Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 6:55:09 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2016 20:54:36 GMT
I believe it was the Colt AR15. But it doesn't really matter. It's just one of the selling points of the gun. Try focusing on what Adam Lanza was able to do with the gun--1 bullet every 2 seconds. murdered 20 children. The point is that no one needs these guns outside of the military.No, the point is that you want to ban "military" weapons because they fire too fast, while ignoring the fact that handguns fire at the same rate of speed. So that leaves you with a ban on a gun that only law abiding citizens will follow and a whole lot of hand guns that fire at the exact same rate of speed. Which is only as fast as you can pull he trigger. That's why people are telling you the ban is useless except to restrict (punish is not really the right word) law abiding gun owners. ETA: Again, no one is going to get 800 rounds a minute from an AR-15. Nothing even close.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 6:55:09 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2016 21:01:48 GMT
It is semantics to most lay people. Those who are against gun control use those arguments to shut people down because most lay people don't know about any details or specifics about guns. The gun manufacturer's advertise them as military/combat type weapons. They advertise the 800 rounds per minute, I didn't just make that up. Adam Lanza shot 145 rounds in 5 minutes. That is 29 bullets per minute; that is 1 bullet every 2 seconds and he was not a professional marksman by any measure. Banning these types of weapons for civilian use is not a bad thing. No, they don't try to shut people down, they try to make people understand the facts, just as I'm trying to. Which is that banning these weapons leaves weapons that can do the exact same thing that you want to ban.
Can you show me which manufacturers you've seen that are advertising 800 rounds a minute? I know that the OP doesn't apply to me but I'll ask the question anyhow because I want to know the answer Surely an AR15 type semi-automatic weapon which can have a high capacity magazine attached to it as standard and even higher in some cases isn't the same as a pistol/handgun is it? Do pistol/hand guns come with the same size capacity magazines as the AR15 or the weapon that was used in Orlando?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 6:55:09 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2016 21:20:20 GMT
No, they don't try to shut people down, they try to make people understand the facts, just as I'm trying to. Which is that banning these weapons leaves weapons that can do the exact same thing that you want to ban.
Can you show me which manufacturers you've seen that are advertising 800 rounds a minute? I know that the OP doesn't apply to me but I'll ask the question anyhow because I want to know the answer Surely an AR15 type semi-automatic weapon which can have a high capacity magazine attached to it as standard and even higher in some cases isn't the same as a pistol/handgun is it? Do pistol/hand guns come with the same size capacity magazines as the AR15 or the weapon that was used in Orlando? A standard magazine for an AR-15 is 30 rounds and you can get a higher capacity magazine for a handgun. Even if you don't have a magazine of that capacity, changing out the magazine takes seconds.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jun 17, 2016 21:21:04 GMT
No, they don't try to shut people down, they try to make people understand the facts, just as I'm trying to. Which is that banning these weapons leaves weapons that can do the exact same thing that you want to ban.
Can you show me which manufacturers you've seen that are advertising 800 rounds a minute? I know that the OP doesn't apply to me but I'll ask the question anyhow because I want to know the answer Surely an AR15 type semi-automatic weapon which can have a high capacity magazine attached to it as standard and even higher in some cases isn't the same as a pistol/handgun is it? Do pistol/hand guns come with the same size capacity magazines as the AR15 or the weapon that was used in Orlando? none of our guns came with high capacity magazines, but most of them could accommodate one. Perhaps a restriction on high capacity magazines would appease the gun control people. Not a ban, but maybe a more strict background requirement or registration. High capacity magazines are used in some shooting sports and competitions
|
|
|
Post by jenis40 on Jun 17, 2016 21:24:54 GMT
I'm not an expert on guns by any means but even I know that banning the AR15 will do absolutely nothing to prevent mass shootings. The problem is high capacity clips which can be used in other semi automatic rifles and handguns. An AR15 can't do anything more than any other semi automatic rifle that accepts a clip. However the AR15 is useless for hunting big game unless you are a very very good shot as the caliber (223) isn't big enough to bring down elk or moose. Most hunters use a 270 or 300 caliber rifle.
Now a rifle has more killing power than a handgun due to (I think) the higher velocity of the bullet being fired through the longer barrel of a rifle vs a handgun. But that's not going to matter as most mass shootings happen at close range.
Reducing clip size is going to cause the shooter to stop more often and reload which will presumably give the good guys a window to take the shooter down.
ETA I'm a liberal in favor of common sense gun control. Battling over trying to outlaw assault weapons is pointless.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 6:55:09 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2016 21:26:15 GMT
I know that the OP doesn't apply to me but I'll ask the question anyhow because I want to know the answer Surely an AR15 type semi-automatic weapon which can have a high capacity magazine attached to it as standard and even higher in some cases isn't the same as a pistol/handgun is it? Do pistol/hand guns come with the same size capacity magazines as the AR15 or the weapon that was used in Orlando? none of our guns came with high capacity magazines, but most of them could accommodate one. Perhaps a restriction on high capacity magazines would appease the gun control people. Not a ban, but maybe a more strict background requirement or registration. High capacity magazines are used in some shooting sports and competitions That is what crossed my mind. Thanks for the info.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 6:55:09 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2016 21:28:06 GMT
I know that the OP doesn't apply to me but I'll ask the question anyhow because I want to know the answer Surely an AR15 type semi-automatic weapon which can have a high capacity magazine attached to it as standard and even higher in some cases isn't the same as a pistol/handgun is it? Do pistol/hand guns come with the same size capacity magazines as the AR15 or the weapon that was used in Orlando? A standard magazine for an AR-15 is 30 rounds and you can get a higher capacity magazine for a handgun. Even if you don't have a magazine of that capacity, changing out the magazine takes seconds. Thanks for the info. I can't imagine why anyone in the home would want that capacity
|
|
|
Post by jenis40 on Jun 17, 2016 21:30:43 GMT
I know that the OP doesn't apply to me but I'll ask the question anyhow because I want to know the answer Surely an AR15 type semi-automatic weapon which can have a high capacity magazine attached to it as standard and even higher in some cases isn't the same as a pistol/handgun is it? Do pistol/hand guns come with the same size capacity magazines as the AR15 or the weapon that was used in Orlando? none of our guns came with high capacity magazines, but most of them could accommodate one. Perhaps a restriction on high capacity magazines would appease the gun control people. Not a ban, but maybe a more strict background requirement or registration. High capacity magazines are used in some shooting sports and competitions Or perhaps a law that these can only be kept at gun ranges or other places target shooting competitions occur.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 6:55:09 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2016 21:32:20 GMT
none of our guns came with high capacity magazines, but most of them could accommodate one. Perhaps a restriction on high capacity magazines would appease the gun control people. Not a ban, but maybe a more strict background requirement or registration. High capacity magazines are used in some shooting sports and competitions Or perhaps a law that these can only be kept at gun ranges or other places target shooting competitions occur. Carry on you're getting closer to our gun laws by the minute ( said tongue in cheek)
|
|
|
Post by Sam on Jun 17, 2016 21:38:05 GMT
Why are we even talking about punishing all gun owners based on what a few have done? Imagine the outrage if all Muslims were punished for what a few have done - - - oh wait, there is outrage. Ironically that outrage is from the same people who also want to take guns away from everyone based on a few. I haven't read the whole thread and this may well have been addressed by now, but what I DO NOT UNDERSTAND is that anyone can go into a gun store and, as long as they 'seem OK' given the somewhat limited check, they can buy a gun with NO proof that they have taken any lessons in how to use it, store it or respect it. If things actually work differently to that, I apologise for my ignorance, but all I see is that a basic background check is carried out and you are good to go. Obviously, where I live, we are far more limited in our ability to own or carry guns, but I do try to understand the views of the majority on here and respect that we have differing points of reference.
|
|
|
Post by jenis40 on Jun 17, 2016 21:38:22 GMT
Or perhaps a law that these can only be kept at gun ranges or other places target shooting competitions occur. Carry on you're getting closer to our gun laws by the minute ( said tongue in cheek) That would be fine by me. I think Great Britain and Australia have some very good common sense approaches to gun ownership. I don't think America will ever get even close to outright banning guns but there are a lot of things we can do to keep them out of the hands of the wrong people. I really don't think we should repeal the 2nd Amendment but I damn sure think we could start using some common sense in interpreting it.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jun 17, 2016 21:51:18 GMT
article on buying a gun from a gun storeA Federal background check IS required. An excerpt from the article listing where the FBI gets its information: "The Interstate Identification Index, a database of criminal history records; the National Crime Information Center, which includes information on people subject to orders of protection, or a restraining order; and the NICS Index, which includes illegal immigrants and those who’ve been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. State and local police are not required to submit criminal-record data to the FBI, David Chipman, a former agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), noted in an interview with the Charlotte Observer. Reporting “varies widely based on the practices of the individual departments. The smaller the town, the worse the records.” If I understand it correctly, this process doesn't have to happen every time-- if you underwent a more extensive check to get your concealed carry license, that will be on file so the next gun purchase won't have to go thru another background check. --And someone more knowledgeable please correct me if I misspoke!!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 6:55:09 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2016 21:58:28 GMT
Carry on you're getting closer to our gun laws by the minute ( said tongue in cheek) That would be fine by me. I think Great Britain and Australia have some very good common sense approaches to gun ownership. I don't think America will ever get even close to outright banning guns but there are a lot of things we can do to keep them out of the hands of the wrong people. I really don't think we should repeal the 2nd Amendment but I damn sure think we could start using some common sense in interpreting it. I agree with you and contrary to what a lot of Americans (in particular) think, we haven't actually banned guns here. We have very strict gun laws and they are strictly adhered to but they're not banned per se. I think one of the biggest problems you have is that so many states have different laws. If one state is fairly sensible about gun laws the next state might not be, the whole thing goes out the window. We of course don't have that problem being a smaller country with no individual state laws.
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Jun 17, 2016 22:04:12 GMT
That would be fine by me. I think Great Britain and Australia have some very good common sense approaches to gun ownership. I don't think America will ever get even close to outright banning guns but there are a lot of things we can do to keep them out of the hands of the wrong people. I really don't think we should repeal the 2nd Amendment but I damn sure think we could start using some common sense in interpreting it. I agree with you and contrary to what a lot of Americans (in particular) think, we haven't actually banned guns here. We have very strict gun laws and they are strictly adhered to but they're not banned per se. I think one of the biggest problems you have is that so many states have different laws. If one state is fairly sensible about gun laws the next state might not be, the whole thing goes out the window. We of course don't have that problem being a smaller country with no individual state laws. It's a catch 22 for us though. I'm a firm supporter of state's rights in particular because of the vast differences in needs of a very diverse and LARGE country. It makes sense to me for Wyoming and Connecticut to have different laws that meet the needs of their residents - but I agree with you that it complicates enforcement tremendously.
|
|
|
Post by shescrafty on Jun 17, 2016 22:06:21 GMT
Repeal completely? No I don't want that.
Amend current laws and stop loopholes? Yes indeed.
I would like mandatory gun education (like we do with drivers education) that would be necessary before purchasing a gun. Also passing a test on keeping a gun safe in your home/vehicle.
Receipt or proof of a gun safe or way to keep the guns from getting in the hands of children (yes I know not everyone would use them, but we require car seats for young children and not everybody uses them. Far more use them than would if there was no such requirement. I feel the same should be for any guns.) I have seen the majority of gun owners say it is irresponsible to not have guns secured, so I think this is reasonable.
Restrictions (if not an outright ban) on the high caliber clips of ammunition that have been discussed in this thread.
Military grade weapons to be kept at firing ranges vs at homes.
Loopholes that are present at gun shows regarding background checks to be closed. Second hand purchases by anyone should require background checks and mandatory waiting periods no matter where or when the weapons are purchased.
Ability to stop anyone with a restraining order, prior violent crime convictions, or name on the no fly list to never be able to purchase a weapon of any kind.
I do not want to restrict how many guns someone has at all. I do not own any guns and would never buy one or allow one in my home, but I do feel many people are responsible. If you are a responsible gun owner I don't think you would disagree with any of the above guidelines because it is using a more common sense approach (IMO). The problem I see is the NRA is so hell bent on not providing any restrictions at all and they are so powerful that there seems to be no hope for common sense. They would rather have more mass shootings and no restrictions at all is what it seems.
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Jun 17, 2016 22:10:27 GMT
"If you are a responsible gun owner I don't think you would disagree with any of the above guidelines..."
^^^ so what you're saying is: if someone does disagree with your suggestions (for whatever reason), then they must not be a responsible gun owner? I will respectfully have to disagree with THAT statement.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jun 18, 2016 0:03:36 GMT
Ughh! I have your name capitalized when I type my post Gia LuPeaA! I put the "@" symbol in front and the "G" becomes a g when I post! You need to type @ mytnice (minus the space) to get it to come up as @mytnice. Different display name and user name, that's why.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 6:55:09 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2016 0:10:46 GMT
Just click on the little icon with a picture of a @ and a person, above where you type your post. A box will pop up type in gia and a few selections will appear then just click on mine and you're done.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 6:55:09 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2016 0:19:55 GMT
I do not want to restrict how many guns someone has at all. I do not own any guns and would never buy one or allow one in my home, but I do feel many people are responsible. If you are a responsible gun owner I don't think you would disagree with any of the above guidelines because it is using a more common sense approach (IMO). No offense meant to you personally, but the last thing that gun owners want or will accept is someone who doesn't own a gun trying to make the rules and tell them what is reasonable. Buy a gun, learn to shoot with it, get a carry permit, live with them for 50 years, hunt with them, and use them for protection, sport, or competition and then come back and tell us what is reasonable.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 6:55:09 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2016 0:27:08 GMT
Repeal completely? No I don't want that. Amend current laws and stop loopholes? Yes indeed. I would like mandatory gun education (like we do with drivers education) that would be necessary before purchasing a gun. Also passing a test on keeping a gun safe in your home/vehicle. Receipt or proof of a gun safe or way to keep the guns from getting in the hands of children (yes I know not everyone would use them, but we require car seats for young children and not everybody uses them. Far more use them than would if there was no such requirement. I feel the same should be for any guns.) I have seen the majority of gun owners say it is irresponsible to not have guns secured, so I think this is reasonable. Restrictions (if not an outright ban) on the high caliber clips of ammunition that have been discussed in this thread. Military grade weapons to be kept at firing ranges vs at homes. Loopholes that are present at gun shows regarding background checks to be closed. Second hand purchases by anyone should require background checks and mandatory waiting periods no matter where or when the weapons are purchased. Ability to stop anyone with a restraining order, prior violent crime convictions, or name on the no fly list to never be able to purchase a weapon of any kind. I do not want to restrict how many guns someone has at all. I do not own any guns and would never buy one or allow one in my home, but I do feel many people are responsible. If you are a responsible gun owner I don't think you would disagree with any of the above guidelines because it is using a more common sense approach (IMO). The problem I see is the NRA is so hell bent on not providing any restrictions at all and they are so powerful that there seems to be no hope for common sense. They would rather have more mass shootings and no restrictions at all is what it seems. Why? I don't have children at home. I don't have grandchildren. There are no children in our neighborhood because we live in an adults only neighborhood. Please explain to me why you think that I should have to store my guns in a way that protects children and PROVE it before I can purchase a gun. ETA: For what it's worth, most of my guns are stored in a safe, but that's to ensure that they aren't stolen.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jun 18, 2016 0:32:10 GMT
I do not want to restrict how many guns someone has at all. I do not own any guns and would never buy one or allow one in my home, but I do feel many people are responsible. If you are a responsible gun owner I don't think you would disagree with any of the above guidelines because it is using a more common sense approach (IMO). No offense meant to you personally, but the last thing that gun owners want or will accept is someone who doesn't own a gun trying to make the rules and tell them what is reasonable. Buy a gun, learn to shoot with it, get a carry permit, live with them for 50 years, hunt with them, and use them for protection, sport, or competition and then come back and tell us what is reasonable. So no one who isn't a lifelong gun owner and user is entitled to an opinion on gun control laws, pro or con?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 6:55:09 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2016 0:38:07 GMT
Repeal completely? No I don't want that. Amend current laws and stop loopholes? Yes indeed. I would like mandatory gun education (like we do with drivers education) that would be necessary before purchasing a gun. Also passing a test on keeping a gun safe in your home/vehicle. Receipt or proof of a gun safe or way to keep the guns from getting in the hands of children (yes I know not everyone would use them, but we require car seats for young children and not everybody uses them. Far more use them than would if there was no such requirement. I feel the same should be for any guns.) I have seen the majority of gun owners say it is irresponsible to not have guns secured, so I think this is reasonable. Restrictions (if not an outright ban) on the high caliber clips of ammunition that have been discussed in this thread. Military grade weapons to be kept at firing ranges vs at homes. Loopholes that are present at gun shows regarding background checks to be closed. Second hand purchases by anyone should require background checks and mandatory waiting periods no matter where or when the weapons are purchased. Ability to stop anyone with a restraining order, prior violent crime convictions, or name on the no fly list to never be able to purchase a weapon of any kind. I do not want to restrict how many guns someone has at all. I do not own any guns and would never buy one or allow one in my home, but I do feel many people are responsible. If you are a responsible gun owner I don't think you would disagree with any of the above guidelines because it is using a more common sense approach (IMO). The problem I see is the NRA is so hell bent on not providing any restrictions at all and they are so powerful that there seems to be no hope for common sense. They would rather have more mass shootings and no restrictions at all is what it seems. Why? I don't have children at home. I don't have grandchildren. There are no children in our neighborhood because we live in an adults only neighborhood. Please explain to me why you think that I should have to store my guns in a way that protects children and PROVE it before I can purchase a gun. I would expand keeping the gun secured not only from children but also from the common thief who should happen to break into your home while you are away. Theft of guns is one big way legal guns become illegal guns on the street. The last time I checked there were 250,000 guns reported stolen in one year. The people who keep track of this type of information stressed that was guns reported stolen. They have no idea how many guns were stolen in burglaries and not reported. It must be a fair number because a city is trying to pass a law that you must report your gun if it's stolen. So it's not just children that the guns should be kept from but the bad guys as well.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 6:55:09 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2016 0:42:03 GMT
No offense meant to you personally, but the last thing that gun owners want or will accept is someone who doesn't own a gun trying to make the rules and tell them what is reasonable. Buy a gun, learn to shoot with it, get a carry permit, live with them for 50 years, hunt with them, and use them for protection, sport, or competition and then come back and tell us what is reasonable. So no one who isn't a lifelong gun owner and user is entitled to an opinion on gun control laws, pro or con? You can have an opinion, just like someone who has never had children can have an opinion on how to raise a child.
|
|
aemetcrue
Shy Member
Posts: 34
Sept 22, 2015 21:24:06 GMT
|
Post by aemetcrue on Jun 18, 2016 0:48:34 GMT
Only a fool would consider such a thing.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jun 18, 2016 0:50:37 GMT
So no one who isn't a lifelong gun owner and user is entitled to an opinion on gun control laws, pro or con? You can have an opinion, just like someone who has never had children can have an opinion on how to raise a child. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Lucky me, I get to have an opinion either way!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 6:55:09 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2016 0:55:37 GMT
You can have an opinion, just like someone who has never had children can have an opinion on how to raise a child. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Lucky me, I get to have an opinion either way! Obviously you read it wrong. You can certainly have an opinion. I personally think that your (global you) opinion as a non gun owner is uninformed, but have whatever opinion you want. But don't expect gun owners to let non gun owners try to make the rules.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jun 18, 2016 1:18:24 GMT
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Lucky me, I get to have an opinion either way! Obviously you read it wrong. You can certainly have an opinion. I personally think that your (global you) opinion as a non gun owner is uninformed, but have whatever opinion you want. But don't expect gun owners to let non gun owners try to make the rules. Fortunately, I am NOT a non-gun-owner. So I guess I'm in. But seriously. Gun owners may not like it, but everyone gets to voice an opinion (ETA which means, to help make the rules). I expect fervent gun people might want to try talking nicely to gun control people (who actually are sometimes the same people) instead of just telling them to sit down and shut up.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Jun 18, 2016 1:39:44 GMT
So according to a few here, we should just shut the fuck up and let the gun cup runneth over. "Who gives a shit about gun control?" "Guns don't kill people" "Mass Shooters are just going to do it anyway" "You don't get a voice because you don't own guns" "you don't count because your a liberal" "or a Democrat" "my right to have assault/military type guns trumps your right to breath air" "children mass murdered by gunfire? Who cares?"
People sicken me.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 6:55:09 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2016 2:09:53 GMT
So according to a few here, we should just shut the fuck up and let the gun cup runneth over. "Who gives a shit about gun control?" "Guns don't kill people" "Mass Shooters are just going to do it anyway" "You don't get a voice because you don't own guns" "you don't count because your a liberal" "or a Democrat" "my right to have assault/military type guns trumps your right to breath air" "children mass murdered by gunfire? Who cares?" People sicken me. Yes, that's exactly what I said.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 14, 2024 6:55:09 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2016 2:16:18 GMT
So according to a few here, we should just shut the fuck up and let the gun cup runneth over. "Who gives a shit about gun control?" "Guns don't kill people" "Mass Shooters are just going to do it anyway" "You don't get a voice because you don't own guns" "you don't count because your a liberal" "or a Democrat" "my right to have assault/military type guns trumps your right to breath air" "children mass murdered by gunfire? Who cares?" People sicken me. Nobody is saying that. You and I were having a rational discussion, did you just abandon it? People are simply trying to get the point across that you have to know something about what you're trying to make laws about, otherwise you can't accomplish what you're trying to accomplish.
|
|