Why I love the 2nd Amendment......

[Panzerkamfwagen]

So? Are you seriously trying to convince me that, had there been less guns, that number wouldn't have been lower?

Do guns make people violent?

One of the deadliest riots in history was before there were guns.

Those same facts convince me that we, as a nation, need responsible gun legislation.

We have responsible gun legislation...but criminals that shoot people with guns don't follow those laws. So, I guess we need another law.

I'm all in favor of some of the things you outline, but I still can't see how banning assault weapons doesn't help, too.

There were 358 murders involving rifles. That's 3% of the murders in the United States. How many of those were so called, "assault weapons?"

I have no problem with responsible gun owners owning guns. I do have a problem with assault weapons being freely available, however.

Err...if you don't want responsible gun owners owning certain types of guns, then you do in fact have a problem with responsible gun owners owning guns.

Iv'e said it before, I'll say it again: the deadlier a weapon, the more we need to regulate its use and availability.

So, what is it that makes an an AR-15 deadlier than a Mini-14? What makes an AR-15 deadlier than a World War 1 bolt action rifle? Prior to World War 1, the typical British soldier could put 25 rounds into a 12 inch target at 300 yards. Every British soldier could hit that same target at least 15 times in a minute. That's with a bolt action rifle with a ten round magazine mind you. I guess maybe I should ask what makes an AR-15 deadlier than a World War 1 bolt action rifle. Modified and updated designs of those World War 1 bolt action rifles are still in use today. Also, the bolt action rifle fires a cop killer bullet capable of penetrating any soft body armor. What makes an AR-15 deadlier than a 7mm Weatherby that I can pick up at Wal-Mart, put a scope on, and will penetrate any police body armor?

That's about as self-evident as it gets.

Not really. You haven't even defined a deadly weapon. What makes a weapon deadly? At that school shooting in Connecticut, anyone who is halfway competent with a musket could replicate the results. Anyone who can can follow simple directions (as simple as say, baking cookies) can gin up a homemade bomb. There's directions there for extracting potassium nitrate from wood ash and soil. Do you want to ban dirt, because it's a "deadly weapon?"

 

[A2SG]

Do guns make people violent?

Nope. They just make their violence deadlier.

One of the deadliest riots in history was before there were guns.

Imagine what it would have been like WITH guns! Especially assault weapons.

We have responsible gun legislation...but criminals that shoot people with guns don't follow those laws. So, I guess we need another law.

Just as a start, laws that make it a lot harder for criminals to get hold of things like assault weapons might help.

There were 358 murders involving rifles. That's 3% of the murders in the United States. How many of those were so called, "assault weapons?"

Dunno. Are you making an argument to ban all rifles? It sounds like you are.

Err...if you don't want responsible gun owners owning certain types of guns, then you do in fact have a problem with responsible gun owners owning guns.

Not all guns, just assault weapons. I also have a problem with them owning nuclear weapons, if you want to carry the point further.

So, what is it that makes an an AR-15 deadlier than a Mini-14? What makes an AR-15 deadlier than a World War 1 bolt action rifle? Prior to World War 1, the typical British soldier could put 25 rounds into a 12 inch target at 300 yards. Every British soldier could hit that same target at least 15 times in a minute. That's with a bolt action rifle with a ten round magazine mind you. I guess maybe I should ask what makes an AR-15 deadlier than a World War 1 bolt action rifle. Modified and updated designs of those World War 1 bolt action rifles are still in use today. Also, the bolt action rifle fires a cop killer bullet capable of penetrating any soft body armor. What makes an AR-15 deadlier than a 7mm Weatherby that I can pick up at Wal-Mart, put a scope on, and will penetrate any police body armor?

If you want to discuss the legal definition of assault weapons, take it up with your elected representatives.

Not really. You haven't even defined a deadly weapon.

Which word is unclear?

What makes a weapon deadly?

Um, wouldn't that be the ability to kill?

At that school shooting in Connecticut, anyone who is halfway competent with a musket could replicate the results.

Not in the same amount of time. That's the point: in the time it would take even the fastest musket shooter to reload, a lot of those kids that Adam Lanza riddled with bullets would have been able to escape, and the cops would have been able to stop him.

Adam Lanza killed as many kids as he did in as short a time as he did because he had an assault weapon.

Anyone who can can follow simple directions (as simple as say, baking cookies) can gin up a homemade bomb. There's directions there for extracting potassium nitrate from wood ash and soil. Do you want to ban dirt, because it's a "deadly weapon?"

Do I need to repost the comment you're responding to? Because you seem to have misread it.

"the deadlier a weapon, the more we need to regulate its use and availability."

How deadly is dirt? Compared to, say, an assault weapon?

-- A2SG, you may also want to note that I did not call for the banning of everything that may possibly be deadly.....

 

[mzungu]

I have no problem with Americans owning any type of firearm so long as they confine them to within their national borders! This includes the armed forces too!

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Imagine what it would have been like WITH guns! Especially assault weapons.

I can do that handily, in this recent example. Guess who got left alone during that riot?

Just as a start, laws that make it a lot harder for criminals to get hold of things like assault weapons might help.

Kind of like prohibitions on drugs?

Dunno. Are you making an argument to ban all rifles? It sounds like you are.

Why? What's the point? You're less likely to be shot to death by a rifle than to die in a tornado.

Not all guns, just assault weapons. I also have a problem with them owning nuclear weapons, if you want to carry the point further.

And yet you don't seem to know what an assault weapon is.

If you want to discuss the legal definition of assault weapons, take it up with your elected representatives.

Since you don't seem willing to define what they are, you can't claim that situations would or would not be different (from your point of view) based on whether or not assault weapons are present.

Which word is unclear?

Maybe we should ban rocks and sticks and claw hammers because they're deadly weapons.

Um, wouldn't that be the ability to kill?

Which is basically anything.

Not in the same amount of time. That's the point: in the time it would take even the fastest musket shooter to reload, a lot of those kids that Adam Lanza riddled with bullets would have been able to escape, and the cops would have been able to stop him.

According to the CNN website, the police took 20 minutes to get there. 3 shots a minute is sixty shots. How many shots did he fire with his AR-15? Civil War soldiers could manage four shots a minute.

Adam Lanza killed as many kids as he did in as short a time as he did because he had an assault weapon.

No, actually, he killed as many people as he did because it's a gun free zone, and there wasn't an armed citizen there to shoot him. The government denied people the effective means of defense against him.

A2SG, you may also want to note that I did not call for the banning of everything that may possibly be deadly.....

Nope. Just "deadly weapons."

How deadly is dirt? Compared to, say, an assault weapon?

Well, you can use dirt to obtain potassium nitrate which is an ingredient for explosives. Should we ban potassium chlorate (it's in matches) because you can combine it with petroleum jelly to make a plastic explosive filler. How about fertilizer? (We all know how that turned out.)

 

[Crusader05]

Knives have other uses. Guns, specifically assault weapons, have no function other than to kill. That's it.

And second, few weapons are more efficient at killing than a gun. And assault weapons are more efficient than most kinds of guns, in that they can shoot more bullets in less time, making it easier to kill than just about any other form of weaponry short of bombs or nuclear weapons.

I sincerly wish Adam Lanza had had a knife that fateful day instead of an assault weapon, the body count he caused would have been a hell of a lot lower.

No, but gun violence is still high, way too high to just say "oh well, nothing we can do, we'll just have to live with it."

Such as? What legal purpose requires an assault weapon, and no other kind of gun?

Those are not the only criteria.

But, if you have a problem with the definition of assault weapons, I suggest you take it up with your elected representatives to use in creating legislation.

-- A2SG, seems to me, the deadlier a weapon the more we need to regulate it to make sure it doesn't fall into the wrong hands, i.e. someone like Adam Lanza.....

Save the hyperbole, the purpose of a gun is fire a bullet. It is the choice of the operator whether it's aimed at a paper target, used for hunting, being used for justifiable self-defense or for illegal purposes.

AR-15s are routinely used for target shooting as well as hunting and self-defense. They are popular because they are light, accurate and customizable. They are the most popular variety of rifle in the US with over 3 million sold. So again, what specifically makes an AR-15 so deadly? It is the relatively light .223 cal round? Is it the pistol grip? Is it the telescoping stock or flash suppressor? Because those are the features an 'assault weapons' ban actually bans and not the actual gun.

The burden of proof the ban something should be a higher than a media campaign (i.e. them being labeled 'assault rifles') and saying "people don't need it." It's been pointed out time and again these firearms are used in a fraction of all homicides, the facts contradict your claim that they are "so deadly", if they were so deadly we'd be seeing them used to commit many more murders.

Again, you talk about gun violence as if guns are causing violence, as if inanimate objects are making people do this. How about we actually do things to address why people are committing acts of violence.

All firearms are capable of killing, so by your reasoning we should ban all guns.

 

[mzungu]

All firearms are capable of killing, so by your reasoning we should ban all guns.

I agree and to add heroin and other drugs don't kill people either. Explosives do not kill people; All inanimate objects do not kill people. As a result all of the above should be made legal to own! Also biological agents and toxins should be legalised for general public use. While we are at it let us allow people the right to own cruise missiles and nuclear weapons too. Grenade launchers, napalm, beehive artillery shells, and C4 high explosives should be included also amongst other such niceties that the public cannot live without.

 

[Darkhorse]

There are only about 5 people in the U. S. A. who could afford a nuclear bomb...

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So? Are you seriously trying to convince me that, had there been less guns, that number wouldn't have been lower?

If so, you'll have to try harder.

Gun ownership was and still is growing. That's the reality.

I have no problem with responsible gun owners owning guns. I do have a problem with assault weapons being freely available, however.

You seem to have a problem with responsible gun owners owner a certain gun (really the magazine capacity of that weapon).

Iv'e said it before, I'll say it again: the deadlier a weapon, the more we need to regulate its use and availability.

That's about as self-evident as it gets.

I'm in favor of limiting the magazine capacity, but only if lawmakers are first shown a demonstration of how fast smaller capacity magazines can be loaded into the AR 15, as well as demonstrations of the weapons-of-choice if assault-style weapons were banned.

These replacement weapons and ammo would be chosen by (under the advisement of) hardened criminals who know guns.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I have no problem with Americans owning any type of firearm so long as they confine them to within their national borders! This includes the armed forces too!

You do know that the U.S. is the largest contributing member of NATO.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

-- A2SG, seems to me, the deadlier a weapon the more we need to regulate it to make sure it doesn't fall into the wrong hands, i.e. someone like Adam Lanza.....

See, that's the problem. This just isn't going to happen. Consider this. It is estimated that 40 percent of the gun sales occur in unregulated gun shows. However, millions of guns change hands each year between family members and others. Private trades and sales, gifts, and inheritances, that are virtually untraceable; all legal and not likely to be illegal anytime soon.

 

[mzungu]

You do know that the U.S. is the largest contributing member of NATO.

SO NATO is a cold war relic that we can certainly do without!

 

[mzungu]

There are only about 5 people in the U. S. A. who could afford a nuclear bomb...

Are you saying that they should not enjoy the right to keep and bear arms? I am sure that there are very few people who can afford to own a Boeing 747 too. How can you deny the ultra rich the right to own a nuclear weapon? After all weapons do not kill!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

There are only about 5 people in the U. S. A. who could afford a nuclear bomb...

There might soon be more than you think. I saw on Letterman last night that the new $1Trillion dollar coins are going on sale for $19.95 (tv special).

 

[contango]

Adam Lanza had a Bushmaster AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle which used a 30 round magazine.

What does a responsible gun owner need one of these weapons for?

What has the specific weapon that a mass shooter used got to do with anything?

I've got a collection of screwdrivers on my workbench. Do you know how many times people have been stabbed with screwdrivers, sometimes fatally? Are screwdrivers inherently dangerous weapons? Do I need to justify why I "need" so many screwdrivers?

Why do people have to justify why they need anything? Nobody needs a McMansion, nobody needs a fast car, nobody needs to earn the vast sums that some people strive to earn. What of it? What's wrong with "I want it, I earned the money for it, so I'm going to have it"?

 

[mzungu]

What has the specific weapon that a mass shooter used got to do with anything?

I've got a collection of screwdrivers on my workbench. Do you know how many times people have been stabbed with screwdrivers, sometimes fatally? Are screwdrivers inherently dangerous weapons? Do I need to justify why I "need" so many screwdrivers?

Why do people have to justify why they need anything? Nobody needs a McMansion, nobody needs a fast car, nobody needs to earn the vast sums that some people strive to earn. What of it? What's wrong with "I want it, I earned the money for it, so I'm going to have it"?

Oi, I want your screwdrivers; I am willing to pay someone to nick them from you and can always claim they fell off the back end of a lorry!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

SO NATO is a cold war relic that we can certainly do without!

Then Greece should opt out, then no American soldiers, or weapons, will ever 'endanger' you.

 

[QR1]

Adam Lanza had a Bushmaster AR-15, a semiautomatic rifle which used a 30 round magazine.

Yes, he "had" one in the same sense that he probably had a stuffed toy at home, it wasn't used in the crime, so it is irrelevant and demonizing said possession is clearly more about seeking to control that item than anything justified by the crime. . . which did not involve the AR15.

What does a responsible gun owner need one of these weapons for?

But to answer your question, the AR is a handy little rifle with good ergonomics which is easy for beginners and women to shoot well, excellent in home defense when equipped with a white light and red dot of some variety, the fragmenting nature of the rounds means they will likely go through one side of a wall and frag before meaningfully penetrating the second as most walls in homes have two sides AR15's can be fired with lower risk than weapons such as a shotgun where the weight of buckshot can carry through with enough velocity to seriously injure people on the other side of walls. They are used extensively in shooting sports. They have become increasingly popular among hunters who enjoy the modularity of the AR, allowing them to switch from a long barrelled .223 for prairie dog to an acceptable deer caliber carbine like 6.8SPC. There really isn't any gun on the market that has the ability to as easily switch between various calibers and usage (upper) while retaining the same gun (lower) almost like a golfer's bag of clubs. They even have blank firing attachments for launching golf balls for that matter! Since pretty much nothing on the market matches its versatility the short answer would be a responsible gun owner could fill any lawful use need with an AR.

 

[mzungu]

Then Greece should opt out, then no American soldiers, or weapons, will ever 'endanger' you.

Indeed! May your words reach the proper ears. We don't need no foreign powers to dictate to us. We can do our own fighting thank you very much!

 

[utdbear]

-- A2SG, once again, we determined earlier in this thread that responsible gun owners do not NEED assault weapons, so what's the big deal?

I'm still on this...

Why should my right to own a weapon(or anything really) which is legal under current law be infringed upon based upon what you think I do or do not need?

What if we weren't talking about guns, but instead abortions, would your opinion be the same?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Indeed! May your words reach the proper ears. We don't need no foreign powers to dictate to us. We can do our own fighting thank you very much!

Maybe, but can you win your economic battle without the support of our dollars (our guns and our dollars are connected you know)?