Jump to content

So Very Sad....


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 515
  • Created
  • Last Reply
4 hours ago, rico said:

I suppose you don't remember Oklahoma City?

I do remember it. If you think that's relavent then I'd suggest trying to understand the other sides point and not parroting what OAN, Fox or Brietbart tell you about it because they give you a charicature. 

It would be similar to me saying you'd rather keep your guns than keep kids alive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KoB2011 said:

I do remember it. If you think that's relavent then I'd suggest trying to understand the other sides point and not parroting what OAN, Fox or Brietbart tell you about it because they give you a charicature. 

It would be similar to me saying you'd rather keep your guns than keep kids alive. 

Really?  Always the guns isn't it?  You just don't get it.  And I doubt you ever will.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, rico said:

Really?  Always the guns isn't it?  You just don't get it.  And I doubt you ever will.  

It's not always the guns, no one has suggested that's the only way people get hurt. Everyone I've ever met can clearly see people are harmed in a myriad of ways; this is a thread about 17 people who died because they were shot by a person with a gun. What do you expect the conversation to center around?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading 7 pages, most of what needs to be said has been said so I'll try not to repeat much.  Full disclosure (I've mentioned this earlier)...I have a federal firearms license and conduct background checks for both shop and private transactions. I am also an avid target shooter and gun collector.  Here goes:

  1. I don't think anyone here wants felons, abusers or mentally unstable individuals to have access to any means of harming or killing other people. Banning one means will likely just cause people with ill intent to seek out another method.  The Oklahoma City bomber was highly effective with a truckload of fertilizer and diesel fuel.
  2. In my opinion, many of the shooters choosing AR-15s likely were influenced by seeing another shooter use that weapon.  Had the first shooters used mini-14s or Glocks with extended magazines, we'd likely be having a different ban/restriction conversation today.
  3. My wife and I have quick access to AR pistols (same as AR-15s with the exception of shorter barrels) with 30 and even 44-round magazines in our home. We also have pump 12 & 20-gauge shotguns.  We live in an isolated area and on occasion, I am traveling leaving her home alone. In the event of a home invasion where multiple assailants are possible, I want us (her especially) to have access to superior firepower if at all possible.  When defending my castle is the objective, I don't want my ability to do so to be limited.  That is reason #1, 2 & 3 about why I very much disagree that I don't "need" an AR-15.  If/when the time comes, who knows what I will need?  Statistics have shown that even trained police officers miss the vast majority of shots taken during moments of extreme stress.  We may need a few more shots to defend ourselves, especially when law enforcement is usually at least 10-15 minutes away.
  4. I'm absolutely willing to discuss restrictions. I'm just skeptical about what will work. When the heart of man is evil, evil will find a way to manifest.  As has been mentioned earlier, for whatever reason, this appears to be a uniquely American issue.  I don't get it either. We are far from the only nation with a lot of guns.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, FKIM01 said:

After reading 7 pages, most of what needs to be said has been said so I'll try not to repeat much.  Full disclosure (I've mentioned this earlier)...I have a federal firearms license and conduct background checks for both shop and private transactions. I am also an avid target shooter and gun collector.  Here goes:

  1. I don't think anyone here wants felons, abusers or mentally unstable individuals to have access to any means of harming or killing other people. Banning one means will likely just cause people with ill intent to seek out another method.  The Oklahoma City bomber was highly effective with a truckload of fertilizer and diesel fuel.
  2. In my opinion, many of the shooters choosing AR-15s likely were influenced by seeing another shooter use that weapon.  Had the first shooters used mini-14s or Glocks with extended magazines, we'd likely be having a different ban/restriction conversation today.
  3. My wife and I have quick access to AR pistols (same as AR-15s with the exception of shorter barrels) with 30 and even 44-round magazines in our home. We also have pump 12 & 20-gauge shotguns.  We live in an isolated area and on occasion, I am traveling leaving her home alone. In the event of a home invasion where multiple assailants are possible, I want us (her especially) to have access to superior firepower if at all possible.  When defending my castle is the objective, I don't want my ability to do so to be limited.  That is reason #1, 2 & 3 about why I very much disagree that I don't "need" an AR-15.  If/when the time comes, who knows what I will need?  Statistics have shown that even trained police officers miss the vast majority of shots taken during moments of extreme stress.  We may need a few more shots to defend ourselves, especially when law enforcement is usually at least 10-15 minutes away.
  4. I'm absolutely willing to discuss restrictions. I'm just skeptical about what will work. When the heart of man is evil, evil will find a way to manifest.  As has been mentioned earlier, for whatever reason, this appears to be a uniquely American issue.  I don't get it either. We are far from the only nation with a lot of guns.

1) I agree no one wants these type of people having dangerous weapons, but one side (generalizing here) is advocating that we don't need to do anything to prevent eays access to dangerous weapons. 

2) probably true. So we should just stop protecting people because someone can always find another means of harming someone?

3) surely you can agree the likelihood of you getting into a shootout straight out of a Michael Bay film is incredibly unlikely? 

4) This point, which has been repeated in various ways throughout this thread is confusing to me. We see what works in other countries, why won't that work here? The theme seems to be that we are evil/lack morals yet we are much more likely to believe in angels in America than the UK, Nordic countries et al. So those godless places with heavy restrictions on guns seem to have figured something out, what's wrong with giving their playbook a try? As for me, I don't have an evil heart nor does my family. I find it HIGHLY offensive to be told that I do. 

 

Just some information for those that like to pretend those in favor of increased restrictions want to collect all the guns in America; the UK allows guns. They're more restrictive about who can purchase, what you can purchase and how they're kept, but they can absolutely have them. Making sure responsible gun owners don't have their fun ruined by everyone else? What a great model!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  1. Yes, you're generalizing. There is a very broad spectrum of opinions on what should be done.  As the evidence mounts that today's youth are simply not as mentally mature as they used to be, there is widespread support for raising the minimum purchase age to 21. I like the suggested exemption for active duty persons.
  2. You and I will have to disagree that outlawing AR-15s will protect children.  I believe it's a useless step as people with evil intent will simply move to the next available weapon and in 20 years, methods we can't even imagine that are far more lethal than AR-15s will be created/dreamed up.  Right now, if I were willing to jump through the hoops, pay the tax stamp fee and spend a sizable sum of money, I could buy a FULLY automatic weapon for my own personal use.  It seems silly to outlaw a semi-automatic weapon when this option still exists.  Who would have dreamed of flying 747s into tall buildings or blowing up trucks filled with diesel fuel and fertilizer before an evil heart thought of it?
  3. It doesn't matter how unlikely you or I think such an event may be.  Multiple assailant attacks do happen and as a law-abiding citizen, I think I deserve the right to choose my method of protection without the government deciding it's too effective and stripping away my constitutional rights.
  4. Would the gun rules in the countries mentioned stop 9/11 or Timothy McVeigh?  Again, you and I will will have to agree on whether or not this problem is uniquely American or not.  Please don't be offended as I'm not of the opinion that all Americans have evil hearts.  I am, however, of the opinion that too much evil exists in this country and I think we see the evidence almost daily in the news cycle.  I don't believe we are as evil as ISIS, but we seem to have more than our share here. I want to protect myself as effectively as possible from the threat of evil.

Finally, assuming the UK system would not allow me to maintain my home defense AR pistol, no...I would not be in favor of less-effectively protecting my family because someone else broke the law.  The Florida tragedy could have absolutely been avoided if just one of the multiple warnings/red flags had been taken seriously and/or if school security was more effective.  I get frustrated when the knee-jerk reaction is to make more laws when we already seem to struggle with enforcement of the ones we have.  ARs existed here peacefully for many years before someone got the bright idea to use them for evil.  I can only wonder what the next weapon of choice will be for these idiots that shoot up schools and workplaces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

4) This point, which has been repeated in various ways throughout this thread is confusing to me. We see what works in other countries, why won't that work here? The theme seems to be that we are evil/lack morals yet we are much more likely to believe in angels in America than the UK, Nordic countries et al. So those godless places with heavy restrictions on guns seem to have figured something out, what's wrong with giving their playbook a try? As for me, I don't have an evil heart nor does my family. I find it HIGHLY offensive to be told that I do. 

 

Just some information for those that like to pretend those in favor of increased restrictions want to collect all the guns in America; the UK allows guns. They're more restrictive about who can purchase, what you can purchase and how they're kept, but they can absolutely have them. Making sure responsible gun owners don't have their fun ruined by everyone else? What a great model!

Ok, who cares what other countries do. The fact is, America is an continental suzed country. It is bigger than europe, the uk, and the nordic countries you mentioned combined.  Maybe add up mass shootings/killings in all of those places and then compare. Remember this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik.

America is huge. I know, i have set foot in 42 different states all on the road.  It is very culturally diverse. The other countries that we are compared to in relation to guns are relatively homogenous compared to the U.S.  Mass shootings are shocking in their depravity but are statistically insignafigant, the vast majority of gun crimes are gang related or domestic. Rifles of all kinds are the least used weapons in homicides.  Restricting the ar15 and similar rifles will literally have zero effect on gun homicieds. Also, do you really trust the media to accurately report the details of these events? How do we really know what was used unless they produce photo evidence. They are all pushing an agenda and I trust none of them. 

It is a complete waste of time an energy to focus on guns.  That time and energy could be spent on real solutions or intermediate solutions 

 Do you realize when a mass shooting event happens and someone like diane fienstien promotes a gun bill, gun sales skyrocket. Which is the opposite of what they are trying to achieve.  It has been going on since 1994. You might not want to ban guns but the very vocal minority on the far left do. So it continues to push this debate to the extremes. People arent spending their money with the intention of giving their stuff up. 

The only evil/morally lacking people are the a**holes that commit these crimes.

Answer this honestly, if semi-auto rifles were banned out of existence and semi-auto pistols were used in mass shootings ( i.e. virginia tech,or this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_shooting ) would you want to see them banned?  What is the end game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm asking this out of true ignorance.  I'm not a gun guy.  Not even remotely.  For those that support private ownership of guns capable of firing multiple rounds in a short period of time, I'm curious as to the reason.  Is it simply to clarify the freedom provided by the Constitution? 

I can understand the sporting value of other types of guns for hunting.  And, I can understand how some would feel safer with a pistol around.  I can understand the sport of target practice with a gun that fires one round at a time.  What I don't understand is how an automatic weapon fits into 'sport' or 'safety'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 5fouls said:

I'm asking this out of true ignorance.  I'm not a gun guy.  Not even remotely.  For those that support private ownership of guns capable of firing multiple rounds in a short period of time, I'm curious as to the reason.  Is it simply to clarify the freedom provided by the Constitution? 

I can understand the sporting value of other types of guns for hunting.  And, I can understand how some would feel safer with a pistol around.  I can understand the sport of target practice with a gun that fires one round at a time.  What I don't understand is how an automatic weapon fits into 'sport' or 'safety'.

Let's leave hunting out of the equation.  Although there are certain types of "game" where it would be valuable.  Squirrels, rabbits, etc.

Say 4 guys break into your home.  What are you gonna do?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, 5fouls said:

I'm asking this out of true ignorance.  I'm not a gun guy.  Not even remotely.  For those that support private ownership of guns capable of firing multiple rounds in a short period of time, I'm curious as to the reason.  Is it simply to clarify the freedom provided by the Constitution? 

I can understand the sporting value of other types of guns for hunting.  And, I can understand how some would feel safer with a pistol around.  I can understand the sport of target practice with a gun that fires one round at a time.  What I don't understand is how an automatic weapon fits into 'sport' or 'safety'.

Automatic weapons are already heavily regulated and I don't possess any.  As far as I know, the current national debate has nothing to do with full-auto guns like you describe in your question.  Thankfully, very few criminals possess them either as they have been banned from import since like 1986(?).  To legally acquire one, there is much paperwork, an expensive tax stamp and an extensive amount of time for background checks, etc. before you even get to the point of buying an automatic weapon.  At that point, you are probably looking at a minimum of $20,000 to actually purchase one of these.  These guns are what our military carry while on active duty, but very few retired military go through the hoops to own one as a civilian.  These guns are the true killing machines but I can't recall hearing any of these perps actually using full auto weapons in a mass killing.  Full auto guns keep firing as long as the shooter has the trigger depressed and/or until they run out of ammunition. 

The closest thing I've heard to a full-auto mass shooting is the Las Vegas killer using bump stocks, which are a novelty item used to speed the trigger action of a SEMI-automatic (one trigger pull = one round) to spit out rounds at nearly the same speed of a full-auto gun, but with zero accuracy, causing your gun to just spray bullets in a general indiscriminate direction.  Given the crowd he was shooting at, accuracy didn't really matter and the bump stocks were highly effective.  I've never owned a bump stock and given the lack of purpose beyond the one I just described, I can't thing of an effective use for them.  Most gun people agree and there is very little support for keeping them and I expect them to be banned.  The problem is, the concept is simple enough, homemade bump stocks are not uncommon.

All the Ar-15s I've been around are semi-automatic weapons.  I can eject rounds just about as fast from a Ruger 10-22 (common squirrel gun) as I can an AR-15, although a 10-22 looks much less threatening to many who don't understand guns than an AR-15 does (feel free to google images for yourself).  I can still put out a pretty good hail of gunfire from a semiautomatic weapon simply by rapidly and repeatedly squeezing the trigger.  The reason I want a semiautomatic weapon for home defense is two-fold.  First, there is always the chance of multiple assailant home invasions, unlikely as that seems.  I read about them pretty much every month in my American Rifleman magazine (they are always referenced local news stories). Secondly, I don't have it at my fingertips, but there was a study regarding gun accuracy in high-stress situations.  As I recall, they looked at actual trained police officers and found that during gunfights, the officers hit their intended target like 13% of the time.  While I practice a fair amount at my own private range, I doubt I'll be any more effective than trained police officers if the moment ever comes where I am forced to fire in self-defense. In light of that, I'm not sure a 44 round magazine is sufficient, depending on the size of the threat.  My home defense (semiautomatic) AR pistol is a lot of fun shooting at steel targets 100 yards away.  I hope and pray that is the only reason for using it during my lifetime.

Hope that clears things up a bit.  My disclaimer, I'm a gun nut and an FFL holder, but not an expert in all matters of firearms. Therefore, I reserve the right to have said something not entirely correct that someone smarter may need to amend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, FKIM01 said:
  1. Yes, you're generalizing. There is a very broad spectrum of opinions on what should be done.  As the evidence mounts that today's youth are simply not as mentally mature as they used to be, there is widespread support for raising the minimum purchase age to 21. I like the suggested exemption for active duty persons.
  2. You and I will have to disagree that outlawing AR-15s will protect children.  I believe it's a useless step as people with evil intent will simply move to the next available weapon and in 20 years, methods we can't even imagine that are far more lethal than AR-15s will be created/dreamed up.  Right now, if I were willing to jump through the hoops, pay the tax stamp fee and spend a sizable sum of money, I could buy a FULLY automatic weapon for my own personal use.  It seems silly to outlaw a semi-automatic weapon when this option still exists.  Who would have dreamed of flying 747s into tall buildings or blowing up trucks filled with diesel fuel and fertilizer before an evil heart thought of it?
  3. It doesn't matter how unlikely you or I think such an event may be.  Multiple assailant attacks do happen and as a law-abiding citizen, I think I deserve the right to choose my method of protection without the government deciding it's too effective and stripping away my constitutional rights.
  4. Would the gun rules in the countries mentioned stop 9/11 or Timothy McVeigh?  Again, you and I will will have to agree on whether or not this problem is uniquely American or not.  Please don't be offended as I'm not of the opinion that all Americans have evil hearts.  I am, however, of the opinion that too much evil exists in this country and I think we see the evidence almost daily in the news cycle.  I don't believe we are as evil as ISIS, but we seem to have more than our share here. I want to protect myself as effectively as possible from the threat of evil.

Finally, assuming the UK system would not allow me to maintain my home defense AR pistol, no...I would not be in favor of less-effectively protecting my family because someone else broke the law.  The Florida tragedy could have absolutely been avoided if just one of the multiple warnings/red flags had been taken seriously and/or if school security was more effective.  I get frustrated when the knee-jerk reaction is to make more laws when we already seem to struggle with enforcement of the ones we have.  ARs existed here peacefully for many years before someone got the bright idea to use them for evil.  I can only wonder what the next weapon of choice will be for these idiots that shoot up schools and workplaces.

I can pretty well agree with point 1 and can see where you're coming from on point 3. Point 2 and 4 I think we have a different perspective. You're right, people can always find new ways to cause harm but in all those other ways we out new policies in place to stop it from happening again. We seem to be failing that with guns and I personally can't understand the "well they'll just find another way" argument. 

Also, thanks for clarifying your point in evil people. Makes sense what you meant by it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, mrflynn03 said:

Ok, who cares what other countries do. The fact is, America is an continental suzed country. It is bigger than europe, the uk, and the nordic countries you mentioned combined.  Maybe add up mass shootings/killings in all of those places and then compare. Remember this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik.

America is huge. I know, i have set foot in 42 different states all on the road.  It is very culturally diverse. The other countries that we are compared to in relation to guns are relatively homogenous compared to the U.S.  Mass shootings are shocking in their depravity but are statistically insignafigant, the vast majority of gun crimes are gang related or domestic. Rifles of all kinds are the least used weapons in homicides.  Restricting the ar15 and similar rifles will literally have zero effect on gun homicieds. Also, do you really trust the media to accurately report the details of these events? How do we really know what was used unless they produce photo evidence. They are all pushing an agenda and I trust none of them. 

It is a complete waste of time an energy to focus on guns.  That time and energy could be spent on real solutions or intermediate solutions 

 Do you realize when a mass shooting event happens and someone like diane fienstien promotes a gun bill, gun sales skyrocket. Which is the opposite of what they are trying to achieve.  It has been going on since 1994. You might not want to ban guns but the very vocal minority on the far left do. So it continues to push this debate to the extremes. People arent spending their money with the intention of giving their stuff up. 

The only evil/morally lacking people are the a**holes that commit these crimes.

Answer this honestly, if semi-auto rifles were banned out of existence and semi-auto pistols were used in mass shootings ( i.e. virginia tech,or this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_shooting ) would you want to see them banned?  What is the end game?

The simple response is to look at per capita statistics and see we are pathetic when it comes to gun violence in America. That takes the size difference out of the equation. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, rico said:

Let's leave hunting out of the equation.  Although there are certain types of "game" where it would be valuable.  Squirrels, rabbits, etc.

Say 4 guys break into your home.  What are you gonna do?  

Give them my keys and atm card along with pin and tell them to have a nice day? Kidding. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/28/2018 at 6:48 PM, KoB2011 said:

No deaths either...

The largest death toll from a school attack in US history was caused by explosives.... which I posted a link to up thread. 

On 3/4/2018 at 10:13 AM, KoB2011 said:

1) I agree no one wants these type of people having dangerous weapons, but one side (generalizing here) is advocating that we don't need to do anything to prevent eays access to dangerous weapons. 

2) probably true. So we should just stop protecting people because someone can always find another means of harming someone?

3) surely you can agree the likelihood of you getting into a shootout straight out of a Michael Bay film is incredibly unlikely? 

4) This point, which has been repeated in various ways throughout this thread is confusing to me. We see what works in other countries, why won't that work here? The theme seems to be that we are evil/lack morals yet we are much more likely to believe in angels in America than the UK, Nordic countries et al. So those godless places with heavy restrictions on guns seem to have figured something out, what's wrong with giving their playbook a try? As for me, I don't have an evil heart nor does my family. I find it HIGHLY offensive to be told that I do. 

 

Just some information for those that like to pretend those in favor of increased restrictions want to collect all the guns in America; the UK allows guns. They're more restrictive about who can purchase, what you can purchase and how they're kept, but they can absolutely have them. Making sure responsible gun owners don't have their fun ruined by everyone else? What a great model!

1.Those things you are proposing like they are some new, never before tried wonder solution have all been tried somewhere at some point and have failed. What we have not tried is hardening schools against attacks and eliminating areas where victims are prohibited from defending themselves. While no single thing can completely stop someone who is determined to commit mass murdered, hardening schools and arming teachers has had quite a bit of success in Israel where they have done a good job of stopping terrorists from attacking schools. 

2. The point that you ignore is that as long as defenseless victims are available someone determined to do harm will find a way to do so. The solution is not to create more defenseless victims, it is to allow the potential victims a chance to defend themselves. 

3. Very little in Hollywood is accurate most especially when it pertains to guns. By even the most conservative estimates, firearms are used to stop crimes by civilians half a million times per year, the majority of a time without a shot being fired. 

4. As I pointed out in some detail up thread, everything you've proposed has failed repeatedly both in the US and in other countries. Criminals do not obey laws, that is what makes them criminals. Someone determined to commit mass murder will find a way no matter what restrictions are placed on the law abiding. Depriving the law abiding of the tools to defend themselves only makes it easier for those bent on harm. 

On 3/5/2018 at 7:31 AM, 5fouls said:

I'm asking this out of true ignorance.  I'm not a gun guy.  Not even remotely.  For those that support private ownership of guns capable of firing multiple rounds in a short period of time, I'm curious as to the reason.  Is it simply to clarify the freedom provided by the Constitution? 

I can understand the sporting value of other types of guns for hunting.  And, I can understand how some would feel safer with a pistol around.  I can understand the sport of target practice with a gun that fires one round at a time.  What I don't understand is how an automatic weapon fits into 'sport' or 'safety'.

Fouls, there are several false assumptions contained in your questions. First, semi-automatic firearms(fires one shot per trigger pull), which is what we are talking about, are not fully automatic(capable of firing multiple shots per trigger pull) and are not capable of firing at a significantly higher rate than any other type of repeating firearm(revolvers, pump actions, lever actions, and bolt actions). Those other types may require a bit more skill and experience to operate quickly but the weapons themselves are capable of it. If you don't believe this, then do a search for Jerry Miculek shooting a revolver on youtube and watch a few videos. It is also important to realize that pulling the trigger fast is not the rate limiting step of firing a gun, aiming is. It takes longer to aim a shot accurately than it does to pull the trigger, regardless of action type. 

Second, even single shot firearms can be used to do great harm when the victims have no means of escape and are kept defenseless. A professor at Purdue created a model using FBI statistics that shows that the single most important factor in reducing the casualties at mass shooting is the amount of time it takes for the shooter to be confronted by an armed person. The average police response time in the US is about 10 minutes and that is a lot of time to do a lot of damage even with single shot weapons.

Third, criminals often do not act alone, making a weapon capable of firing multiple shots quickly(regardless of action type) more beneficial for the intended victims to be able to engage multiple criminals in order to defend themselves. Laws against repeating weapons (as you seem to be suggesting) harms the victims chance to defend themselves more than it does the criminals since the criminal gets to pick the time, location, and circumstance of the attack, not to mention that the criminal, by definition does not follow the law. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Seeking6 said:

Give them my keys and atm card along with pin and tell them to have a nice day? Kidding. 

Though you were kidding,  that wouldn't be a terrible decision often it might a quite rational decision. Belongings can be replaced and atm cards can be canceled. The question is, what if the bad guys are not satisfied with simply taking your belongings? Depending solely on the mercy and rationality of a criminal doesn't seem like a winning proposition even if their primary goal is theft. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, hoosierBGH said:

Though you were kidding,  that wouldn't be a terrible decision often it might a quite rational decision. Belongings can be replaced and atm cards can be canceled. The question is, what if the bad guys are not satisfied with simply taking your belongings? Depending solely on the mercy and rationality of a criminal doesn't seem like a winning proposition even if their primary goal is theft. 

I was kidding to keep a volatile subject friendly....but if faced with this situation that probably wouldn't be the worst route. Diffuse situation and get them out of home. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...