Gun Legislation

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't see anything in that article which indicates the ar-15 had any benefit over a handgun in the situation. I'd think in a cramped space you'd be better off with a handgun anyway.

And in a bit of irony the men were robbing his house because THEY KNEW HE HAD A LOT OF GUNS.

Not many handguns have a capacity of 30 or 40 when time is the essence. You may not have seen anything in the article but facts are facts.

All the more reason to be vigilant and able to defend yourself when there are criminals bold enough to try to rob you, not ironic at all. So now you understand why those NY permit holders whose names were made public in an article years ago were upset. A little common sense goes a long way
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

Not many handguns have a capacity of 30 or 40 when time is the essence. You may not have seen anything in the article but facts are facts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'd be curious to know the frequency of guns used for home self defense with shots actually fired. It's got to be very low. I can't imagine even in the cases where it happens it's a protracted fight unless something else is going on, drug house, gang violence etc...

If I wanted to defend myself in a home I'd want a pump shotgun or maybe a revolver that has little chance of malfunctioning.

I don't have any issue with gun ownership to protect the home, but there's no valid argument that an AR is necessary.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

I'd be curious to know the frequency of guns used for home self defense with shots actually fired. It's got to be very low. I can't imagine even in the cases where it happens it's a protracted fight unless something else is going on, drug house, gang violence etc...

If I wanted to defend myself in a home I'd want a pump shotgun or maybe a revolver that has little chance of malfunctioning.

I don't have any issue with gun ownership to protect the home, but there's no valid argument that an AR is necessary.

It happens many times per year. While you cannot imagine it people, by them selves, have used their semi to fend off multiple people with hand guns. Sure, an MP5 would be better for home defense than an AR15, but those are illegal and highly hard to get the few places they are legal.

Then there are situations where the home owner was killed, maybe they would not have been had they been better armed.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by spence

I'd be curious to know the frequency of guns used for home self defense with shots actually fired. It's got to be very low. I can't imagine even in the cases where it happens it's a protracted fight unless something else is going on, drug house, gang violence etc...

If I wanted to defend myself in a home I'd want a pump shotgun or maybe a revolver that has little chance of malfunctioning.good common sense right there and practical

I don't have any issue with gun ownership to protect the home, but there's no valid argument that an AR is necessary.

that last word is where you fail to understand.
A cannon would do also but doesn't make much sense.
Determined thieves are sometimes hard to chase away or kill with 6 shots when you are outnumbered.

It's a God given right, not a question of necessary

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

that last word is where you fail to understand.
A cannon would do also but doesn't make much sense.
Determined thieves are sometimes hard to chase away or kill with 6 shots when you are outnumbered.

It's a God given right, not a question of necessary

Cannons are hard to maneuver and do a number on wood floors.

If having an assault weapon is a god given right why stop there? More firepower the better.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

Cannons are hard to maneuver and do a number on wood floors.

If having an assault weapon is a god given right why stop there? More firepower the better.

Not many cannon in the neighborhood to worry about, there are people with illegal guns, however. It is necessary to have something approaching necessary levels of home defense that might be brought against you and yours.

The right is for self defense with something you feel reasonable and legal, not what someone - you for example - to decide what is acceptable.

So the problem is a small number of bad individuals per year doing horrific things. Yet you and others like you in gun control, want to blame everyone except the bad individual doing bad things.

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

The right is for self defense with something you feel reasonable and legal, not what someone - you for example - to decide what is acceptable.

But the people make the laws. Seems like the majority of the country wants stronger gun laws including an assault weapons ban. Doesn't mean it's easy to implement but that's not an excuse for inaction. Probably would open things up for the broader discussion around gun violence, suicide etc... that the status quo is suppressing.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Seems like the majority of the country wants

.....it appears?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Yet you and others like you in gun control, want to blame everyone except the bad individual doing bad things.

not exactly true, i blame
the shooters, he gun is inanimate, but plays a role
in potential body count without question.
but if we all recognize the existence of bad
people, why not talk about he pros
and cons, not just he cons,
of ideas that reduce ( not eliminate) the damage that some
of the bad people can do.

i hear the pro 2a crowd just as likely to be repeating extremist theories as the gun grabbers.

talk about limiting high capacity magazines, bump stocks, and maybe only allow
guns with fingerprint recognition in the home of someone who’s mentally ill.

those proposals will save some lives. they won’t eliminate gun violence, they won’t turn us into venezuela either.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

talk about limiting high capacity magazines,

be specific...limit the capacity? or the number of them you can own?...what is the number?

bump stocks think this has been addressed and I can only think of one instance


and maybe only allow guns with fingerprint recognition in the home of someone who’s mentally ill.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

right so to get or own a gun the authorities have to clear everyone in your home for mental illness...that should be easy

didn't the nuts decide a while back that it was too tough to ban guns so they thought they'd just ban bullets...or at least tax them so much that nobody could afford them...should probably give that a whirl again

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

If having an assault weapon is a god given right why stop there? More firepower the better.

I agree

[nightfighter]

Originally Posted by spence

Cannons are hard to maneuver and do a number on wood floors.

Not true.....

[spence]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

Not true.....

Colors!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[nightfighter]

I get it honestly.... Here is my Dad back in the day.....

[spence]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

I get it honestly.... Here is my Dad back in the day.....

Great family piece.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by nightfighter

I get it honestly.... Here is my Dad back in the day.....

Did he use that to signal the start of the jart game?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device