assault rifles

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

It's embarassing to me that conservatives, as a group, seem to be on the wrong side of thi sissue. In most cases, they are on the wrong side because they take big $$ from the NRA.

Fixed.

I mean, lots of people get killed in car accidents, but no rational person is suggesting that we outlaw cars. Because collectively, wwe agree that the utility and freedom that the automobile provides, are worth the cost.

I think the difference is that cars are very rarely used as an offensive weapon, if they were you might see more concern. With DUI's for instance the vehicle is really an unintended weapon, but there's a stiff penalty for irresponsibility.

Which brings up the issue of responsibility. People aren't allowed some weapons not just because they don't need them but there's the risk of irresponsible use or care. Hence gun safety requirements or a clean record to own a firearm or permit to carry.

Those with legal access to automatic weapons have usually gone through more intensive police or military training and they have strict rules that govern their use.

Remember back in the 1980's the big argument was that gun control advocates were trying to bad guns that "looked" more dangerous than they really were. I always found this silly because even a semi-auto with the right stock or extended round clip changes the function dramatically.

Guns are certainly fun to shoot, but I'd agree that to own an AR-15 for instance has little value to the individual other than the cool factor. Even if it's not the military version it was still designed to be an offensive weapon.

-spence

[likwid]

Ban them! Quickly! They're scary looking!

Apparently Jim is a closet liberal.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

It's a lot harder to kill large numbers of people with a handgun than it is to do it with these weapons. If these guns were banned, it seem sto me that we all become a bit safer, and I don't feel that amounts to a significant loss of freedom.

Virginia Tech Massacre.
Look it up.

[nightfighter]

I like them. Would like to add another to the collection. Might even build a custom I have in mind. I designed a muzzle brake for long guns ten years ago and it has been well received in its reductiion of signature, especially in dusty environments. (I could probably get your weapon operational, Jim..... as long as you did not remove mass from the action...)
That said, I would be for taking them out of the hands of the public, as long as they can assure that they have gotten them all..... only then would I be willing to put myself at a disadvantage.....





Hi Ben......I know you are reading this one......

[Swimmer]

The shooter in the theater massacre would not have entered the property to do what he did if he thought he was going to get shot back at. If one person had been carrying in the theater, and that one persn shot back at the orange haired puke, a lot less people would have been injured and killed. So for all the guns around, how come there was only one person carrying inside the theater in Aurora?

If assault weapons are banned again, the only people who have them will be the government and the criminals. I don't want that to happen. I could have bought a Thompson years ago, # 266 of the first run of them since production ended after WWII. I had no desire. But if I knew what it would have sold for 20 years later I would have joined my co-worker and invested the $800.00 that day.
Wonder what it cost now to empty a 100 round drum of .45 amunition in just a few seconds?
Some people buy fishing equipment and some people buy guns.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

The shooter in the theater massacre would not have entered the property to do what he did if he thought he was going to get shot back at. If one person had been carrying in the theater, and that one persn shot back at the orange haired puke, a lot less people would have been injured and killed. So for all the guns around, how come there was only one person carrying inside the theater in Aurora?

You're assuming a clearly irrational (i.e. bat#^&#^&#^&#^& crazy) person would behave in a rational manner...that's a stretch.

Certainly he intended harm and could have found another way, but you'd hope his means could be limited.

I've read the FBI stats on guns used in legal defense and it sure doesn't appear like it happens very often.

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by spence

I've read the FBI stats on guns used in legal defense and it sure doesn't appear like it happens very often.

-spence

What do you consider not very often?

Professor Emeritus James Q. Wilson, the UCLA public policy expert, says: "We know from Census Bureau surveys that something beyond 100,000 uses of guns for self-defense occur every year. We know from smaller surveys of a commercial nature that the number may be as high as 2 1/2 or 3 million. We don't know what the right number is, but whatever the right number is, it's not a trivial number."

Former Manhattan Assistant District Attorney David P. Koppel studied gun control for the Cato Institute. Citing a 1979-1985 study by the National Crime Victimization Survey, Koppel found: "When a robbery victim does not defend himself, the robber succeeds 88 percent of the time, and the victim is injured 25 percent of the time. When a victim resists with a gun, the robbery success rate falls to 30 percent, and the victim injury rate falls to 17 percent. No other response to a robbery -- from drawing a knife to shouting for help to fleeing -- produces such low rates of victim injury and robbery success."

Yes, Guns Kill, but How Often Are They Used in Self-Defense? ? The Patriot Post

Seems a bit more frequent than "doesn't appear like it happens very often."

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

What do you consider not very often?

Yes, Guns Kill, but How Often Are They Used in Self-Defense? ? The Patriot Post

Seems a bit more frequent than "doesn't appear like it happens very often."

Brilliant analysis. It's certainly thorough, thought provoking and complete.

As an aside, I usually consult Charmin.com when trying to determine how much toilet paper my family really should be using.

-spence

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

The shooter in the theater massacre would not have entered the property to do what he did if he thought he was going to get shot back at. If one person had been carrying in the theater, and that one persn shot back at the orange haired puke, a lot less people would have been injured and killed. So for all the guns around, how come there was only one person carrying inside the theater in Aurora?

I'll tell you why... That theater was a "Gun Free Zone". The theater is owned by Cinemark and the corporate view on guns in their theaters is that only police officers should be allowed to carry guns in their theaters (some good that did).
Theatre In Aurora, Colorado, Was A Gun-Free Zone Like Virginia Tech - Investors.com

In AZ, any private business can post signs to create a "Gun Free Zone" restricting the carrying of firearms into their establishment. Any person that violates the businesses' policy can be arrested for trespass.
Questions and Answers: Concealed Weapons & Permits - Arizona Department of Public Safety

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

Ban them! Quickly! They're scary looking!

Apparently Jim is a closet liberal.




Virginia Tech Massacre.
Look it up.

"Apparently Jim is a closet liberal."

Nope! But I have often said that I think for myself, I don't blindly follow any one ideology. I also believe, for example, that conservatives (and my church) are wrong on gay marriage.

"Virginia Tech Massacre.
Look it up"

I don't need to look it up, I know all about it. It's because I know about that incident that I said it's harder to kill large numbers of folks with a handgun than with an assault rifle. I didn't say it was impossible to kill many people with a handgun...I said it's easier to do it with an assault rifle. That's what I said, and I cannot believe you disagree with me.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I don't need to look it up, I know all about it. It's because I know about that incident that I said it's harder to kill large numbers of folks with a handgun than with an assault rifle. I didn't say it was impossible to kill many people with a handgun...I said it's easier to do it with an assault rifle. That's what I said, and I cannot believe you disagree with me.

Really? harder? VT proved that to be completely and utterly false.

Originally Posted by Swimmer

The shooter in the theater massacre would not have entered the property to do what he did if he thought he was going to get shot back at. If one person had been carrying in the theater, and that one persn shot back at the orange haired puke, a lot less people would have been injured and killed.

This (fantastic comment by someone) was in response to some senator claiming the same bs.


"Another hypocritical comment by a chicken-hawk who ducked Viet Nam by joining the national guard (which didn't have to fight back then). Speaking as a vet who was drafted, when guns start going off the noise and commotion makes it hard even for trained soldiers to think, and even in crack units a large proportion do not fire or do not fire meaningfully. In the dark it is worse. I recall sitting along a bunker line and watching a three way firefight break out, with tracers going between two locations in the paddies and then in and out of a bunker down the line. Turned out all three were on the same side. To think that untrained people packing guns in a surprise attack in a darkened movie theater could accomplish anything other than more slaughter is a total fantasy."

I *am* highly amused that everyone who thinks someone carrying could have reduced/stopped the bloodshed either a: hasn't served or b: hasn't been in a firefight.

Lots of Massoud the tool along with Guns & Ammo bravado being flung around. (I'm sure we'll agree on this point Jim)

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

Really? harder? VT proved that to be completely and utterly false.




This (fantastic comment by someone) was in response to some senator claiming the same bs.


"Another hypocritical comment by a chicken-hawk who ducked Viet Nam by joining the national guard (which didn't have to fight back then). Speaking as a vet who was drafted, when guns start going off the noise and commotion makes it hard even for trained soldiers to think, and even in crack units a large proportion do not fire or do not fire meaningfully. In the dark it is worse. I recall sitting along a bunker line and watching a three way firefight break out, with tracers going between two locations in the paddies and then in and out of a bunker down the line. Turned out all three were on the same side. To think that untrained people packing guns in a surprise attack in a darkened movie theater could accomplish anything other than more slaughter is a total fantasy."

I *am* highly amused that everyone who thinks someone carrying could have reduced/stopped the bloodshed either a: hasn't served or b: hasn't been in a firefight.

Lots of Massoud the tool along with Guns & Ammo bravado being flung around. (I'm sure we'll agree on this point Jim)

"Really? harder?"

Yes. Really. Harder.

"VT proved that to be completely and utterly false."

No. VT proved it's possible to kill many people with handguns. It did nothing to refute my claim that it's easier to kill many people with a rifle.

Likwid, how many Americans troops stormed the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima with .45 pistols, and how many had rifles? Why do you think that is?

I have never, ever, anywhere, heard anyone deny that rifles provide significant tactical advantages over handguns (unless you are within 18 inches of the person you are fighting). All other things being equal, rifles fire more rounds, and have much longer effective ranges, and the rounds do more damage.

"I *am* highly amused that everyone who thinks someone carrying could have reduced/stopped "

It's not reasonable to assume that the attack could have been prevented altogether. It is absolutely possible that an armed moviegoer or two might have resulted in a lower bodycount. And I've been in a firefight, with smkoe, noise, screaming, confusion. Not everyone is trained like a Marine, but it's certainly possible someone could have stopped this guy before he stopped on his own.

I'm not saying I'd want to see 15 yahoos shooting up the theatre. But if I was in that theater, huddled over my wife, and I had my rosary beads in one pocket and a gun in the other, I'm safer with the gun in my hand, and so is evertyone else in there with me, no?

[Pete F.]

Just think how much safer you would have been with an AR-15

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by likwid

This (fantastic comment by someone) was in response to some senator claiming the same bs.



I *am* highly amused that everyone who thinks someone carrying could have reduced/stopped the bloodshed either a: hasn't served or b: hasn't been in a firefight.

Lots of Massoud the tool along with Guns & Ammo bravado being flung around. (I'm sure we'll agree on this point Jim)

There is no bravado being flung about by me. Never said I had been in a firefight nor did I allude to being in one. I am curious though how many you have been in LIKWID? I agree completely with JimCT on this.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

There is no bravado being flung about by me. Never said I had been in a firefight nor did I allude to being in one. I am curious though how many you have been in LIKWID? I agree completely with JimCT on this.

None, nor would I want to be, nor do I have this BS belief that some john wayne is going to pop out and save everyone from the evil doer. I live in reality where people lose their crap and do horrible things and its awful but it happens.

The vietnam vet is right.
A: people freaking the eff out.
B: shooter shooting at pretty much anything that moves
C: panic causes more panic causes a heightened heart rate which reduces combat readiness and ability to make snap judgements along with less accurate shots

The likelyhood in that situation of hitting ONLY the shooter for the average concealed carry are very very low.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by likwid

C: panic causes more panic causes a heightened heart rate which reduces combat readiness and ability to make snap judgements along with less accurate shots

The likelyhood in that situation of hitting ONLY the shooter for the average concealed carry are very very low.

"panic causes more panic causes a heightened heart rate which reduces combat readiness and ability to make snap judgements along with less accurate shots"

Yeah, I guess that explains why all those American teenagers shot each other up, and therefore lost, at Iwo Jima and Normandy.

"The likelyhood in that situation of hitting ONLY the shooter for the average concealed carry are very very low"

Likwid, if I'm in that theater, and I do not have a gun, then I am at the mercy of someone who is merciless. If I have a gun, I have a chance. Maybe not a great chance, but that's better than no chance.

It's funny that I'm supporting this, since I won't keep a gun in my house, not with little kids. I fail to see how a gun can be (1) close enough to be ready if I need it in a hurry, and (2) still safe from my kids.

[GregW]

Originally Posted by likwid

None, nor would I want to be, nor do I have this BS belief that some john wayne is going to pop out and save everyone from the evil doer. I live in reality where people lose their crap and do horrible things and its awful but it happens.

The vietnam vet is right.
A: people freaking the eff out.
B: shooter shooting at pretty much anything that moves
C: panic causes more panic causes a heightened heart rate which reduces combat readiness and ability to make snap judgements along with less accurate shots

The likelyhood in that situation of hitting ONLY the shooter for the average concealed carry are very very low.

I am not even going to get involved in this debate, however this strokes me as incredibly bizarre.....
So his point is invalid because he has never been in a firefight, yet yours is not considering the same. But, you read someone's post online so you are now a subject matter expert in how people will react in a life threatening situation?

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I also believe, for example, that conservatives (and my church) are wrong on gay marriage.

I hear ya . . .I consider myself a political conservative (Constitutional Originalist) but I condemn theologically based social and cultural conservatives.

As far as I'm concerned, in their beliefs on the extent of government's powers over citizens, dogma governed social/cultural conservatives and "living constitution" leftists have more in common than dogma governed social/cultural conservatives and Originalist conservatives. That many of these dogma governed social/cultural conservatives cloak themselves in the claim that they are Originalists or Strict Constitutionalists disgusts me as much as the misrepresentations of living constitution leftists.

Dogma governed social/cultural conservatives certainly undermine politically conservative originalists with their all-encompassing opposition to abortion / gay rights. Those agendas pollute their constitutional thinking with the, "it's not in the Constitution, so it's not a right" position.

This position is in opposition to the principles of conferred powers and retained rights and the concept that the Bill of Rights is not the exhaustive listing of the citizen's rights and thus, at complete odds with the principles underlying the 9th Amendment. Which is why so many social/cultural conservatives are in lockstep with liberals in dismissing the 9th Amendment as meaningless surplusage.