they are standard equipment, would in fact make them standard capacity.


What kind of gun isn't powerful enough to travel across a road and kill someone ? A Red Ryder BB gun ?

You'll shoot your eye out

Very, very few people who support gun control support a complete ban on private ownership of guns (UK style).  I am probably among the extreme 1% in supporting that guns be treated like cars.  But even that is among the very extreme in the gun control movement.

Having background check prior to gun sales.  For all gun sales (including gun shows etc) is hardly "repealing the 2nd amendment" 

You continue to try to make this discussion about me, when I've repeatedly (and explicitly) said that I'm not basing my position on my own firearm experience.  You claim that fully-automatic weapons are less effective than semi-automatic weapons, yet the armament decisions of nearly every military on the planet contradicts that claim.

Sorry, I meant "assault weapons," as in the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban).

Is a Ferrari F430 a "high-performance" car?  Apparently not, because it comes that way from the manufacturer.  Must be a "standard performance" car, then.

More semantics shenanigans.

Well, if I'm talking about protecting your home from an intruder, wouldn't that imply that you're firing the gun inside?

If I fire a shotgun inside, will buckshot travel through the walls of my home, across the street, through the wall of my neighbor's home, and into the bed of their kid?  You tell me.

I don't want to repeal the second amendment, I just want to see it adapted to the 21st century, rather than the 18th century.

I have no problem with a "properly background checked" adult owning a handgun or a standard hunting rifle, but the handguns should only be legal when inside the owner's home (no carrying permits), and the hunting rifle can only be taken out of the home during a hunting season for which the rifle owner holds a legal hunting license. While in the home, there should be storage requirements that minimize the chances of someone other than the legal adult owner of the gun getting their hands on it. I think the gun and storage situation should be regularly inspected by law enforcement (or other local authority), with the cost of that safety moderation paid for by a gun owner tax/license fee.

You don't need to have experience shooting guns have an opinion on gun control.
I've never even held a gun, and i have a very firm position on guns in society.

I think I'm OK with carrying permits, but concealed carry is nonsense.  Let the gun nuts run around brandishing their weapons in open sight, so they are easily identified.

Fau, that's absurd.

Having an opinion on gun control without being a gun user is like having an opinion on drunk driving laws if you don't drink, or having an opinion on abortion if you don't have a uterus, or having an opinion on pro football if you've never been a pro football player:  too ridiculous to be taken seriously.

I'd like to amend my statement to also include IEDs. Like the other firearms noted above, they should only be legal to use them in your own home...

Since you aren't basing your position on any kind of experience or knowledge. How do you equate the armament decisions of the military with killing as many people as fast as possible. Do you have any evidence that supports that claim or is that your opinion ? Can you disprove that the main reason they keep 3 burst/automatic is for suppressive/cover fire. Any proof other than your own Hollywood assumptions about why the government equips soldiers with automatic capability ?

Another link for you to read. Be sure to read the comments.

http://kitup.military.com/2011/01/full-auto-not-the-way-to-go.html (http://kitup.military.com/2011/01/full-auto-not-the-way-to-go.html)

Is your opinion on how to implement military arms (based on you having no experience) much more accurate than how the actual soldiers say they actually use these weapons in the field on a daily basis ?



Can you explain the difference between an assault weapon and an ordinary semi auto rifle ?


You are comparing apples to oranges. A Ferrari is high performance compared to cars in other categories. It's performance is standard when compared to another Ferrari. An AR15 is high capacity compared to a revolver or shotgun. However, compared to other weapons in its class, a 30 round magazine is standard. Therefore, a 30 round magazine in an AR type rifle is standard capacity.


So does this mean: the only gun ownership you support is a shotgun with ammunition that won't penetrate walls ?

You are 100% correct, you don't need experience shooting guns to have an opinion on gun control. However, you do need experience when making statements regarding the operation and effectiveness of firearms. Or what is legal or illegal. So, since you have held a gun, which probably gives you more experience than Spider has. Does that make you qualified to discuss the operation, effectiveness, recoil, reloading, military usage and tactics of a very particular type of weapon ?


No, it's more like someone who has never played football trying to tell a football player that the most effective way to win is by throwing bombs on every play. I haven't said anything about your "opinions" on gun control. I have only disputed your obviously incorrect statements regarding certain firearms.

^ Why are we arguing the difference between automatic weapons and their ability to kill more effectively/efficiently.  It's a semantics argument that doesn't change the debate at all.

You claim that they're very specifically for suppressive fire.  Why then, does a citizen need to be suppressing gunfire in their own protection or for hunting or for any of the other reasons that we allow citizens to carry guns?

Don't even answer the question, because it doesn't really matter.  The discussion has crept too far away from the original point.

Historically, the primary purpose of war is to kill enemy combatants.  This predates guns by several thousand years.

I'm not sure what you would accept as proof that weapons of war are primarily designed to kill the enemy.

From your link:

"Accurate single shot fire on the enemy is the way to go.

It does the following:

    It keeps up overall unit sustained rate of fire upon the enemy.
    Conserves overall SOF unit and individual ammo
    Enables more effective fire (i.g. killing or keeping the enemy on the defensive)
    It is Ultimately the best way (assuming no air support) to get out of or win a firefight–I prefer calling in close air support myself."

Let us see how this applies to an armed assailant at, say, an elementary school:

1) This lone gunman is not part of a unit, so sustained unit fire is inapplicable
2) Ammo conservation is not necessarily a concern of a mass murderer (for various reasons)
3) I believe children will be effectively kept on the defensive with either method of fire
4) The mass murderer presumably does not have air support available as an option

Would you like me to read you the difference as defined in the law I just linked?

So then:

1) a Ferrari is considered to have "high performance" compared to cars in other categories (even when equipped to factory specifications), but "standard performance" compared to other cars in its class (e.g. supercars)
2) an AR-15 is considered to have "high capacity" magazines compared to magazines for guns in other categories (even when equipped to factory specifications), but "standard capacity" compared to other guns in its class (e.g. assault weapons)
3) ?
4) "high capacity" is inaccurate but "high performance" is not

Is the only high performance car in existence a Ferrari F430?  Since that's the only example I mentioned, I guess so!

Dave, the point is that even though criminals happily used automatic weapons when they were legal and readily available, and don't use them now, people like CF and stinkyfish claim that that is not because they are heavily regulated and difficult to acquire, but because... they just aren't effective any more!  And as for why militaries continue to use these now-ineffective weapons... hey, look over there!

Maybe if we start heavily regulating other guns, they will experience a similar spontaneous decline in "usefulness" that happens to precisely track their legal availability.

You know what Dave, you are 100% right. I will try and divert my attention and posts away from Spider. There are better things to do than argue with someone who can't be wrong.

Anyhow, I think mental health care improvement, actual protection in schools, and more people in general carrying weapons would be the most helpful things. I'm sure that we can agree that weapon or magazines bans isn't going to happen. Universal background checks has a slight chance to pass senate, but it will never pass the house. Actually, instead of gutting and picking over the second amendment. I wish they would just go through the proper channels and try to repeal it. Then, if they fail in their attempt. You tried, you failed, now leave it alone.

I do like how you stealthily edited Fau's "I've never even held a gun" quote to "I've even held a gun."  Well-played.

I mean, you could have said that you "read it wrong," but that's not quite the same thing as simply subtracting a word from a quote (mid-sentence!) to help prove a point that wasn't being made.

Fau was specifically rejecting firearm experience as relevant to the discussion, and you somehow twisted that into "So, since you have held a gun..."

Ahh sneaky sneaky.

The discussion to have here is ammunition. There are rounds designed to not blow through drywall even with a .357.

I completely agree when there are minors able to acces the weapons. My only issue otherwise, these type of restrictions limit the ability of home protection which is my reason for having the weapon. I have not had a person under legal firearm age in my home for over 10 years and limit anyone's elses access (Imean unseupervised access to the home). I know someone will mention break ins, but there are cases where police have had weapons stolen.

We agree completely here.

I think this is a very intersting position. I think concealed permists need to be tougher to get permission for so maybe putting them in the open with much tougher restrictions is an option.

Well, the position of many gun advocates is that proliferation of weapons will discourage crime (e.g. robbery will be greatly reduced if everyone is armed).  If that's the case, shouldn't these armed citizens be as visible as possible?

Of course, from my perspective, if I'm a business owner, I'd like to know who has the capacity to be shooting up my store because someone cut in front of him in line, and how many other people are going to be exchanging rounds with him from behind stacks of The Big Bang Theory DVDs.

Hmmm, didn't even notice that. The only thing that I can think of is the trackpad on my new laptop is ultra sensitive and I haven't adjusted it yet. A good portion of the time when I type my right thumb gets close enough to it to move the curser and then I am typing in the wrong place. Usually when I notice this, I back space to the last complete word. That would be my explanation. Since I was replying back to Fau, It would do me no good to purposely change his post to the opposite of what he said and then specifically ask him a question about it. I'm pretty sure he is smarter than that.

Frangible ammunition is available. However, I can tell you that if these rounds were all they were cracked up to be, they'd be in use by major LE agencies. AFAIK, Air Marshals don't even use frangible...they're using (or so I was told) Speer Gold Dots...

Frangible rounds don't always disintegrate when they hit walls. In fact, they have a nasty tendency of over penetrating clean through drywall, and by design underpenetrate in the bad guy...which means less chance of getting them to stop, which means you'll have to shoot more, which means your chances of missing go up dramatically.

So basically, we should look to to the choices of government agencies to determine which weapons are most effective.  Got it.

This discussion is absolutely ridiculous.....there is more than just the extreme positions of banning guns and having all weapons available and everyone carrying.

My position and one that I feel is reasonable:
- Have universal background checks for everyone that wants to buy a weapon. The far right gun lobby view that this infringes on any 2nd amendment right is completely false. EVERY responsible gun owner should welcome this step to try and curb the mentally ill or criminals from getting guns easily. And the argument that "Criminals will get guns anyway", while it may be true, why not try something rather than following the same path we have been on.
- Ban on high capacity mags and military assault weapons; but available for use in certain self contained and licensed places that have shooting ranges or tactical weapons training. But these guns should not leave the facility. There is really no reason for the common citizen to own these weapons other than the above use. All currently owned weapons would be grandfathered in.


I just don't understand the thought that if the more people you have carrying, the safer you are....if I go into a store and see a few guys with guns bulging from underneath their shirt or a holster, I am instantly more nervous and very aware of my surroundings. Unless one or more of them is clearly law enforcement, I do not feel safer in that environment.

What you are suggesting is stronger gun control than the bill the republicans are threating to filabuster in the senate. 

T

I'm actually kinda offended at the republicans threatened filibuster about this .. the background check bill that's supported by 85% of NRA members and a fast majority of their constituents is so incredibly watered down it's practically worthless and they don't like it because they say it's too much.

One of two things is happening, either they're ideologically opposed to any gun restrictions aka the tea party types
or they're pandering to the tea party and are afraid that they'll have a challenge from the right in their next primary.

one way it's just a deranged thought process the other is a powermongering abandonment of their basic sense and in a way is much worse.

The NRA has said that they will make an "exception" from their normal policy of ignoring procedural (read: cloture) votes and score any cloture vote taken on any gun control bill (for purposes of determining congressional NRA ratings).

fuck the NRA .. seriously .. people think it's some sort of gun owner right organization and it isn't .. it's a industry funded promotion group .. their concern is that gun companies make the most sales they can and anything that slows that down, they oppose .. people need to wake up

QFT

I'll throw a third on the "F the NRA" sentiment... They serve no purpose other than their own bottom line, and their bottom line is best served by increasing gun sales.

Yes, if you would please sir. Just for clarification and reference in this thread. Since we are trying to discuss "reasonable" firearm legislation, we should know exactly what we are talking about. So what is the difference between and "assault weapon" rifle and a regular run of the mill semi automatic rifle ?


No, there are plenty of other high performance cars in existence. I have no experience with high performance cars of that price range and and I can list many examples. I have plenty of experience with firearms and aside from your example of a specific firearm with specific ammunition. Off the top of my head, I can't come up with anything that won't fire through a wall or across the road and kill or injure someone.

You are aware that there are already laws against the mentally ill or criminals from buying firearms. Since Sandy Hook happened, it seems the "more laws" people are foaming at the mouth. Adam Lanza tried to buy a firearm and was declined, the law did it's job as intended, and Sandy Hook still happened. It goes to show you that if a criminal or mentally ill individual can't buy a gun legally, they will get it illegally or steal it . A good many mass killings aren't from criminals or mentally ill people, just normal people that for some reason or another just snap one day. These people would pass your proposed universal background check, then go kill people. Problem not solved.


As previously noted in this thread. Military assault weapons are already restricted and regulated. And a ban on magazines over a certain capacity does very little to prevent crime. It literally takes 2-3 seconds to change a magazine and be back on target firing. From the majority of reports that I have read. The 1994 assault weapons ban had little to no impact on total crime rates. Most studies reflect that while crime with banned weapons decreased slightly, crime with other types of firearms increased more than enough to offset the drop in use of assault weapons. If the goal is to reduce total crime. Go through the proper channels and repeal the 2nd amendment. Knock yourself out and have at it. But banning a single type of weapon that is used in a very small percentage of overall total crime is just not going to work.



Well Mboss, I don't know what to tell you. If your fear of firearms make you want to limit or take away law abiding citizens 2nd amendment right, it seems you are the one that has the problem. I can assure you that open carry and concealed carry aren't going to be banned anytime soon. In light of that, the only 2 solutions I see for you in that respect, is to either go out to a range and take a firearms safety class and do some shooting. Maybe even start carrying yourself. The other solutions involves not leaving the house and living scared. Ever notice that the cities with the strictest gun restrictions for law abiding citizens have the highest criminal use of firearms ? That should tell you something.

While I can understand your frustration. "Fuck the NRA" is hardly a productive way to get what you want or discuss reasonable firearm/crime reform. It really doesn't matter the reason behind why they support what they support. Half the country seems to agree with their support for firearms, 2nd amendment, gun sales, their own bottom line, etc. Also, it seems that politicians "care" what their NRA rating is. Why do you think that is ?

Here is the text from the link I just pasted:

In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:

    Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

        Folding or telescoping stock
        Pistol grip
        Bayonet mount
        Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
        Grenade launcher

    Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

        Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
        Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
        Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
        Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
        A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

    Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

        Folding or telescoping stock
        Pistol grip
        Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
        Detachable magazine.

    The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 amended Section 921(a) of title 18 of the United States Code to define semiautomatic assault weapons and specifically named the following nineteen (19) semi-automatic firearm models and/or model types, as well as any copies or duplicates of these firearms, in any caliber, as assault weapons (all of which are or were commonly used by police or military forces, in various countries around the globe):

        Norinco, Mitchell Arms, and Poly Technologies AK-47 (all models)
        Action Arms Israeli Military Industries Uzi
        Action Arms Israeli Military Industries Galil
        Beretta AR-70 and

            SC-70 (variant of the AR-70)

        Colt AR-15
        Fabrique National FN FAL

            FN LAR and
            FNC

        MAC-type handguns, including MAC-10

            MAC-11
            MAC 11/9 and
            MAC-12

        Steyr AUG
        INTRATEC TEC-9

            TEC-DC9 and
            TEC-22

        Revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the "Street Sweeper" and/or

            Striker 12 (commonly referred to as the "Street Sweeper").

I hope that helps.

You seem to be mixing up points.  Does the example of "high performance" (yet factory equipped) cars help you to understand the concept of "high capacity" (yet factory equipped) magazines?  Because that was the purpose of that analogy.

As for your following statement, I'd say that the best time to make the claim that you can't conceive of another weapon that won't fire through a wall and (not or) across the road was probably before you decided to give an unprompted dissertation on frangible rounds.  Just saying.

To clarify: are you saying that the use of a weapon by someone other than the legally registered owner of that weapon should be a crime?  If so, should the gun owner also be prosecuted?

It sounds like you're saying that if Adam Lanza was home alone, a burglar had broken in, and Lanza had shot him, he would be exactly as guilty of a crime as he was by stealing his mother's guns for Sandy Hook.  His mother instructed him how to use the weapons and either explicitly granted him access or failed to properly secure them.  Is Ms. Lanza also guilty of a crime?

Should a background check have been required if Ms. Lanza wanted to give her son one of the guns that she was training him how to use?
 
In point of fact, the massacre at Tuscon was stopped when Jared Loughner was switching from one 30-round clip to another.  Had he been using 10-round clips, the loss of life could have been greatly reduced.

Really?  Which gun-loving American city had a lower criminal firearm use rate than Tokyo?

Oh, wait... I'm guessing you were referring exclusively to U.S. cities where you're no more than a 2-hour drive from buying as many guns as you want.  Never mind, then.

One thing at a time.


Let's try this.
You stated:


I asked you what firearm won't fire through walls or across the street ?

You answered :


Now my questions is, since you don't support "guns powerful enough to travel across the street and kill your neighbor on a miss". Besides one certain gun used in conjunction with one certain type of ammunition. What are some other guns that you support, that are not "powerful enough to travel across the street and kill your neighbor on a miss"?

First off, there is no federal legally required registration of  firearms with exception of NFA compliant items. Also, the vast majority of states have no legally required registration of firearms. If memory serves me correctly, only 9 states require registration. All 9 require handgun registration and only 2-3 require long gun registration.

So, to clarify for you. Since there is no "legal" registration for the majority of the country. The use or possession of a weapon by someone other than the owner is not a crime. Provided that the owner has given permission and the weapon isn't stolen. And the person in possession is legally allowed to possess a firearm.


Good question. I would venture to guess that if Adam Lanza took his mothers guns without her consent that he would be guilty of stealing her guns. I would also guess that if Adam Lanza was mentally ill and his mother explicitly granted him access to, gave him possession of, or had reason to believe that he would take possession of her firearms, that she would be guilty of a crime. As far as current law goes, I don't know if they had a state law about properly securing firearms.


She couldn't legally give possession of a firearm to a mentally ill person. He would have failed the background check anyhow.


Had 30 round magazines been banned. Loughner could have simply brought a fully loaded shotgun and 2 fully loaded 10 round pistols and the loss of life could have been greatly increased. Specifically, Giffords melon would be gone with the wind and she would no longer be with us. We can all play the "what if " game.


To clarify, strict anti-gun laws and lower firearm ownership rates do not equal less crime or safer. Conversely,  higher firearm ownership rates does not equal more crime and less safe. In fact, per your request, taking the whole world into account, I believe the exact opposite. Do you disagree ?

I still don't get the difference. As far as I know, there are fully automatic select fire military "assault rifles" and there are "ordinary" semi automatic rifles. ???

Is one of these an assault weapon ? Are they both assault weapons ? They both have detachable magazines.

(http://media.use.com/images/s_1/cb52e2273891ebf784e4.jpg) (http://www.use.com/cb52e2273891ebf784e4)

(http://media.use.com/images/s_1/4fd1dbc569a4e9612c09.jpg) (http://www.use.com/4fd1dbc569a4e9612c09)

I had a reply typed up, but I think I'm done feeding the badger6.

Good day, sir.  On to the next sockpuppet account!

There are plenty of examples. The fact you cannot come up with them, combined with the fact you could not explain why the military went to 3 round burst over fully automatic speaks to just how litle you know about firearms and ammunition.
Hollow points based on their design will not go through multiple walls or vehicles, etc. and maintain lethal energy like full metal jacketed rounds will.
Caliber, bullet weight, and velocity play a huge role as well. We do not have a problem of people getting killed by over penetrating of rounds fired in defense from one home into another. Most people who have been killed in their homes were hit by rounds that only penetrated the wall of their home or were jacketed bullets from a rifle.

Here is a good informative site for those of you who lack knowledge of ballistics and weapons. Not the end all by any means, but it is a starting point for those of you who have little to no firearm experience...so you cannot be trolled by people claiming to be "knowledgeable".
http://www.ballistics101.com/personal_defense.php

Nice site for the uninformed I guess. I do take some issue with their position on penetration though. They seem to overstate the desired penetration needed for a lethal shot. They talk about needing 12 inches of penetration. How many human torsos are so large that it takes 12 inches of penetration to get to vital organs? Personally, I use a hollow point round that is filled with shotgun pellets. When the round expands on impact the pellets then penetrate deeper.

You make assumptions about me just based on my positions....I don't fear guns. I have shot handguns at shooting ranges/gun stores before, but I do not own one. I don't live in fear of going out of the house, but as I stated, in a situation where guns are introduced to a fairly normal situation it makes me much more aware of my surroundings and more nervous because I don't know these people, or if they have any intentions to use their weapons.

Are you talking to me ? If you are, I don't get it. Can you clarify ?

Badger 6 was another site visitor. he is saying you are the same person.

Oh, I get it now. Talk about paranoia gone wild. I guess it was easier to call me someone else than to answer my questions. Thanks for the heads up Phish.

In Spiders original post he said :


He said "guns". Most calibers of guns are powerful enough to travel across the street and kill someone. I asked what gun isn't powerful enough to travel across the street. He said a shotgun with buckshot. If that's the case, I asked if he only supported shotguns and if not what other guns won't travel across the street and kill someone. He or anyone else has yet answered that question. BTW,  A hollow point can and will penetrate a wall (depending on the wall of course) and travel across the street and kill or injure someone.

Also, I think that I explained why the military went to the 3 round burst here:




Your whole statement is pretty much correct. However, it was not my ridiculous hypothetical scenario about only supporting guns that won't travel across the street. Then going from a bullet traveling across the street to:

 
I was simply asking what type of guns he supports under these ridiculous ever changing circumstances.


Wow, you're sending people with little to no firearm experience to a website and calling me a troll because I have firearms experience. That's classic.

Here in Missouri,we're so ass backwards...Our State Government is keeps trying to "loosen" gun laws...Like making it Illegal to enforce Federal Gun laws..

I gave them a site to get some basic knowledge. I did not preface it in a dickish way like you did. You gave people crap for not having knowledge and then you sent them to a site about full auto vs 3 rd burst...after you talk about your firearms knowledge, when you could have devoted a couple sentences explaining why the military switched.
Of course that little gem had nothing to ultimately do with the general topic of banning assault rifles from public use...as the civilian models are all semi auto.
I am not for the banning of weapons and ammunition. I understand how ballistics and firearms work. I have used them as part of my career and personal enjoyment. I also prefer to give non gun owners the ability to gain knowledge to better understand firearms, so they are not afraid of them. You were dickish to them and raised obscure non points to prove your knowledge. Which one of us has a better chance of reaching the anti gun people who are on the fence and bring them to our side....me or you?

Fuck you Nate Bell!!!!!!

Sorry for the late reply, been out of town. You seem awful hostile over a simple discussion. I don't even think that I've said anything to you in this thread. I don't think that I've been dickish to anyone, I simply was refuting some inaccuracies portrayed about the topic. If anyone feels like they have been treated dickish, you have my apology.

I would think, since your not for banning weapons or ammunition that you would be trying to clear up some of the inaccurate statements in this thread instead of trying to call me out over your perceived knowledge about me. I guess it's a moot point since the Democrat led senate wouldn't even pass the legislation. I am curious though, since as you say, my knowledge of firearms only "claimed" and not up to par with yours. Maybe you can answer the questions that haven't been answered here.

Aside from a shotgun with buck shot or using specific ammo. What caliber GUN isn't powerful enough to travel through a wall and kill someone?

And what is an assault weapon? Spider was kind enough to post a definition, I still don't get the difference.

Is one of these an assault weapon? Are they both assault weapons? Detachable magazines is a feature they both have.

(http://media.use.com/images/s_1/cb52e2273891ebf784e4.jpg) (http://www.use.com/cb52e2273891ebf784e4)

(http://media.use.com/images/s_1/4fd1dbc569a4e9612c09.jpg) (http://www.use.com/4fd1dbc569a4e9612c09)

So is the solution to prevent this needless death: 1) not allowing 5 year olds to own guns or 2) providing 2 year olds with guns so she can protect herself?

http://news.yahoo.com/5-old-boy-shoots-2-old-sister-ky-161229579.html

Mental health
Video games
Violent media (not movies though because even conservatives like violent movies)

Those are the things we should fix before we enact any new gun legislation... as long as fixing them does not cost any money.  After all, we can't afford to waste money on frivolous things like free mental health care or more government regulation.

So, long story short: let's just talk about the above three things (but do nothing) until this stuff blows over.

Well, all sarcasm aside. I'm still awaiting clarification of a couple things in an effort to have a rational discussion on the topic

Aside from a shotgun with buck shot or using specific ammo. What caliber GUN isn't powerful enough to travel through a wall and kill someone?

And what is an assault weapon? Spider you posted a definition of an assault weapon.  I still don't really understand the difference.

Is one of these an assault weapon? Are they both assault weapons? Detachable magazines is a feature they both have.

(http://media.use.com/images/s_1/cb52e2273891ebf784e4.jpg) (http://www.use.com/cb52e2273891ebf784e4)

(http://media.use.com/images/s_1/4fd1dbc569a4e9612c09.jpg) (http://www.use.com/4fd1dbc569a4e9612c09)

There is no difference. I would outlaw both.

Why would you ban them both? Are you saying that they are both supposed "assault weapons" or is there another reason you have.?

Fau is on record for banning all guns.

Really, haha that's funny. How can we have a discussion about "reasonable" gun legislation if the only person that will answer a question is someone that is so super ultra extreme in his view that it's pointless even replying to him. Where are all the ban the "assault weapon" people? If we are going to have a reasonable discussion, we all need to be on the same page on what an "assault weapon" actually is? 

No offense Fau, your position is so extreme and unrealistic that there is no point to continue down that road with you. Never the less, thank you for replying.

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher

Now, can you explain to me why it should be lawful to sell a convicted felon a weapon at a gun show, but not a regular store?

Ok, you pasted the same thing Spider did. Now, Is one of these an assault weapon? Are they both assault weapons? Detachable magazines is a feature they both have.
(http://media.use.com/images/s_1/cb52e2273891ebf784e4.jpg) (http://www.use.com/cb52e2273891ebf784e4)

(http://media.use.com/images/s_1/4fd1dbc569a4e9612c09.jpg) (http://www.use.com/4fd1dbc569a4e9612c09)


I don't think it should be lawful to sell a convicted felon a firearm. In fact, it is not lawful to sell a convicted felon a weapon anywhere, anytime, or anyhow.

which is def in the ban from 9/13/94-9/13/04.


don't know, apply the def to each weapon.  I am not a weapon's expert. 

I have applied the definition to each weapon and I can't really tell how one is functionally different than the other. My theory is that the term "assault weapon" is a made up political term to scare people that don't know any better. I posted the pictures for someone to prove my theory wrong. I guess if no one here actually knows what an "assault weapon" actually is, then any reference to them should be left out of a rational discussion. At least until someone can actually tell us the difference in the pictures I posted.

My position on guns is no more extreme than the republicans position on background checks.. or the NRA's position on gun safety regulation. My position is no more extreme than Grover Norquist's position on taxes.

Of course if you believe that the position of republicans on background checks, the NRA's position on gun legislation and Norquist's position on taxes are so extreme that people shouldn't even bother engaging them in conversation about those topics .. well .. touche.

Banning all firearms isn't going to happen, therefore there is no need to discuss it. And to think that the left said they wanted to talk about "reasonable" gun legislation. Your position isn't reasonable. You want to ban all firearms. Fine, go through the process to amend the constitution to get rid of the 2nd amendment. I would only have one condition to that scenario. If you lose, you can't challenge the 2nd amendment as it stands now for 100 years. All or nothing, but the left wouldn't make that deal because they know they can't win. Hell, they can't even get their own people on board with background checks.