America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 6 years ago by DrafterX. 682 replies replies.
14 Pages«<67891011121314>
National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
tailgater Offline
#451 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 10:28 AM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
frankj1 wrote:
we now know that the Russians also posted some BLM stuff.


I'm talking about the protests. I don't follow BLM twitter feeds.
Speyside Offline
#452 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 10:29 AM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery-Thomas Jefferson.
Speyside Offline
#453 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 10:32 AM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety-Benjamin Franklin.
Speyside Offline
#454 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 10:36 AM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it-George Washington.
cacman Offline
#455 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 10:47 AM EST
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
dstieger wrote:
What I can't understand is why we shouldn't seriously considering limits on civilian ownership of assault-style weapons, even those only available as semi-auto. I'm ok with trying to remove most (some?) Armalites, Bushmasters, and other such weapons from the equation, if possible. I'm not convinced that the recreational and defense value of these is enough to keep them around. They are toys, much more than they are tools. And as such, I won't oppose legal limitations on ownership.

I use my AR10 to put meat on the table. There are already magazine restrictions in our State. Being able to carry 5+1 in a semi-auto offers many advantages over a 3+1 bolt rifle.

I use my semi-auto shotgun to put meat on the table. Shotguns also have capacity restrictions.

Firearms are not toys, not should they be treated or painted as toys. They are tools.
dstieger Offline
#456 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 11:04 AM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
I guess I should worry that your family would go hungry if you were forced to use a Mossberg Patriot....sorry. Dropping a half dozen deer from same herd? Or, maybe a little more time on the range is called for.

And, I agree that they should never be treated as toys. But, my impression of nearly everyone I've ever met who owns an Armalite, is they act as if it is exactly that.
DrafterX Offline
#457 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 11:05 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
Are those the Obama Shotguns..?? Huh


I never got mine damnit..!! Mad
paulkeck Offline
#458 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 11:06 AM EST
Joined: 02-24-2013
Posts: 2,686
dstieger wrote:
That was a big argument against raising drinking age, also. In hindsight, it doesn't seem as strong a reason as it did at the time.



I understand the slope argument, but I don't believe that's a good enough reason not to do support something you agree with.

I've followed most of this thread...except the TG/Vic lovefest stuff, anyway....and I have read nothing to convince me that I shouldn't support some sort of legal action limiting access to assault weapons, if not an outright ban. I understand that it might be hard...that it wouldn't stop murders with guns....etc. I am a gun owner, a hunter; I've carried and used weapons as part of my occupation; I've had part in the responsibility for limiting access to weapons by people determined to be of less than sound mind -- I think that I have the ability and experience to see this from most sides --

What I can't understand is why we shouldn't seriously considering limits on civilian ownership of assault-style weapons, even those only available as semi-auto. I'm ok with trying to remove most (some?) Armalites, Bushmasters, and other such weapons from the equation, if possible. I'm not convinced that the recreational and defense value of these is enough to keep them around. They are toys, much more than they are tools. And as such, I won't oppose legal limitations on ownership.


I just love that logic. Because you feel they have no worth, Ban them. I feel I can own any fire arm I want. Why? Because I'm a responsible gun owner. I own 3 Ars and 1 lr308, not one is an assault rifle. Again if you don't feel the need for one by all means don't buy one, but what gives you the right to dictate what I own?
dstieger Offline
#459 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 11:10 AM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
paulkeck wrote:
I just love that logic. Because you feel they have no worth, Ban them. I feel I can own any fire arm I want. Why? Because I'm a responsible gun owner. I own 3 Ars and 1 lr308, not one is an assault rifle. Again if you don't feel the need for one by all means don't buy one, but what gives you the right to dictate what I own?


I don't have that right. Not even close. But I can register my opinion with my legislators.

And, I think your local LEO's may disagree with your 'feelings' about owning any fire arm you want....or at least they might have something to say about that.
paulkeck Offline
#460 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 11:12 AM EST
Joined: 02-24-2013
Posts: 2,686
dstieger wrote:
I don't have that right. Not even close. But I can register my opinion with my legislators.

And, I think your local LEO's may disagree with your 'feelings' about owning any fire arm you want....or at least they might have something to say about that.


Not my local LEOs
Phil222 Offline
#461 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 11:26 AM EST
Joined: 10-01-2017
Posts: 1,911
dstieger wrote:
I have read nothing to convince me that I shouldn't support some sort of legal action limiting access to assault weapons, if not an outright ban. I understand that it might be hard...that it wouldn't stop murders with guns....etc.


If the assault weapons ban will not stop most murders, why do it?
dstieger Offline
#462 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 11:31 AM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Phil222 wrote:
If the assault weapons ban will not stop most murders, why do it?


Is that a real question?
Phil222 Offline
#463 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 11:33 AM EST
Joined: 10-01-2017
Posts: 1,911
Yes. Just trying to get your point of view / reasoning.
dstieger Offline
#464 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 11:36 AM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
I thought maybe you were being sarcastic....I thought I laid it out above....maybe I was unclear.

I don't value your right to own them; as I expressed above; and,
Even if MOST murders aren't prevented, I strongly suspect that SOME would be
DrafterX Offline
#465 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 11:38 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
So the anti-gun people can feel good about themselves for forcing their will on others... Then it w be on to handguns... Mellow
paulkeck Offline
#466 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 11:42 AM EST
Joined: 02-24-2013
Posts: 2,686
dstieger wrote:
I thought maybe you were being sarcastic....I thought I laid it out above....maybe I was unclear.

I don't value your right to own them; as I expressed above; and,
Even if MOST murders aren't prevented, I strongly suspect that SOME would be






Now we are getting somewhere.....
Phil222 Offline
#467 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 11:46 AM EST
Joined: 10-01-2017
Posts: 1,911
According to an FBI statistic that I saw, a person is more than four times more likely to be killed by a sharp object than a rifle. I guess what I'm trying to understand from you and others here is why worry about preventing a very small percentage of gun murders and not the vast majority?
paulkeck Offline
#468 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 11:56 AM EST
Joined: 02-24-2013
Posts: 2,686
Phil222 wrote:
According to an FBI statistic that I saw, a person is more than four times more likely to be killed by a sharp object than a rifle. I guess what I'm trying to understand from you and others here is why worry about preventing a very small percentage of gun murders and not the vast majority?


People that don't care about your rights won't care about statistics either. The simple fact of the matter is... your rights mean nothing when it doesn't fit what they want their rights to be. Case in point, your right to own an AR15 shouldn't be there because "I" don't believe you should own one.
dstieger Offline
#469 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 12:00 PM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Not entirely true. I care a lot about statistics. What statistic is being cited? "One day I read something...." isn't a statistic.
I especially care about data when I am able to present it in such a way as to support my stance, regardless of context.

So...what is the statistic? And how is it at all relevant to any points that I tried to make?
dstieger Offline
#470 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 12:01 PM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
paulkeck wrote:
Now we are getting somewhere.....


Good! Finally
Speyside Offline
#471 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 12:07 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Dave, you should also care about statistics that don't support your point of view. If the statistics are accurate, then a point of view should be logically based on what they show. Though I will throw out the caveat that studies can be manipulated to create any set of statistics you want. So I probably care most that the study is unbiased, and the aim of the study is to find out the truth.
dstieger Offline
#472 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 12:09 PM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
spey....my tongue was firmly in cheek...we are saying the same thing essentially
cacman Offline
#473 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 12:09 PM EST
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
dstieger wrote:
I guess I should worry that your family would go hungry if you were forced to use a Mossberg Patriot....sorry. Dropping a half dozen deer from same herd? Or, maybe a little more time on the range is called for.

And, I agree that they should never be treated as toys. But, my impression of nearly everyone I've ever met who owns an Armalite, is they act as if it is exactly that.

Obviously you're not a hunter, or you would know one can not legally machine-gun down a half-dozen from a herd. Just because one owns a gun does not permit them to hunt. A license has to applied for and paid for. You have to take a Hunter Safety course before you can apply for a license. If you are granted a license there are restrictions on the amount of animals you can harvest. In the case of big game hunting (antelope, bear, deer, elk, moose) that usually means 1 animal per season. Most of the ranchers in the area use AR15's to control the coyote population from killing their livestock (the steak you buy at the grocery store). FWIW, I also own 2 bolt rifles, but prefer my AR10 for it's lighter weight and ammo advantage. I would not buy a Mossberg.

Your impression of nearly everyone you've ever met who owns an Armalite is not an accurate representation of all gun owners, nor should that "impression" be used to restrict lawful, responsible gun owners from owning them.
Phil222 Offline
#474 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 12:13 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2017
Posts: 1,911
https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/

It's from 2016 murders. I was just trying to show that over four times as many people were killed by knives than rifles. I'm pretty sure they're going by FBI statistics. I could dig into the FBI data and try to pull this out if you want, but it really isn't needed for what I'm asking.

I'm just trying to understand the other side of this argument. I totally get the argument of an all-out ban, just not the rifle ban. The rifle ban says to me that we care about a few hundred lives more than we do about fifteen thousand. Yes, all life is important, but if a person cared about one then should they not care about the other? That is what has me confused about the rifle ban in order to save lives argument.
Speyside Offline
#475 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 12:14 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Got me, you often do.
Speyside Offline
#476 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 12:16 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Don't we need a much larger sample size to do a statistical analysis?
DrafterX Offline
#477 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 12:22 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,535
Most fat guys have ARs.. Mellow
HuckFinn Offline
#478 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 12:29 PM EST
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
The right to own guns ad nauseum is more important than the rights of school kids to be and feel safe at school?

Carry on.
paulkeck Offline
#479 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 12:30 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2013
Posts: 2,686
HuckFinn wrote:
The right to own guns ad nauseum is more important than the rights of school kids to be and feel safe at school?

Carry on.


Another stupid statement....
Phil222 Offline
#480 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 12:34 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2017
Posts: 1,911
Speyside wrote:
Don't we need a much larger sample size to do a statistical analysis?


The data is available if you have the patience to sort through it. Try the FBI website.
Gene363 Offline
#481 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 12:39 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,799
Gun control advocates:

You can't keep drugs off the streets

You can't keep drugs out of schools

You can't even keep drugs out of Federal prisons

But you want me to disarm myself and 'trust' you can keep guns out of the hand of criminals?
Phil222 Offline
#482 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 12:44 PM EST
Joined: 10-01-2017
Posts: 1,911
DrafterX wrote:
Most fat guys have ARs.. Mellow


Not true...Not talking https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIaVhMjcoz0
HuckFinn Offline
#483 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 12:55 PM EST
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
Gene363 wrote:
Gun control advocates:

You can't keep drugs off the streets

You can't keep drugs out of schools

You can't even keep drugs out of Federal prisons

But you want me to disarm myself and 'trust' you can keep guns out of the hand of criminals?

So because 'we can't' be 100% successful, leave things as they are. Don't try?
cacman Offline
#484 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 12:56 PM EST
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
Putting a huge target on schools and promoting them as Gun-Free Zones has made them more secure for children.

For the sake of the children let's ban... alcohol and tobacco too! Heck, most places can't even ban texting and/or using a hand-held device while driving.

I am so sick of hearing the "for the sake of the children" as an excuse.
HuckFinn Offline
#485 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 12:59 PM EST
Joined: 07-10-2017
Posts: 2,044
cacman wrote:

I am so sick of hearing the "for the sake of the children" as an excuse.


Tell that to the parents of the dead kids.
cacman Offline
#486 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 1:31 PM EST
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
No problem I'd tell them the same thing. Put blame where blame is due.

Put blame on the fact the school was not secure, Put blame on the fact that schools are promoted as a Gun-Free Zones and soft targets.

Put blame on the fact a sick, deranged kid with a long history of mental problems was able to gain access to firearms.

Do not put blame on law-abiding citizens and take away their rights.

I am truly sorry for their loss. But it is not my fault, nor should I have to give-up my rights as a result.
paulkeck Offline
#487 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 1:40 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2013
Posts: 2,686
cacman wrote:
No problem I'd tell them the same thing. Put blame where blame is due.

Put blame on the fact the school was not secure, Put blame on the fact that schools are promoted as a Gun-Free Zones and soft targets.

Put blame on the fact a sick, deranged kid with a long history of mental problems was able to gain access to firearms.

Do not put blame on law-abiding citizens and take away their rights.

I am truly sorry for their loss. But it is not my fault, nor should I have to give-up my rights as a result.


Didn't Florida just tell them, when they wouldn't pass an ignorant bill?
victor809 Offline
#488 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 1:41 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
As big a fan of guns as I am, and as little a fan of children as I am... I still have to call bs on the whole "schools as gun free zones are soft targets" argument.

The data simply doesn't play out.

There are very few school shootings where the shooter was choosing the school because it was a soft target. The shooters (or stabbers) usually choose the school they went to, are associated with and know the people there. They're shooting the people they know because they want to, not because it's easy.

To pretend that being "soft targets" is actually increasing the risk is not a very accurate narrative. Hell, since so many of the school shooters seem to actively choose to die on the scene (not all, but most), they likely are only concerned with how high a body count they can get until they die. Arming individuals in a school may reduce that body count (possibly)... but isn't going to really be a significant deterrent to the individuals who choose this action.
paulkeck Offline
#489 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 1:43 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2013
Posts: 2,686
victor809 wrote:
As big a fan of guns as I am, and as little a fan of children as I am... I still have to call bs on the whole "schools as gun free zones are soft targets" argument.

The data simply doesn't play out.

There are very few school shootings where the shooter was choosing the school because it was a soft target. The shooters (or stabbers) usually choose the school they went to, are associated with and know the people there. They're shooting the people they know because they want to, not because it's easy.

To pretend that being "soft targets" is actually increasing the risk is not a very accurate narrative. Hell, since so many of the school shooters seem to actively choose to die on the scene (not all, but most), they likely are only concerned with how high a body count they can get until they die. Arming individuals in a school may reduce that body count (possibly)... but isn't going to really be a significant deterrent to the individuals who choose this action.

Train teachers or have armed guards in schools, and I bet it deters most
victor809 Offline
#490 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 1:44 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
paulkeck wrote:
Train teachers or have armed guards in schools, and I bet it deters most


why would it deter any of the past school shooters?
paulkeck Offline
#491 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 1:47 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2013
Posts: 2,686
victor809 wrote:
why would it deter any of the past school shooters?

Because most people don't want to die, some but not all would rethink the situation if they knew someone might shoot back. Not to mention a lot less casualties
victor809 Offline
#492 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 1:50 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
paulkeck wrote:
Because most people don't want to die, some but not all would rethink the situation if they knew someone might shoot back. Not to mention a lot less casualties


Dude... I don't have the numbers, but what percentage of school shooters bothered trying to survive the event? I'm betting it's pretty low. Your average person may want to live, but if we're trying to stop teenage kids who want to bring guns to school to kill as many kids as possible... that's not your average person. Using average deterrent methods is dumb.

It'll possibly reduce the body count (as I said above). But wouldn't likely stop the event from occurring.

And it would be ridiculously expensive.

Give all the kids loaded trump-guns to carry to school. That'd be more amusing.
paulkeck Offline
#493 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 1:53 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2013
Posts: 2,686
victor809 wrote:
Dude... I don't have the numbers, but what percentage of school shooters bothered trying to survive the event? I'm betting it's pretty low. Your average person may want to live, but if we're trying to stop teenage kids who want to bring guns to school to kill as many kids as possible... that's not your average person. Using average deterrent methods is dumb.

It'll possibly reduce the body count (as I said above). But wouldn't likely stop the event from occurring.

And it would be ridiculously expensive.

Give all the kids loaded trump-guns to carry to school. That'd be more amusing.

You made great points!! Pretty much like banning AR15s would do nothing to stop that class of person on figuring a way to kill as many as possible. Thank you Sir for pointing that out.
paulkeck Offline
#494 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 1:54 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2013
Posts: 2,686
victor809 wrote:
Dude... I don't have the numbers, but what percentage of school shooters bothered trying to survive the event? I'm betting it's pretty low. Your average person may want to live, but if we're trying to stop teenage kids who want to bring guns to school to kill as many kids as possible... that's not your average person. Using average deterrent methods is dumb.

It'll possibly reduce the body count (as I said above). But wouldn't likely stop the event from occurring.

And it would be ridiculously expensive.

Give all the kids loaded trump-guns to carry to school. That'd be more amusing.


I think the Same "trump" guns could be bought when Obama was still Prez.... just saying
Gene363 Offline
#495 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 1:57 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,799
HuckFinn wrote:
So because 'we can't' be 100% successful, leave things as they are. Don't try?



Because blaming guns is 100% ineffective.
victor809 Offline
#496 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 2:01 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
paulkeck wrote:
You made great points!! Pretty much like banning AR15s would do nothing to stop that class of person on figuring a way to kill as many as possible. Thank you Sir for pointing that out.

I've never said any different.

I do think banning AR-15s would likely lower the body count (same as increasing the number of armed people may).
But I don't really want to lower the body count at school shootings.... so I'm probably not the person to talk to.
paulkeck Offline
#497 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 2:03 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2013
Posts: 2,686
victor809 wrote:
I've never said any different.

I do think banning AR-15s would likely lower the body count (same as increasing the number of armed people may).
But I don't really want to lower the body count at school shootings.... so I'm probably not the person to talk to.

I don't see it lowering anything
victor809 Offline
#498 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 2:12 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
paulkeck wrote:
I don't see it lowering anything


That's just being obtuse.

We all know that the AR style weapons are better at killing things. Otherwise they simple wouldn't have developed the weapon platform at all, and everyone would use handguns for everything.

If you restrict people to weapons which are less accurate, may be significantly less stable at high rates of fire, have bullets with a significantly reduced amount of tissue damage designed into them... you'd likely get fewer deaths.

Don't lie. just accept that there are going to be more deaths and move forward.
RMAN4443 Offline
#499 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 2:22 PM EST
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
The Oklahoma City bombing killed 165 people and injured 680 others, The blast destroyed or damaged 324 other buildings within a 16-block radius, shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings, and destroyed or burned 86 cars, causing an estimated $652 million worth of damage. Not one shot was fired from a gun of any kind......this devastation was caused by a box truck loaded with forty 50-pound (23 kg) bags of ammonium nitrate fertilizer.
19 of the victims were children being cared for in the daycare center in the building. My point is if people want to kill and have mass casualties they will.......by blowing up fertilizer, driving cars or trucks into crowds of people, or crashing planes into buildings, or pressure cooker bombs in crowded places.........should we ban fertilizer, or motorized vehicles over a certain size, or planes, or pressure cookers?
People want to kill, they're going to find a way to do it.........would we be demanding the banning of trucks and fertilizer if the mentally ill Nikolas Cruz had crashed a truck into the school and blown it up?
paulkeck Offline
#500 Posted: Thu, Feb 22 2018, 2:24 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2013
Posts: 2,686
victor809 wrote:
That's just being obtuse.

We all know that the AR style weapons are better at killing things. Otherwise they simple wouldn't have developed the weapon platform at all, and everyone would use handguns for everything.

If you restrict people to weapons which are less accurate, may be significantly less stable at high rates of fire, have bullets with a significantly reduced amount of tissue damage designed into them... you'd likely get fewer deaths.

Don't lie. just accept that there are going to be more deaths and move forward.

If you think a pistol is less accurate in a school hallway or any other rifle, you haven't been shooting
Users browsing this topic
Guest
14 Pages«<67891011121314>
Back to Top