Another shooting....

Now, if you can just instill your theories into all those criminal minds and nut cases out there and get them to obey them, you will have fixed all our problems without making responsible gun owners the scapegoat for them. Good luck with that.
 
:cheers: Im not mad at all.
Im also not a member of the NRA ( :D )

But to say I dont know how the world works is laughable. To say I cant responsibly argue is also laughable.

I wanted someone to post reasonable, provable, and legitimate proof to their point. None of you could do that. without using the news or random statistics, no one could prove the point you were trying to make. You included. Call me an idiot or whatever else you want. It's just the internet. But I will still laugh as I have a standing for my arguement and you just verified it.

I stand behind the idea that the constitution and the surrounding documents should be the basis and groundwork for anything here in the US. As you so kindly provided, that is not the case. The world is run by crooks who are so disconnected from the rest of us. Most have their self made money from 1 of the 3 most expensive things in the US (insurance, oil, drugs) And they sit on that money and make changes that affect us and not them.
This is starting to sound a whole lot like what was going on when this country came into form.
As the government gets more currupt and limits the rights and powers of the people it becomes ore true. And as such we need to make a stand for ourselves. What means does this take? Some letters to your representative? Protests? Riots? Who knows. But it was done once before. And to say this country isnt on verge of revolution is an oversight. We are drastically split 50/50.
You want me to respect your opinion. Please argue it in a way that you are not standin on clouds, but a solid platform. I will listen and hopefully learn. ( im only as good as how much i know about the dissenting opinion to my arguemnt)
Until then, Ill just sit back, laugh at the folks that take the interwebz way too seriously, and know that if/when there is a split, you and I will live in two different countries...

Ok. This is the CENTRAL IDEA of what I am basing everything on. I don't want people to die. How is that standin in the clouds? I don't want people to die? Yeah sure, I know, I'm a terrible, crazy, air-headed liberal that knows nothing.

Now your probably going to say for the millionth time how the government is going to turn into a tyranny and kill us all. This is the 21st century man, the amount of information flowing from person to person, nation to nation, is incomprehensible. A mass slaughter of people like the Holocaust and other countries where this has happened is virtually impossible in a country such ours. How are the corrupt politicians, corporations, and government going to make money off of us if they kill us all? Hm. The people in power aren't murders, they are money hungry hippos who NEED US to keep their fat paychecks they love so much. The Nazi's and governments that do kill their own citizens are indeed murders, ours are not.
 
Ok. This is the CENTRAL IDEA of what I am basing everything on. I don't want people to die. How is that standin in the clouds? I don't want people to die? .
Well ya. No one does.
But for a legal argument, "want" doesnt mean anything.
What matters is what you can prove, show someone proved it and supported it before(precedent). Tie it back into the foundation for all law(supposedly) in our country. Hint: thats the constitution.

And I know I said it before. but there are just too many posts to go back through.
The government isnt going to come kill us. Just doesnt make sense like you said. The Nazi reference is made off of how they limited power and rights and secluded individuals.
That would be like banning guns. (violation of 2nd and a good example of limiting power of the people)
Limit what people can or cant buy and from where.
secluding and seperating folks (that is easiest seen in requirement to register...sex offenders, register to own a gun, register guns, etc)

We all know it wont be a matter of the gov coming after the people. But the peoples ability to not become the next victims. (imagine if the jewish community put up a good fight for themselves before it was too late)
Victims of what? Well a tyrant - a gov that oversteps its limits and controls all aspects of your life and limits your rights promised in the foundation of the country.

our country wasnt established because things were super groovy and we all talked it out and were granted the ability to leave.
There was a gov that was so seperated from the people, controlling everything. Getting personally rich off taxing everything the middle and poor used and wanted. They limited the rights and monitored every move. The founders took it upon themselves to stand up and fight for fair rights and equal treatment. This was done with the arms the gov didnt want them to have, and knew that in a new gov the ability for the people to stand up and protect themselves from being subject to that type of governing was dependant on people being able to posses and use arms to whatever extent neccessary. (where the 2nd comes from)

It isnt pretty, or as some see it - likely, but it is the truth, it is history, and how we got to where we are.
Will we be invaded by tanks from our own gov. no.
will we need to defend our rights and liberties to whatever end like before, possibly. But insuring our ability to do so is a must.
 
Last edited:
We are making progress brother. lol

I kind of see where your thought process is coming from with the whole giving up liberties and freedoms. But the second amendment is only 3.7% of the number of amendments to the constitution. That means 96.3% of the constitution has nothing to do with this issue and is untouched. More strict gun control only modifies ONE amendment, we are giving up NOTHING else. We are actually giving up nothing at all since you still have the right to own a rifle or handgun and put a bullet in the intruder robbing your home. It takes ONE bullet...nothing more.

But if your not for banning all these high powered, rapid firing weapons that are killing small children, your crazy. Your not going to defend yourself with an AR15 when that guy robs your house.

Is Princeton a good enough source for you?

http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/14/did-the-federal-ban-on-assault-weapons-matter/
 
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...-for-more-guns-and-more-gun-control/309161/3/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...le-we-can-do-to-prevent-another-massacre.html

Both long articles, but both have pretty good insights into the problem(even if you don't agree with the writers final solution.)

As far as the "all powerful NRA", Billions and billions from the gun industry, etc, controlling public policy:
Does it occur to any one that somewhere between 45% and 50% of the population will admit when polled to owning at least one gun,.. And maybe another 20% own guns and won't admit it to pollsters? Could it be that gun prohibition just isn't that popular in the US?
 
I think it is funny people are worried about large capacity magazines and the damage they cause.

Of the recent shootings:
How many shots were fired?
How many successful reloads?
How many hits were actually made?
How many jams were successfull cleared in a quick amount of time?

I can think of a number of older gentlemen who prefer lever actions and super black hawks to ar's and glocks. and despite the ammo capacity downfall, could fire/reload at an alarming rate, hit more accurately, and be far more "effective" with their pistol/rifle.

It isnt the weapon, or how many rounds it holds. The people doing this crap are not 'plinkers' or 'gun activists' or well versed in gun control/use. It is the uninformed, untrained, off the wall jack ass that does something. So how does disarming the folks that dont fly off the handle help? Maybe work on informing the rest of the folks. :dunno: Just seems more common sense to take a proactive action and educate people than to freak out.

I am minded of someone who gave me grief over carrying my M1991A1SS - because I only had seven-round magazines, and he had fifteen rounds in his M9.

We were at an outdoor range, and it wasn't busy, so I called the RSO over and told him what I wanted to do:

- We would each put out three targets - one at seven yards, one at fifteen, and one at 25.
- We were each allowed a total of fifteen rounds (15+0 for him, 7+1 + 7 for me - two mags full and one up the spout in the beginning.)
- Each of us had to put five rounds on each target - for score - as fast as possible. RSO had to say "Go!" - so there was no advantage, and we had to wait for it (to his credit, he had both of us standing there waiting for a good three minutes before he gave the "Go!" order.)

By the time he'd finished engaging the secon dtarget (15y,) I'd already engaged the first target, reloaded while engaging the second, engaged the third, dropped the empty and did a "clear and lock" on my sidearm back on the bench. I beat him by a good ten seconds. I also beat him by a good forty points and 2 or 3X when it was all counted up (he'd miscounted his rounds anyhow - had six holes in the 7y and 15y target, and only 3 in the 25y. The RSO scored us - decided to drop the the score closest to average for the target to deal with the extra holes, and the score was lost for the 25y target.)

We then posted new targets and swapped sidearms, and repeated the performance. I think I edged him out by 12s probably 60 points, and 3X or so. However, he did get his shot counts right that time, each target had five holes in it! But, out of his 15 rounds, he had about six that were "off the island" and scored nil.

Qualifying with a firearm to be used under stress is not about point-shooting - it's about stress-shooting. Since its' inherently unsafe to have someone shooting at you when you practise, you just have to find alternate means to initiate physical/psychological stress. Any or all of the following, singly or in any combination you like:
- Great physical exertion. 100y wind-sprints are good for this.
- Physical wear. Hold a 15-20# weight with "wings spread" (arm straight out from the shoulder) for 3-5 minutes before you pick up your sidearm.
- Have someone shouting in your ear while you shoot.
- Have someone having a calm conversation with you while you're not facing the target, then he tosses firecrackers near you feet as your signal to start shooting (you're usually a quarter-turn away from the target, faced away from the guy talking to you.)
-- Additional Stressor: After doing a windsprint, you have to pick up your sidearm and load it - while you're panting and shaking!
-- Additional Stressor: Have your sidearm partially field-stripped, reassemble it after sprinting.
-- Additional Stressor: If you're using an auto, devise an "underload" where the bullet will clear the barrel (critical!) but the brass will fail to eject - either reseating back into the chamber, doulble-feeding with the next round, or "stovepiping." NB: Mark these rounds clearly in our ammo - I usually used a red stamp pad for the heads, or colour the head with a red Sharpie pen. Do not mix practice ammo and carry ammo! Think about it - you're tired, your shaking, you're trying to aim, and in the back of your mind, you just know that one round in, say, fifty will malfunction - but which one? The highest incidence of "malfunction rounds" I've used is five per hundred, or one in twenty. These would invariably be scattered randomly throughout my training ammo - you may get one out of twenty, or you may get most of the way through a hundred then hit a block of them. Randomness is critical here.

Consider these tips a starting point for inducing stress. How about sprinting and then hanging upside down from an overhead bar with a holstered sidearm - draw and fire while inverted? Or hang from the overhead by your smart hand, and do a weak-hand crossdraw and fire rounds that way? Be creative, but safety first! The ideas is to induce stress, not hurt someone while you're training (one of my favourites was to take a doubled strap and swat someone across the legs and lower back with it to screw up their aim. Not hard enough to raise welts, but hard enough to demand attention. NB: This sort of stress requires a high degree of trust between trainer and trainee! I reserved "physical interference" for advanced students.)
 
MJ3000 your logic is flawed. The way you make it sound a gun like an AR has no other purpose than to kill people. You also make it sound like if the are in existence than that is what they are going to be used for but it just simply isn't the case. There have been literally millions sold the last few years. By your logic we should be having mass murders committed in every school in every town across the nation. This simply isn't happening.

There are also many many more uses for an AR style gun than just hurting people. Personally I think they are one of the better small game hunting platforms out there. When we hunt prairie dogs and rabbits we need something fast and light yet powerful enough and accurate enough to reach out longer ranges. A well built AR is perfect for this. You also have to look at shooting competitions. Certain comps like three gun and others are perfect for an AR.

I think the thing that pisses me off the worst though is when people like you tell me "you don't need that". Well who the hell put you in charge of telling me what I need?

You don't need that jeep. By your logic we should all be driving a small awd cute ute. Beige, same make same model as everyone else because no one "needs" a green car. No one "needs" a corvette. No one "needs" a 4wd jeep that is capable of driving off road because no one "needs" to do that.

Personal expression can take many shapes, including the guns people like to own and shoot. Just because I like to shoot my AR doesn't mean I plan on killing anyone with it. It's a totally useless home defense gun but I thoroughly enjoy target shooting with it. I don't appreciate you trying to tell me why I'm wrong for that. It's none of your damn business and me owning it or the millions of others who own theirs and do so in a safe respectful manor hasn't made one damn bit of difference in the fact these shootings are happening more and more.

Remember also that Tim McVey killed over 160 people. 19 of them were kids in a daycare all under the age of six.

He used a box truck, diesel fuel and fertilizer. Yet oddly there wasn't a huge outcry to ban box trucks. Your logic is flawed.
 
We are making progress brother. lol


But if your not for banning all these high powered, rapid firing weapons that are killing small children, your crazy. Your not going to defend yourself with an AR15 when that guy robs your house.
We are. Ya ill take that source :laugh3:

Just to clarify? You are ok with handguns but not the "assault rifles" correct?

That interests me. As is the norm (ill use 2008 as example - it falls after the 2005 date) Handgun kills out number "other" gun kills by almost 4 fold.(2500+/- to 8800+/-)
The bushmaster .223 used in the school shooting is very similar to the other ar15 platforms used. It was a SEMI automatic rifle. Shoots no faster than a standard pistol or other types of rifles.
So why is the focus on these "assault weapons" that are really no different than a lot of other guns on the market. The full auto guns that most people assume these are, actually are harder to get.
So once you ban a type of fire arm that is really no different from a lot of other fire arms, what makes it hard to qualify the other guns as being in that category. And then you end up with an almost absolute ban by fault of interpretation of the ban.

Also. When most people train for high risk situations, it is not a one shot and hope he is dead type deal. Most practice at least 2 center mass shots. A lot of others pratice the 3 shot idea of 2 center mass 1 head. That is 3 rounds. In an instance where a female is being persued to her car, under the ban of 10 rounds or less, she has to hope there is only 3 attackers. Any more and she must reload to protect herself. Seconds count so she will likely lose. one click headshots would be great but not very practical. The target is smaller, as only the ocular cavity counts as a confirmed kill. That is a lot smaller than center mass. But ya ever seen someone under influence of heavy alchohol or drugs? They can take a serious amount of pain before they get the idea what is going on/drop. So several rounds might be needed per perp.

Tying back into the amendments. Yes, there are a ton of amendments. Some to dissolve prior amendments. Those prior amendments, the prohibition of alcohol, led to higher rates of crime and bloodshed as people ran it illegally. The prohibition was overturned as it caused more damage than it fixed.


If someone comes into my home, you are right, an ar15 will not be used. I dont like it. I dont feel the round is nearly as effective as some of the others that frequent my house. So why would I settle for the weaker ammo that comes out of a gun i dont even like. Ill stick to ammunition that has more ass in it and is designed to stop IN the perp i am aiming at instead of continuing on to harm someone else. (not a weapon issue, moreso an ammo choice issue)


Tying it all in.
The guns you are talking about are not even the guns being used. semi auto, basic, small caliber, low power ar15's that can be easily compared to the handguns or hunting rifles you all are ok to protect.
Giving up one right is unacceptable.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.​
 
Last edited:
HELP HELP, IM BEING OPPRESSED!
"bloody peasant!"

If anyone can come up with a LEGITIMATE argument for why they NEED an AR15 or AK47 that has the capability to fire an ungodly about of bullets in a short amount of time, please I'd love to hear it.

And don't get me wrong, I totally 100% support your "right to bear arms" for hunting and protection that every pro-gun person will preach like its the Bible.

More guns = less crime? Your stupidity hurts.

No huge mags, or war weapons.

If you have to give up the ability to fire off 100 rounds in your AR15

1. ungodly amount of bullets in a short amount of time? you realize it wasn't full auto? so i guess he had an "ungodly fast finger"?
2. the hunting rifles have generally larger caliber's therefore more deadly they just happen to not be black in color and "tacti-cool"
3. its fact that states with open carry laws have a per captia less % of violent crime and robbery.
4. huge mags? who uses anything above a 40? they exist but not many people use them because they are prone to FTF and are expensive as hell. and how exactly is a war weapon chambered in .223? i think you mean 5.56? which isnt the round used. and a .223 is just basically a larger .22
5. see the first part of #4 and put the action movie dvds away



Hmmmmm....Maybe we should get rid of the criminals then?

ban them it obviously makes everything safe right? oh wait its already illegal to be a criminal.

I used and said hunting because ummmm besides killing people....what is the other main thing people use a gun for?! Hunting!

competition shooting, target shooting, protecting your home, collecting, keeping your government honest, etc etc etc

we need more CCWs, more NRA, and a gun in every capable and competent household.

i cant belive i agree 2x in one thread, somethings wrong.
 
This is out of control.

If you don't like guns, don't buy em and keep crying on the internet about it.

Billions of guns in the world and they fall in to the hands of a few people with a death wish and rage towards others and now people "care". Its sad to see, don't get me wrong. But why aren't you over seas somewhere defending the masses of innocent people getting killed every day? Oh, because that would require you to leave your computer and do something.

Pro guns, anti guns, who gives a shit? They've been around and will be around long after we are all gone. If someone has em to collect or go rec shooting with why does that matter to anyone else? It doesn't.

My family, between myself, father, uncles, etc. Probably own... 100-125 guns, is that bad? **** no, first thing I bought when I got my first rifle was a safe... responsible? Yes... but I'm a monster for having an ar 15 with 5 30 round mags always loaded in the safe right? No, if you think so then we probably wouldn't be friends and I could give a **** less.

I just don't get how people that don't own guns can come out in an outrage and try to prove ludacris points to responsible gun owners, then pitch their "ideal" gun law... gfy and get off the computer and go shoot a gun.
 
The basis of a militia is to be able to take a stand against a government wishing to use power and politics to rule the people without a voice from the people. we regulated means trained.
I always had a difficult time with this concept since your government is run by Americans voted-in by other Americans. Don't like them? Vote for someone else next time. Problem with a foreign power? Call in the army. Militias only made sense – to me at least - during the American Revolution since you didn't have a standing army capable of defeating the British. Today, militias would only make sense as a supplement to the national guard (during natural disasters, etc...), only aiding the government defeats the purpose of the militia you described, so that’s a moot point. Also, the NRA seems to be pretty tight with the very government you distrust,


HAHA. you think the only way the gov can wage a war is to literally shoot people? You ARE an idiot. I thought you did homework? Skid history class? The refernce used of the nazis isnt for the mass murders its about the elimination of rights. The gov keeps getting more and more powerful and elminates more and more rights and freedoms. Next thing you know you have to wear a badge of your religion and political preference.
That's just fear mongering. In fact, you make it sound like the government’s going to round up everyone with an NRA membership on a train bound for a gas chamber. Hilter was crazy, bitter after WWI, and obsessed with Darwinism. He also was astute to the power of propaganda.... something very difficult to control with today’s social media. I’m not scared of the government as much as I’m fearful of fox, msnbc, and the lobbyists behind them.


You can't hide behind the outdated constitution forever.
That’s not entirely fair. Rather, I would say it’s being monopolized by certain groups to polarize this debate, vilify gun-owners and pacifists alike, and ultimately increase gun sales.


Which is why you are so pathetic.
Dude, please don’t sink to that level.... it always has a way of destroying these conversations.


I can stab someone with a knife nearly as fast as someone can fire a semi auto and it doesn't require reloading. I guess you could call it a high capacity knife with unlimited ammo.
True, but the recent China stabbing spree saw 22 schoolchildren hurt... no one actually died.


420BlackXJ said:
So after that daily dose of reality, what do we ultimately do to help fix this? You can still hunt and own a weapon for protection, that's a founding principle of this country, no one can take that away from you. If it were up to me, you can own handguns and rifles, that's it. No huge mags, or war weapons.

Lately, I’ve come to appreciate – I stress this word - some of the American psyche to bare arms along with other right wing views. In fact, I think my views have moved towards the center. Having said that, I fail to see the logic behind paranoia fuelled hoarding, or the need for high capacity clips and assault weapons. We don’t have them here, and we feel perfectly safe. We don’t hoard in light of our own tragedies (and lord knows we have our fair share). In fact, Canadian homicide rates are down 30% since 2008. Even still, I suggested a plausible alternative to an outright ban involving a stringent classification process to own such arms (you know... like bikes/cars/trailers). Result – backlash with absolutely no compromise. Sure we can choke up a great deal of these incidents to mental illness; unfortunately, mental health is often intangible and difficult to diagnose. It’s easy to say guns don’t kill people... that people kill people; however, these conversations seldom go beyond that slogan. Nobody ever continues to ask about those people, can we help them, or stop them, or how to best secure firearms against them.

For better or for worst, guns are tangible. Encouraging responsible gun ownership is a tangible concept you can quantify with campaigns, policies, and follow-up statistics. Gun owners shouldn’t think of themselves as victims in this debate; instead, as good Samaritans willing to give an inch until society finds ways to combat mental health. Maybe it’s the Canuck in me, but I believe law abiding citizens shouldn’t fear reasonable laws.


Qualifying with a firearm to be used under stress is not about point-shooting - it's about stress-shooting. Since its' inherently unsafe to have someone shooting at you when you practise, you just have to find alternate means to initiate physical/psychological stress.
That sounds like allot to ask-of from... say... a recently armed teacher. You describe a level of training of someone suited for law enforcement or the military opposed to academics.
 
Emily Parker, age 6, was killed in the Conn. mass murder. They have only lived in Conn. for 8 months. Her family is from the town I live in and we have mutual friends.

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=23404268&ni...daughter-at-press-conference&s_cid=featured-2


Family friend of the Parker's have created this memorial fund to assist the Parker family.

Donation Options For the Emilie Parker Memorial:

America First Credit Union: Emilie Parker Memorial Account #5001359. For AFCU members transfer into Share Savings. For Non-AFCU members the routing number is 324377516

PAYPAL: Use the email - [email protected]

For US Post-Mail use:
Emilie Parker Memorial
PO Box 12751
Ogden, UT 84412-2751

To Donate to all the Sandy Hook Families Use the website:
newtown.uwwesternct.org

Thank you for your outpouring of love and support. This international concern is simply amazing. Thank you.

bump
 

Dude, you are the mirror reversed image of these 'gun strokers' you speak of. Your doing nothing but proving their point.

It's one thing to call someone an idiot because of their ideas... but dickbreath? Take that childish BULLSHIT somewhere else. You might as well have called them nazi's...
PLEASE STOP. Furthermore, I'd support your ban from posting in this subforum, since you cant handle honest debate without calling someone dick breath...

Sigh...
 
Dude, you are the mirror reversed image of these 'gun strokers' you speak of. Your doing nothing but proving their point.

It's one thing to call someone an idiot because of their ideas... but dickbreath? Take that childish BULLSHIT somewhere else. You might as well have called them nazi's...
PLEASE STOP. Furthermore, I'd support your ban from posting in this subforum, since you cant handle honest debate without calling someone dick breath...

Sigh...
**** you too. If you go back a few pages, you will find I was not the first to start namecalling.
Dear Dr Moab called me a "waste of breathable air". I just retaliated.
I also started posting with pretty reasonable suggestions, like arming a few select people in schools. And I don't support more gun control, but when goaded, I will state my objection to anything other than hunting and or handguns. And when I pointed out how lame the hoarding mentality was, that's where this thread took a downturn. These stubborn selfish gunowners just don't get it. Do you?
 
You are a troll and always have been.
 
need for high capacity clips and assault weapons. We don’t have them here, and we feel perfectly safe.

That sounds like allot to ask-of from... say... a recently armed teacher. You describe a level of training of someone suited for law enforcement or the military opposed to academics.

first of all, get the terminology right if you're going to argue something. It infuriates me when people try to argue things they have no knowledge of. baby Jesus punches a kitten in heaven every time you call a magazine a "clip"

this is a clip:
m1+garand+clip.jpg


Secondly, just because you see no need for it does not mean a need exists, or even a want for that matter.

We don't need gas guzzling 4.0 Jeeps, I guess we should make them illegal for the betterment of the world.

See how easy it is to make that argument against anything?

A few things.
I don't need a rifle with 30 rounds in a magazine to commit a mass murder. 10 rounds will work fine if I carry another 10 magazines. The shooter in CT had reloaded his pistol, so tell me how lower capacity magazines would have stopped him from simply reloading more.
Let's not even get into the fact that the repeating lever action rifle would be just as effective. Hell, it doesn't even have to run out before I could refill it's 100 year old 15 round tube. It can be operated just as quickly as a semi automatic firearm.

Burning down the building with all the doors barred is a more effective plan, we should hope that the mentally deranged don't get word of the effectiveness of fire, or we'll have to ban BIC lighters too.

There you go, I just proved to you that limiting the kinds of weapons will not matter.
 
here is a thought, it happened in the US, we are dealing with it, so if you are from a country that is just one step above a 3rd world because you could supply 6K troops to a war and your only contribution to the world is finally going into the hall of fame, don't lecture us.
 
Back
Top