Yay, GUNS!

[Moontanman]

1 minute ago, Alex_Krycek said:

 

A semi-auto rifle that can discharge 30 rounds in under a minute is a de-facto assault rifle.  Calling it by any other name is disingenuous to it's real purpose.  A firearm like the SIG MCX, which can be silenced, equipped with a red dot sight, and uses a 30 round magazine is built for the purpose of assaulting multiple targets with maximum efficiency.  Watch this SIG MCX commercial and tell me this isn't an assault rifle.  This is a firearm that is available to the general public. 

 

The only legitimate reasons for having a firearm are hunting and self defense.  Defending against government tyranny is a laughable idea. If push came to shove, the US gov would quickly overwhelm any militia attempting to subvert it.  It's a nonsensical idea.  Additionally, the gov already took  away most of our rights without a single peep of resistance from 2nd amendment advocates.  Seems all they care about is that particular amendment and not the 32 others.

Keeping 25 guns in your house because it's your hobby is frivolous and shouldn't be protected either.  I'm for the idea of people being able to collect guns, as long as they're non-functional.  But people like to stockpile weapons.  Then 10 years later they go nuts.  This has to stop.       

Firearms like the SIG MCX and AR-15 are a problem because of their ability to discharge so many rounds per minute.  This is a big factor in the lethality of mass shootings.  If Stephen Paddock [Las Vegas] had been shooting at people with a bolt action rifle instead of a high capacity assault rifle with bump stock (making it practically fully automatic) he would have done far less damage.  People would have had a chance to run.  He wouldn't have been able to suppress them like was in a combat.  Same with this guy in Florida.  If he had to reload after 8 rounds it gives people a chance to intervene, which often they try to do. 

So two guns per person should be the new rule.  Two guns total.  And these should be firearms with limited round capacity.   If your priority is self defense, great.  Buy a handgun with some stopping power and a shotgun.  If you enjoy hunting, get two bolt action rifles.  So limiting the amount of damage a person can do within a certain timeframe would have an impact on this problem.  It's not the only solution, but part of it.  

 

 

 

 

So in your definition a semi auto hunting rifle is an assault weapon? They fire just as fast, just as deadly, some even allow the use of cips of many rounds of ammo... 

[Raider5678]

15 minutes ago, MigL said:

Help us understand the reasons for owning one.

 

I live in an area where I can't name a single person adult who doesn't own a gun. At least 3/4 of the kids I know above 10 own guns as well(technically their parents own them, but they're "theirs" the same way they might have a phone)

And I know iNow already answered this, but I'll answer again.

 

The biggest reason for owning guns are hunting.

Everyone I know has a rifle. Most boys/girls get their first rifle around 10 and go hunting with their dad.

So the biggest reason for owning a gun is hunting. 

So, reason number 1: Hunting.

 

The second reason is a sport.

Every year, there are usually 5-6 shooting events held by farmers or people with plenty of land. Most are clay pigeon shoots, but there are others like target shooting, etc. 

There are small prizes, but it's usually more about the shooting then the prizes(which are like a plate of fudge or something).

So, reason number 2: Sporting.

 

Now, reason 2 is where you get to the AR-15. I know of only 2 people who have one, and both of them keep them locked up tight. They get them out for target shooting even for clay bird shoots, so others can have fun shooting it. I've shot it. Something about watching a paper target get shot every time you pull the trigger(Their's aren't fully automatic. I've never seen a fully automatic gun) is satisfying.

It's also like a bragging right. Which leads to reason number 3.

Collecting.

I know of 4 collectors in my valley. 2 of them collect old guns like flintlocks, musket loaders, etc. The other two collect modern guns. I've even seen the gun the Israeli army uses(I didn't get a chance to shoot it). 

So there are five main reasons:

1. Hunting.

2. Sports.

3. Collecting.

4. Bragging/showing off.

5. Self-defense (About 15 people in my church have a concealed carry from what I've heard. Nobody I know of has an open carry. I've never seen anyone other than a trooper carrying a pistol in the open.)

Hopefully, that helps clarify the reasons for owning guns.

 

Now I will admit, just this summer I heard of the first shooting accident in the valley my entire life. A teenager was shot when his friend(who wasn't local) thought the gun was unloaded, pointed it at him, and pulled the trigger after they had gone hunting. It ripped straight through his abdomen(rifles at close range will go right through typically) but it missed all the vital organs I believe. He survived and made a full recovery already.

But, universally, the first rule instilled into everyone I know who uses a gun is: Never. Point. It. At. Anyone.

General rules are(I'm sure Moon has heard these before):

1. Never point it at anyone.

2. Never look down the barrel.

3. Always assume it's loaded.

4. Keep your finger off the trigger until you're going to shoot.

5. Keep the safety on until you're going to shoot.

 

There are more, but these are instilled into kids as much as the ten commandments.

 

 

 

[Alex_Krycek]

Just now, Moontanman said:

So in your definition a semi auto hunting rifle is an assault weapon? They fire just as fast, just as deadly, some even allow the use of cips of many rounds of ammo... 

Yep.  Here's the definition from Merriam-Webster of an assault rifle:   

Quote

any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire

Seems on point to me. 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault rifle

Edited February 16, 2018 by Alex_Krycek

[Raider5678]

10 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

 

A semi-auto rifle that can discharge 30 rounds in under a minute is a de-facto assault rifle.  Calling it by any other name is disingenuous to it's real purpose.  A firearm like the SIG MCX, which can be silenced, equipped with a red dot sight, and uses a 30 round magazine is built for the purpose of assaulting multiple targets with maximum efficiency.  Watch this SIG MCX commercial and tell me this isn't an assault rifle.  This is a firearm that is available to the general public. 

 

1. Keeping 25 guns in your house because it's your hobby is frivolous and shouldn't be protected either.  I'm for the idea of people being able to collect guns, as long as they're non-functional.  But people like to stockpile weapons.  Then 10 years later they go nuts.  This has to stop.       

2. Firearms like the SIG MCX and AR-15 are a problem because of their ability to discharge so many rounds per minute.  This is a big factor in the lethality of mass shootings.  If Stephen Paddock [Las Vegas] had been shooting at people with a bolt action rifle instead of a high capacity assault rifle with bump stock (making it practically fully automatic) he would have done far less damage.  People would have had a chance to run.  He wouldn't have been able to suppress them like was in a combat.  Same with this guy in Florida.  If he had to reload after 8 rounds it gives people a chance to intervene, which often they try to do. 

1

1. I know 4 people who own more than 100 guns each. Seem fairly reasonable to me. One owns a gun store. Nice guys. You should meet them sometime and tell me how crazy you think they are.

2. 30 rounds per minute is HARDLY an assault rifle.

The m16, the U.S. military issue assault rifle, can fire700- 950 rounds per minute. On semi-auto, it can fire 60 per minute. Twice as fast as a semi-auto.

Not sure where you see 50% speed as fully auto.

 

That guy had a fully automatic weapon. Not an AR-15. 

2 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Yep.  Here's the definition from Merriam-Webster of an assault rifle:   

Seems on point to me. 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault rifle

In which case, check out my sick assault rifle.

12 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

The only legitimate reasons for having a firearm are hunting and self defense.  Defending against government tyranny is a laughable idea. If push came to shove, the US gov would quickly overwhelm any militia attempting to subvert it.  It's a nonsensical idea.  Additionally, the gov already took  away most of our rights without a single peep of resistance from 2nd amendment advocates.  Seems all they care about is that particular amendment and not the 32 others.

2

What rights have we lost again?

Just for clarification.

 

14 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

So two guns per person should be the new rule.  Two guns total.  And these should be firearms with limited round capacity.   If your priority is self defense, great.  Buy a handgun with some stopping power and a shotgun.  If you enjoy hunting, get two bolt action rifles.  So limiting the amount of damage a person can do within a certain timeframe would have an impact on this problem.  It's not the only solution, but part of it.  

1

And this is what people I know call unreasonable regulations 

Edited February 16, 2018 by Raider5678

[Alex_Krycek]

Just now, Raider5678 said:

1. I know 4 people who own more than 100 guns each. Seem fairly reasonable to me. One owns a gun store. Nice guys. You should meet them sometime and tell me how crazy you think they are.

Do they have mannequins of women in their house that they dress up in lingerie and talk to?  This wacko does, and he has the most guns in America.   

 

Your friends may not be crazy (yet) but many gun owners are, or they're headed that way.  Do we protect your friends' right to own multiple weapons (knowing that they're peddling weapons to an unstable public) or do we protect the masses of people who have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?  We've tried your way.  It's not working. 

 

Quote

2. 30 rounds per minute is HARDLY an assault rifle.

Depends on how you define "assault rifle".  Websters definition works for me. 

Quote

The m16, the U.S. military issue assault rifle, can fire700- 950 rounds per minute. On semi-auto, it can fire 60 per minute. Twice as fast as a semi-auto.

Not sure where you see 50% speed as fully auto.

There's a certain base level of round capacity that qualifies a rifle as an assault rifle.  A reasonable person would look at a rifle that can discharge 20-30 rounds per minute and conclude that it meets the criteria. 

Quote

 

That guy had a fully automatic weapon. Not an AR-15. 

Incorrect.  Paddock modified semi-automatic AR-15s with bump-stocks to make them fully automatic.  There's a reason these mass murderes reach for the AR every time: magazine capacity.

 

Edited February 16, 2018 by Alex_Krycek

[MigL]

I collect automatic watches, Raider.
I would give it up instantly if someone were to draw a correlation between watch collecting and endangering human life.

You seem to think there is a distinction between 30 rpm, 60 rpm, or even 700-950 rpm.
Which of the reasons for owning a gun ( aside from 'bragging rights' ) require that rate of fire ?

The mentality that it is OK to have a 'hobby' that endangers others, is what's gotta change.

[StringJunky]

11 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

...And this is what people I know call unreasonable regulations 

Do you support their view?

[Raider5678]

2 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

1. Do they have mannequins of women in their house that they dress up in lingerie and talk to?  This wacko does, and he has the most guns in America.   

 

2. Your friends may not be crazy (yet) but many gun owners are, or they're headed that way.  Do we protect your friends' right to own multiple weapons (knowing that they're peddling weapons to an unstable public) or do we protect the masses of people who have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?  We've tried your way.  It's not working. 

 

No, they don't.

And the fact you can pull some random guy from the internet doesn't exactly make me believe many gun owners are either crazy, and if they aren't they're headed that way.

As far as I know, they're not peddling weapons to an unstable public.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Incorrect.  Paddock modified semi-automatic AR-15s with bump-stocks to make them fully automatic.  There's a reason these mass murderers reach for the AR every time: magazine capacity.

 

Last I checked, a fully automatic AR-15 is not a semi-automatic AR-15.

There is a distinction. 

7 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

There's a certain base level of round capacity that qualifies a rifle as an assault rifle.  A reasonable person would look at a rifle that can discharge 20-30 rounds per minute and conclude that it meets the criteria. 

 

Okay?

I said it's not an automatic rifle, not that it wasn't an assault rifle.

[Alex_Krycek]

Just now, Raider5678 said:

No, they don't.

And the fact you can pull some random guy from the internet doesn't exactly make me believe many gun owners are either crazy, and if they aren't they're headed that way.

Practically any person in the country can purchase as many guns as they want.  A significant percentage of the public also suffers from mental illness. 

Quote

 

Every year, about 42.5 million American adults (or 18.2 percent of the total adult population in the United States) suffers from some mental illness, enduring conditions such as depression, bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, statistics released Friday reveal.

The data, compiled by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), also indicate that approximately 9.3 million adults, or about 4 percent of those Americans ages 18 and up, experience “serious mental illness” – that is, their condition impedes day-to-day activities, such as going to work.

http://www.newsweek.com/nearly-1-5-americans-suffer-mental-illness-each-year-230608

 

Compounded by the fact that Donny Trump just rescinded a law that would take guns away from people not mentally fit to handle their finances.  Hmmmm...so a person isn't in the proper frame of mind to handle their money, but they can be trusted with a gun...interesting.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-signs-bill-revoking-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-n727221

Just now, Raider5678 said:

As far as I know, they're not peddling weapons to an unstable public.

Ok.  Keep believing that. 

Denial ain't a river in Egypt....

[Raider5678]

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

1. I collect automatic watches, Raider.
I would give it up instantly if someone were to draw a correlation between watch collecting and endangering human life.

2. You seem to think there is a distinction between 30 rpm, 60 rpm, or even 700-950 rpm.
Which of the reasons for owning a gun ( aside from 'bragging rights' ) require that rate of fire ?

3. The mentality that it is OK to have a 'hobby' that endangers others, is what's gotta change.

1

1. Alright, I'm going to make an argument that you're going to initially see as a strawman. I ask only of you to read through the whole thing to see what I'm getting at.

 

Collecting guns don't cause mass murders. I'm sure we can agree on that. 

It's the people using the gun in the wrong way that does the harm.

However, if fewer people had guns, including those who used them correctly, fewer people would be able to use them incorrectly. I'm sure we can agree on that as well.

So, it makes logical sense to have regulations on guns. I'm sure we can agree on that as well.

Just because owning guns can provide a sense of enjoyment, doesn't mean we can allow it to infringe upon other peoples rights.

More than 13,000 people die a year from guns. 

We can't justify fun or relaxation in exchange for life. I'm sure we can agree on that as well.

We need better gun regulations because it can help save lives.

Do you agree we've used logic to arrive at this conclusion?

 

1 minute ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Ok.  Keep believing that. 

Denial ain't a river in Egypt....

1

No. It's because I don't naturally assume the worst of people.

Just because I don't believe that my friends who collect guns are illegally peddling guns doesn't mean I'm in "denial".

It doesn't work that way.

[zapatos]

29 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

A semi-auto rifle that can discharge 30 rounds in under a minute is a de-facto assault rifle. 

It is if you are trying to argue for gun control. Otherwise it is not. No one one their right mind would call my .22 rifle an assault rifle, but it can fire 30 rounds in under a minute. I can do the same with my .22 pistol.

Quote

The only legitimate reasons for having a firearm are hunting and self defense.

You say these things like they are verifiable facts. And here I thought I had a legitimate reason for having a firearm (target shooting).

Quote

  Defending against government tyranny is a laughable idea. If push came to shove, the US gov would quickly overwhelm any militia attempting to subvert it. 

Indeed, there is nothing worth fighting for if we are likely to lose the fight. <sarcasm>

Quote

Additionally, the gov already took  away most of our rights without a single peep of resistance from 2nd amendment advocates.  Seems all they care about is that particular amendment and not the 32 others.

Bullshit.

Quote

 I'm for the idea of people being able to collect guns, as long as they're non-functional.  But people like to stockpile weapons.  Then 10 years later they go nuts.     

Again, bullshit. You are never going to be taken seriously with such over-the-top, sensational claims.

Quote

So two guns per person should be the new rule.  Two guns total.  

How many guns did the Florida school shooter use? How many people are killed in the US per year by people using multiple guns versus people using a single gun?

I am all for reasonable regulations on guns, but it is imperative that we make sound arguments if we want to convince anyone to make change.

[Raider5678]

28 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Do you support their view?

Yes. If you're going by the regulation he said.

 

Two of the four collectors I know collect flintlocks and muzzleloaders.

Sure, they sound dangerous but you're not really going to use them in a mass shooting.

They shouldn't be limited.

 

 

I'd have a three- staged gun license program. Issued by a psychiatrist and a background check. Must be renewed every 4 years.

Stage one isn't very intensive, you can own a hunting rifle. Unlimted amount.

Stage two is more intensive, you can own non-semiautomatic pistols and shotguns. Unlimited amount.

Stage three is the most intensive. You can own semiautomatic weapons. Unlimited amount. You can also own extended clips, bump-stocks, etc.

 

It'd keep the guns out of the hands of those with serious mental illnesses. 

Which, in almost every case, the mass shooter was already known for having major mental illnesses. So they wouldn't have been able to purchase a gun.

 

 

Does this sound unreasonable to you?

 

Edit: 

Because, checking with my father, he agree's that's a reasonable sounding system.

So if you'd agree, then it appears we have agreement on both sides.

 

Edited February 16, 2018 by Raider5678

[zapatos]

27 minutes ago, MigL said:

You seem to think there is a distinction between 30 rpm, 60 rpm, or even 700-950 rpm.

To be fair, there is a big difference. There is a reason the military issues automatic weapons.

[Raider5678]

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

It is if you are trying to argue for gun control. Otherwise it is not. No one one their right mind would call my .22 rifle an assault rifle, but it can fire 30 rounds in under a minute. I can do the same with my .22 pistol.

You say these things like they are verifiable facts. And here I thought I had a legitimate reason for having a firearm (target shooting).

Indeed, there is nothing worth fighting for if we are likely to lose the fight. <sarcasm>

Bullshit.

Again, bullshit. You are never going to be taken seriously with such over-the-top, sensational claims.

How many guns did the Florida school shooter use? How many people are killed in the US per year by people using multiple guns versus people using a single gun?

I am all for reasonable regulations on guns, but it is imperative that we make sound arguments if we want to convince anyone to make change.

3

I was starting to think I was actually the one who was making irrational arguments.

[Alex_Krycek]

 

Just now, Raider5678 said:

Okay?

I said it's not an automatic rifle, not that it wasn't an assault rifle.

Here's what you wrote before:  "That guy had a fully automatic weapon. Not an AR-15."
 

Quote

 

No. It's because I don't naturally assume the worst of people.

Just because I don't believe that my friends who collect guns are illegally peddling guns doesn't mean I'm in "denial".

It doesn't work that way.

 

Yes, it does actually.  You're in denial about what is happening in the big picture.  This goes back to the point that was made earlier about the two systems of thought.  You're focusing on your friends who you see as good guys.  Maybe they are.  It's irrelevant.  Because of a lack of vetting and regulation, your friends are participating in a business that makes guns available to almost anyone.

Additionally, you're choosing to ignore the statistics about mental health.  More denial.  How come every time a mass shooting happens the mantra from the right is always: "it's a mental health problem, not a gun problem!" but then not a single thing is done to vet customers who may be afflicted by a mental illness.  And we need routine vetting too - every year at the minimum.  Just because someone is stable when they purchase the weapon doesn't mean they will continue to be that way.  

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, zapatos said:

To be fair, there is a big difference. There is a reason the military issues automatic weapons.

Indeed, though if the military were using them to mow down people in the streets and rampage through schools we’d advocate further restrictions on those, too. 

[Alex_Krycek]

Just now, zapatos said:

It is if you are trying to argue for gun control. Otherwise it is not. No one one their right mind would call my .22 rifle an assault rifle, but it can fire 30 rounds in under a minute. I can do the same with my .22 pistol.

We're talking about magazine capacity - a semi-automatic weapon with a 30 round magazine qualifies as an assault rifle.  This kind of obstinacy on your part is why nothing ever changes. 

Quote

You say these things like they are verifiable facts. And here I thought I had a legitimate reason for having a firearm (target shooting).

At some point we'll have to clarify why people need firearms.  It's not 1776 anymore.  There's no wild west frontier.  The British government isn't planning to retake the colonies.  If target practice is your justification for having the second amendment, perhaps we should amend the constitution again and erase the right to keep and bear arms.

Quote

Bullshit.

You must not keep up with the news.  NSA wiretapping.  Eminent domain.  The end of habeas corpus.  Guess you have never heard of these things.     

Quote

Again, bullshit. You are never going to be taken seriously with such over-the-top, sensational claims.

It's "over the top and sensational" to point out that America has a mental health problem?  I find that a bit odd.  Isn't this what right wingers always say: it's not the guns! it's mental health."  Are you really suggesting that all people who own firearms remain completely stable for their entire lives? 

Quote

I am all for reasonable regulations on guns, but it is imperative that we make sound arguments if we want to convince anyone to make change.

You're in favor of token reforms by the sound of it, not serious solutions. 

Edited February 16, 2018 by Alex_Krycek

[Raider5678]

5 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

1.Here's what you wrote before:  "That guy had a fully automatic weapon. Not an AR-15."
 

2. Yes, it does actually.  You're in denial about what is happening in the big picture.  This goes back to the point that was made earlier about the two systems of thought.  You're focusing on your friends who you see as good guys.  Maybe they are.  It's irrelevant.  Because of a lack of vetting and regulation, your friends are participating in a business that makes guns available to almost anyone.

3. Additionally, you're choosing to ignore the statistics about mental health.  More denial.  How come every time a mass shooting happens the mantra from the right is always: "it's a mental health problem, not a gun problem!" but then not a single thing is done to vet customers who may be afflicted by a mental illness.  And we need routine vetting too - every year at the minimum.  Just because someone is stable when they purchase the weapon doesn't mean they will continue to be that way.  

 

1. You're right, my bad. I thought I said he had fully automatic weapons, not a semi-automatic AR-15.

 

2. You specifically said I was in denial about my friends committing illegal activities. Not the "big picture". 

 

3. No, I'm not choosing to ignore the statistics about mental health. Only 4% of Americans have serious mental health problems. In effect, almost everyone has mental health problems these days. But that doesn't put them at psychopath level, or mass murder level. Surely I don't need to point out that you technically just tried painting 18% of Americans as dangers to society simply because they had mental health problems. And the fact I choose not to believe that doesn't put me in denial.

 

1 minute ago, Alex_Krycek said:

We're talking about magazine capacity - a semi-automatic weapon with a 30 round magazine qualifies as an assault rifle.  This kind of obstinacy on your part is why nothing ever changes. 

 

You specifically only focused on fire rate. Seems fair to me. 

2 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

At some point we'll have to clarify why people need firearms.  It's not 1776 anymore.  There's no wild west frontier.  The British government isn't planning to retake the colonies.  If target practice is your justification for having the second amendment, perhaps we should amend the constitution again and erase it.

1

Erasing an amendment is not something I feel should be taken as lightly as that.

3 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

You must not keep up with the news.  NSA wiretapping.  Eminent domain.  The end of habeas corpus.  Guess you have never heard of these things.

 

The end of habeas corpus? I didn't hear of that. 

 

5 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

It's "over the top and sensational" to point out that American has a mental health problem?  I find that a bit odd.  Isn't this what right wingers always say: it's not the guns! it's mental health."  Are you really suggesting that all people who own firearms are completely stable for their entire lives? 

 

It's "over the top and sensational" to try and paint 18% of Americans as mass murders. That's what I find a bit odd.

 

You should lose the "us vs them" mentality.

Ultimately it leads to more confusion then it does good.

 

And no, he didn't suggest that all people who owned firearms are completely stable for their entire lives. He didn't even mention it. 

However, you, on the other hand, DID suggest that 18% of Americans should be viewed as potential mass murders.

Because you know. That guy with Alzheimer's. Might be deadly.

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

Indeed, though if the military were using them to mow down people in the streets and rampage through schools we’d advocate further restrictions on those, too. 

At that point, I'd be advocating for a government overthrow. Forget gun restrictions.

 

[MigL]

You're right Raider, collecting guns doesn't cause mass murder.
The correlation is there, however, because both activities require guns to be readily available to all.

I appreciate your point of view, and your call for stricter regulations, although I don't see the point of semi-auto weapons, or unlimited numbers of them. I am basing this on your previously stated reasons for owning guns, and rate of fire, or magazine capacity make no difference to any of your reasons, other than 'bragging rights'.

That is what I meant when I mentioned the differences between rate of fire, Zapatos. I know full well it makes a difference on the battlefield, but what use do you put your guns to ( other than the ones Raider mentioned ) that require those rates of fire ?

[StringJunky]

7 minutes ago, MigL said:

That is what I meant when I mentioned the differences between rate of fire, Zapatos. I know full well it makes a difference on the battlefield, but what use do you put your guns to ( other than the ones Raider mentioned ) that require those rates of fire ?

The only plausible scenario I can think of is to shoot people. 

[zapatos]

5 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

We're talking about magazine capacity - a semi-automatic weapon with a 30 round magazine qualifies as an assault rifle. 

Citation please.

Quote

This kind of obstinacy on your part is why nothing ever changes. 

LOL! Yes, because I disagree with you about what constitutes an assault weapon nothing ever changes. But you disagreeing with me about what constitutes an assault weapon is valid reasoning. Give me a break. Another over-the-top argument.

Quote

 

Quote

  If target practice is your justification for having the second amendment, perhaps we should amend the constitution again and erase the right to keep and bear arms.

Self defense is legitimate but target shooting is not? That's a bit pompous of you to decide for the rest of us what is legitimate.

Quote

You must not keep up with the news.  NSA wiretapping.  Eminent domain.  The end of habeas corpus.  Guess you have never heard of these things.     

The bullshit part was "without a single peep of resistance from 2nd amendment advocates." That is an outrageous claim. Please provide a citation.

Quote

It's "over the top and sensational" to point out that America has a mental health problem? 

No that was fine. It was the over the top sensational parts I was talking about.

Quote

Are you really suggesting that all people who own firearms remain completely stable for their entire lives? 

Don't be a troll. I never suggested anything like that and you know it.

Quote

You're in favor of token reforms by the sound of it, not serious solutions. 

You have no idea what I am in favor of other than the elimination of vacuous arguments on such a serious subject.

13 minutes ago, MigL said:

That is what I meant when I mentioned the differences between rate of fire, Zapatos. I know full well it makes a difference on the battlefield, but what use do you put your guns to ( other than the ones Raider mentioned ) that require those rates of fire ?

I never fire rapidly other than two shots in a row and have no need to. However, for self-defense I find a semi-automatic to be perfectly reasonable. As do most police in the US I imagine as that is mostly the standard for their handguns.

[MigL]

Full disclosure...

I just remembered, yes I do own a gun. A side by side Beretta shotgun. It has been confiscated for safekeeping by the Municipality in my home town in Italy, as it belonged to my grandfather, and no-one is living in the house currently.

And I have fired handguns, 22s as well as a friend's 357 and 44 magnums ( recoil almost smacks you in the forehead ) at a local gun range.
Have also fired assault rifles and a 50 cal sniper rifle ( bolted down ) at another club.

I understand the lure and fascination, but still have no desire to own.

Edit :

 

As you are the only one who has mentioned self-defense as a justification for owning guns, Zapatos, could you elaborate on this ?
Unless of course, its something personal, and you'd rather not.

Edited February 16, 2018 by MigL

[zapatos]

14 minutes ago, MigL said:

As you are the only one who has mentioned self-defense as a justification for owning guns, Zapatos, could you elaborate on this ?
Unless of course, its something personal, and you'd rather not.

Happy to discuss it. I bought my first self-defense gun after hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. I was (and still am) in St. Louis, far from the destruction on the coast, but the lawlessness there made me recognize that if we had a serious natural disaster here it is plausible that I might need some means of self defense. So I bought myself a pump 12 gauge shotgun (Moon is also a fan of the pump shotgun). I figured if any ne'er-do-well  entered my home all I would have to do is rack the weapon and they would run. That is my preferred method of self defense. I suspect I'll never have to get out the gun in self defense, but being an ex-boyscout I am generally prepared for most situations.

There are many places in America that are not safe and as long as the bad guys have guns, and guns are legal, I don't object to anyone keeping a gun for self defense.

I also bought a .22 revolver for my wife as she often visits our cabin in the country without me. I'd feel better knowing she had it available even though she absolutely refuses to pack it.

 

[Alex_Krycek]

Just now, Raider5678 said:

Erasing an amendment is not something I feel should be taken as lightly as that.
 

Nor I.  Amending the constitution is a very serious matter.  So is the epidemic of violence plaguing our country. 

We need to define why people need firearms in the modern era, what is a legitimate reason to own one.  Personal collections and target practice seem like frivolous reasons to me, but we need to have that debate.  It would be similar to someone saying they like to collect level 4 biological agents and keep them in their refrigerator because it's their hobby.  The rest of us would agree that this would be an unacceptable risk to the general public and a frivolous justification. 

Just now, Raider5678 said:

The end of habeas corpus? I didn't hear of that. 

Remember the Patriot Act?  It was passed into law in 2001.  If the government really wants to, they can call you a terrorist and deny you a fair trial. 

Just now, Raider5678 said:

 

It's "over the top and sensational" to try and paint 18% of Americans as mass murders. That's what I find a bit odd.

I never said they were all mass murderers.  I said that because there is a substantial percentage of mentally ill people in the country, and there are hundreds of millions of guns, AND these guns are so readily available to anyone who wants one, it's inevitable that we would see these levels of violence in our society.   

Look at the numbers. 

• AMERICAN POPULATION (Estimate) = 327,117,023
• NUMBER OF GUNS IN AMERICA = 310,000,000 (conservative estimate)
• PERCENTAGE OF MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE IN AMERICA = 18.2%

So the number of mentally ill people in America =  59,000,000  (18.2% x 327,117,023)

So, using an extremely conservative model, if only 1 percent of these mentally ill people are involved in a violent incident, then you will have 590,000 violent incidents because of mental health each year. (1% of 59,000,000 = 590,000).  If only 10% of these violent incidents involve a firearm, then you would have 59,000 violent incidents involving a firearm each year because of mental health.   

Now, we don't know the actual percentages (partly because the NRA lobbies so intensely to stop any federally funded research into the subject (http://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-nra-kills-gun-violence-research-2013-1),  but as you can see, even in this extremely conservative model, the numbers are alarming.  It's systemically inevitable. 

http://www.newsweek.com/nearly-1-5-americans-suffer-mental-illness-each-year-230608

Just now, Raider5678 said:

 

You should lose the "us vs them" mentality.

Ultimately it leads to more confusion then it does good.

This is a debate.  It's inevitable.

Just now, Raider5678 said:

And no, he didn't suggest that all people who owned firearms are completely stable for their entire lives. He didn't even mention it. 

That's because he isn't seriously considering the implications of it. 

Just now, Raider5678 said:

However, you, on the other hand, DID suggest that 18% of Americans should be viewed as potential mass murders.

Yes, because in the current situation that is the only logical way to view it.  Anyone with a serious mental health issue should not be allowed to own a deadly weapon.  It's grossly irresponsible to suggest otherwise.  

Just now, Raider5678 said:

Because you know. That guy with Alzheimer's. Might be deadly.

I'm more concerned with schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, or clinical depression.

Just now, zapatos said:

Citation please.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault rifle

Just now, zapatos said:

Self defense is legitimate but target shooting is not? That's a bit pompous of you to decide for the rest of us what is legitimate.

Well, state what you feel is a legitimate reason to own a firearm and we will debate. 

Just now, zapatos said:

The bullshit part was "without a single peep of resistance from 2nd amendment advocates." That is an outrageous claim. Please provide a citation.

You know as well as I do that they only get up in arms when people start talking about gun control.  Any other rights, they couldn't care less about. 

Just now, zapatos said:

No that was fine. It was the over the top sensational parts I was talking about.

Such as?

Just now, zapatos said:

Don't be a troll. I never suggested anything like that and you know it.

No, you just chose to ignore the points I was making instead of addressing them and creating a rebuttal. 

Just now, zapatos said:

You have no idea what I am in favor of other than the elimination of vacuous arguments on such a serious subject.

Possibly because you won't state your solution to the problem.  It's easy to sit on the fence.  What is your answer to this problem?

[zapatos]

9 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault rifle

Here is what your link says: 

Definition of assault rifle

: any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire;  also  : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire

 

Please highlight the part that says "a semi-automatic weapon with a 30 round magazine qualifies as an assault rifle." If you cannot do so, then please retract your claim.

 

 

Quote

You know as well as I do that they only get up in arms when people start talking about gun control.  Any other rights, they couldn't care less about. 

So you cannot provide a citation for that claim either. Why am I not surprised? I can assure you that making such broad, negative generalizations about groups of people will not help you achieve gun control

 

17 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Possibly because you won't state your solution to the problem.  

Bullshit. When before this post has anyone asked me to state my solution to the problem?

Quit making baseless claims and false assertions about me.