Mass stabbing at Texas school results in... zero deaths

[Phishfan]

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

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

[Phishfan]

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 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.

[Phishfan]

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.

We agree completely here.

[Phishfan]

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.

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

[stinkyfish]

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 ?
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..."

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.

[stinkyfish]

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

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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.

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

[mboss]

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.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

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

[Fau Teixeira]

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.

[Spider-Dan]

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).

[Fau Teixeira]

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

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

fuck the NRA .. seriously ..

QFT

[Sunstroke]

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.