A firearm question for you LeftiesFollow

ARs have an incredible range and throughput advantage, severely limiting chance of retaliation while using them. And I mentioned a T-shotgun since you can much better approach those characteristics.

Edited, Dec 24th 2012 6:57pm by Timelordwho

Perhaps there are other solutions if you expect to be waylaid on the roads. And even if you were, I specifically did not say you wouldn't be allowed to have some sort of firearm.

If you expect to be waylaid by 30+ goons packing heavy weapons, and feel the need to arm yourself appropriately, I'd imagine you've made more than a few poor life choices before it got to this point, and I doubt that the minutiae of the law are particularly relevant to your specific situation.

Not so, Time. Each person cooped up in their project housing unit waiting for dawn to break so they can go outside after the criminals have finally gone to bed are living under tyranny. These people don't have much say in where they live. Its' where they can afford to be. All of which is not to say they aren't already armed to the teeth, but by criminalizing them for owning a weapon like they do in DC, Chicago, and NY, you only victimize them further.

Totem

Yes, I've done this, and more specifically, done this with the weapon which was used in the CT shooting. With a much smaller target, and at a much greater range. At 30yd, however, none of the shots missed a ~4.5in radius target. I'm not even a stellar shot, firing in burst. The grouping would be much closer with single shot. Even chainfiring the whole clip it would be incredibly hard not to score a kill on a man sized target at that range. Even at much further (ie, the intended range) it is quite accurate.

Yes, handguns are much less accurate, that's the point.

You don't see these people saying if only there was a armed bystander that stray round wouldn't had went though their wall and killed their family member. Some of the largest gun turn in programs are done with in these districts with help from the community namely church groups aiding law enforcement. Also the law abiding citizens in the inner city know that if they were to return fire and injure or kill one of these criminals they would subjected to retaliation. So some of the more vocal gun control voices start in the inner cities but since shootings and open gang warfare there are so common it doesn't make national news and neither does the voices of the victims.

Way I look at it, the right was given when the norm wasn't capable of wiping out a city block. 1 Shot 1 kill. Muskets. They couldn't see today having ballbearings in shells, or high capacity assault weapons, semi automatic hand guns. Perhaps it is time to look at a revision to the right. Times have changed and some weapons aren't meant to be in the hands of people period.

I can own a shot gun here, I have 1 I take hunting, I also have a 22 that I take hunting, or shooting. But I can't own an assault rifle...and Canada has one of the lowest gun related crimes in the world.

We have the same movies, the same video games, the same music, the same TV shows, the same culture, yet we can't own assault rifles.

Time to change, the times have changed, let me know how a gun from 200 years ago compares to a gun from today.

That's true. Mainly because the guns come in from suburban Cook county anyway. We should probably do something about that.


Or no one having the guns. Which I bet would have been their #1 choice, well ahead of "Teacher shoot-outs in the classroom".

That was some of the worst and ham-handed appeal-to-emotion "debating" I've seen in ages. Nice to see you were so flustered by me though to give it a shot. Here's an emote for you:


Back in the 1700's, a bunch of people fought to give us the right to choose our own religion and faith... except to disagree that some guys from 200 years ago were anything but infallible and to fail to treat their word as anything but Holy Writ is to be undeserving of being an American.

I'm sure those people would be proud.

Edited, Dec 24th 2012 9:24pm by Jophiel

Why ask questions to answers that you already know? More rounds = more damage. If the purpose of having a weapon is to protect yourself, then you only need a handful of rounds. Anything more than that, then you're more likely to be on the assault.

The slower the rounds fire, the more time allotted for the shooter to be stopped before more people are harmed.




Key word, amendment.



The functions of vehicles, and like devices that result in death, heavily outweigh the intentional misuses for harm. There is absolutely no purpose in firearms other than to kill.



You have this fallacy of an innate dichotomy where people are born good or evil and never change. Just because you're a law abiding citizen when you bought the fire arm, doesn't mean you are when you come home to your wife in the bed with another person or you lose your job, wife and kids and feel like you hit rock bottom in life.

What is always puzzling to me is why the Left continues to infantilize the American public when it comes to weapons. The dichotomy in thinking that a 10 round magazine is somehow safer than a 30 round magazine just demonstrates two things: A fundamental lack of understanding about weaponry and the hypocrisy of purposefully undercutting safety in the name of safety.

I don't know. You've had similar training to me, and you know a good time to return fire is when someone is reloading away from cover. I'd rather have more chances at that opportunity, knowing my 10 shots should plenty to put one crazy down since I'm not there to kill dozens of people.

The whole tenor of debate in America mystifies me. I don't care even slightly about the right to own a gun. I'd rather have the right to live in peace and good health, thank you. I don't understand America at all..

Too bad we own everything :(

Yes. more chances for damage. I sit corrected.

Nonono, Obama could promote himself to dictator any minute and then the army will serve him and the guns people have in their homes will be needed for the militia so they can fight back against the dark lord.

Racist.

To be fair that is how it actually goes down in a lot of countries. It's part of why I don't support a wholesale ban on firearms, but that doesn't stop me from recognizing the fact that the vast majority of people in this nation have no need for firearms and/or should not be trusted with firearms.

Ditto.. Look at much problem he's having with the "fiscal cliff", you think not having guns would change that? Besides, that contradicts the "any item is a weapon" counter.

I'm not sure if 'warranted' is the right word. We are basically a free country. If you want to own a gun to play with go for it.

If your gun is stolen and used for bad things (ie when your right to own a gun, infringes on someone else's rights not to suffer a hole in their chest), you should be held accountable.

If a community doesn't want guns around their kids, they also have that right to disallow guns in schools, or libraries or whatever public buildings they want - just like smoking.

If a community wants to arm their teachers, kids, bus drivers and PTA with guns they can do that too.

So why have gun laws/regulations?

1. 'Gun' needs to be well defined and separated out from armament.
2. People need a minimum level of understanding of how a gun works and the responsibilities they take on when they become a gun owner.

Personally, I see no need to have guns. More guns = more people shot - it's that simple. I enjoy plastering trees with my paint ball marker from time to time. When the crazed killer shows up at my door to steal my things and rape my man, I'll do the same - or I'll hit um with a frying pan.

I'd like to see simple, hand gun/shot guns become the weapon of choice for the paranoid masses that feel like they need a bullet to protect themselves and the more complex automatics and semi automatics basically become redefined as something more than a 'gun' and regulated as WMD's, or maybe as Weapons of Moderate Destruction.

I'd really like to see the gun show loophole in the current law closed up. It's pathetic and one of the little things that shames me as an american.

I'm under the assumption that Elinda is advocating codified specifications for gun storage. Presumably, if said restrictions were violated, and the gun was thereby stolen and used in a crime, then the owner would be guilty of some form of negligence, I think.

If the theft is reported & found to be genuine, with proper storage regulations followed, then it'll be hard to find a gun owner's who's weapon was stolen negligent.

If your child gets into your guns & shoots someone, well then I doubt it was properly stored. The lady whom bought the guns for the fire fighter killer (or whom had them stolen from her car) is negligent in either case.

Yes Omega, do not treat ladies as objects.

Good health is a right where you live?

Socialism!

A suppose the difference is that owning a gun is a right under the 2nd amendment, at least that's how it's most commonly defined. You aren't given an explicit right within the constitution to own a chain saw or a lawnmower (Jophs wmd of choice), or a car. But more generally speaking, it's a matter of negligence. There's all sorts of ways you can get in trouble with the law for being irresponsible with your stuff. It just seems that the nature of guns, would make them high up on the responsibility list.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/29/16241484-92-shorebirds-killed-by-vehicle-on-washington-state-beach-authorities-say?lite

Birds today, people tomorrow. Better fire up the rhetoric on banning assault vehicles based on esoteric criteria of such things as how much black plastic is on the car, if the vehicle has a high capacity interior designed to convey more than two people at once (after all, who needs more than two people in a car? Reasonable folk-- if they needed to drive at all --would make multiple trips in their vehicle), horsepower, and gear selections. No one needs more than two gears: Slow and Park. Anything more is an outrageously dangerous condition that kills more than 32,000 lives each year and countless birds.

I demand legislation condemning and outlawing the flagrent and profligate use of fast, high capacity vehicles whose only design and purpose is to kill! Ban 'em!

Totem

Pretty sure there are more, and better enforced, regulations on vehicles than guns in the States. In order to legally operate my vehicle I have to renew vehicle registration every year, renew my operating license every four years at which time I prove that I can safely operate it, and carry insurance on the vehicle to cover my liability in case it's involved in an accident. Maybe we should bring gun laws up to the level of vehicle laws?

Ok, in a more serious tone, if it were up to me to reduce the opportunity for Sandy Hooks to occur, I would begin with mental health. Crazy people are the ones responsible for these travesties and should be identified early and... neutralized. How so, you may ask? Well, certainly not in the manner they are today where a doctor prescribes a cocktail of drugs and send them on their merry way with no wayto ensure they take their meds or are a larger risk to the general population at large.

We have an assortment of methods at our disposal: institutionalization, forced medication, lobotomies, electric shock therapy, Nurse Rachette, and thousands of people whose job title ends with the suffix ____-ologist/trist.

There has been a lowering of standards when it comes to defining crazy people. Allow me to highlight just one which is likely to draw a response from this board: Transgendered people. Yep, they're crazy as a loon, but the trend is to accept them as mentally healthy within a broader definition of what is "normal."

Because to reduce the killing of people in groups you have to identify who is likely to go off the rails and commit such an act. And crazy doesn't necessarily mean stupid. And if the voices in their head tell them to wipe a bunch of people out, then they are going to find a way to do just that-- be that by firearm or, as evidenced by my previous post, a vehicle. Proof of that is seen here in Afghanistan. The people are largely crazy in general (after all, they are willfully Muslim and live in this sh1th0le) and have discovered that the AK-47 they own isn't very effective as a rule. So what is their weapon of choice against the Great Satan and His Coalition Cronies? The car laden with explosives. Again, crazy isn't necessarily stupid. And to achieve their goals they'll use whatever means are at their disposal and provides the biggest bang for their dinar or dollar in our case.

Totem

Concerning regulations and laws governing vehicles, most infractions, if not all, with the exception of grand theft auto, are merely misdemeanors by-and-large. And in many states, including where I live, California, licenses are a veritable God-given human right as opposed to being a privilege bestowed upon the driver by the state for demonstrating competancy behind the wheel and an encyclopedic knowlwdge of the rules of the road.

I suppose we could provide the same cover for gun owners: no-fault insurance, minimal background checks, no requirement for English language skills or citizenship, and a willingness by the police to ignore a 10 round magazine being replaced by a 30 round clip as long as it only carries, say, 12 or 13 rounds inside. You know, just like the posted speed limit signs are only recommended speeds up to about 5 mph over the posted limit.

Totem

Edited, Dec 30th 2012 8:51am by Totem