Dont Taze Me Bro

The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

I answered your question.   All the above?  or all three I listed plus clowns?  Cause **** clowns.

 

2 minutes ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

 

The blacks?

 

Ok guys, I won't try again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Personally I'm in favor of banning semi-autos even on handguns as well as their revolver equivalents, double action revolvers.  The self defense / home defense situations where semi-auto is really necessary are incredibly rare.  And you don't need it for hunting. No way in heck that would pass though.   

 

In reality, semi-auto action isn't really that less dangerous than full auto, though full auto would likely be more dangerous in some situations (crowds).  The Las Vegas shooter probably could have done alot more damage with full auto, though he did have a bump stock which was nearly the same thing.   On the other hand, the Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 and wounded many more with only two handguns.

 

This is all about reducing body count though, it would also be nice if the shootings just didn't happen in the first place.

 

Edited by DCSaints_fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, kfrankie said:

 

 

Ok guys, I won't try again.

I answered your question.  You do understand that some responsible gun owners can be in the middle and not be a conservative who hates liberals right?  Hell, there are some conservatives who are for gun control.

 

What I hate most is the lack of both sides to do anything in the past decade.  It started with the left not passing any gun control laws (including common sense gun control laws) when they controlled Congress under Obama.  It continues with the right today refusing to negotiate any common sense gun control with the left or even working with them and coming to some compromise on something.  

 

 

 

Edited by Dont Taze Me Bro
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, DCSaints_fan said:

Personally I'm in favor of banning semi-autos even on handguns as well as their revolver equivalents, double action revolvers. 

What? I might have to draw the line there. I’m happy to go back to revolvers only but not SA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, tshile said:

What? I might have to draw the line there. I’m happy to go back to revolvers only but not SA

Magazine capacity reduces the overall advantage of semi-auto, and most revolvers these days are single pull any how.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

I answered your question.  You do understand that some responsible gun owners can be in the middle and not be a conservative who hates liberals right?  Hell, there are some conservatives who are for gun control.

 

What I hate most is the lack of both sides to do anything in the past decade.  It started with the left not passing any gun control laws (including common sense gun control laws) when they controlled Congress under Obama.  It continues with the right today refusing to negotiate any common sense gun control with the left or even working with them and coming to some compromise on something.  

 

 

 

 

The question was:  What do responsible gun owners hate even more than liberal lawmakers attempting to pass legislation to outlaw/restrict the right to own firearms?

 

So I guess you are the responsible gun owner then.  I guess the question should have been who and not what

 

The answer is: irresponsible gun owners.  So the next question would be: How do we identify irresponsible gun owners? Or at least, the most irresponsible of the irresponsible gun owners?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Magazine capacity reduces the overall advantage of semi-auto, and most revolvers these days are single pull any how.

 

I would assert that the principal difference between, say, a revolver, and a semi auto pistol with a six round magazine, is that both of them can fire six rounds in the same amount of time, but one of them takes a lot longer to get ready for the next six.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

I would assert that the principal difference between, say, a revolver, and a semi auto pistol with a six round magazine, is that both of them can fire six rounds in the same amount of time, but one of them takes a lot longer to get ready for the next six.  

 

A second or two if you are using a speedloader and competent, the semi's can shave a split second more if they change magazines before empty.

of course both require having the reload handy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Caught Gillibrand on CNN talking about criminalizing possession of assault style firearms and how arresting people who dont turn them over as logical next step of that policy.  Good f'n luck with that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pointing out that the fact that something won't pass our government does not mean that it's not logical or correct.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, kfrankie said:

 

The question was:  What do responsible gun owners hate even more than liberal lawmakers attempting to pass legislation to outlaw/restrict the right to own firearms?

 

So I guess you are the responsible gun owner then.  I guess the question should have been who and not what

 

The answer is: irresponsible gun owners.  So the next question would be: How do we identify irresponsible gun owners? Or at least, the most irresponsible of the irresponsible gun owners?

 

I would think that would be self-explanatory.  But, what the heck, I'll toss in my two cents.

 

Anyone that owns firearms that doesn't take the proper precautions to secure them from others (including children, family members, friends, strangers, etc.).  By secure, meaning storage in a locked gun safe/lock box when they are not in use, where only the owner and say his/her spouse/partner are the only ones with access to remove the firearms.  This also goes with the proper storage of ammunition.  

 

I also think that it is irresponsible for a gun owner to not have their children or spouse/partner (if they don't own guns) properly trained on firearm safety.  Our daughter is 11 years old, but within the next year we plan on signing her up to take a gun safety/training class with the instructor that does conceal carry classes at our range.  

 

 

 

Edited by Dont Taze Me Bro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, tshile said:

What? I might have to draw the line there. I’m happy to go back to revolvers only but not SA

 

5 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Magazine capacity reduces the overall advantage of semi-auto, and most revolvers these days are single pull any how.

 

1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

I would assert that the principal difference between, say, a revolver, and a semi auto pistol with a six round magazine, is that both of them can fire six rounds in the same amount of time, but one of them takes a lot longer to get ready for the next six.  

 

1 hour ago, twa said:

 

A second or two if you are using a speedloader and competent, the semi's can shave a split second more if they change magazines before empty.

of course both require having the reload handy.

 

This was my whole internal thought process with the double-action ban

 

"Wow the AR-15 is an incredibly dangerous weapon and shouldn't be available for general civilian use"

 

"But what makes the AR-15 dangerous?   Is it really the fact that it is a 1) rifle and 2) semi-automatic."

 

"Yes.  Well in that case, we should probably go ahead and say no semi-auto rifles, though bolt-action/pump-action/lever-action would be OK. "

 

"But what about handguns?  The Virginia Tech shooter was able to kill 32 with just two semi-auto pistols. "

 

"Well maybe we should probably ban semi-auto pistols, as well"

 

"What about revolvers then?   You can fire off a double-action revolver almost nearly as quick as a semi-auto pistol.  Its just two trigger pulls/bullet instead of one."

 

"Then we should probably go ahead and ban DA revolvers."

 

Then I considered, 

 

"So we can use two hands and manually **** the revolver very quickly after firing.  Like on Gunsmoke."

 

"Well at least then the shooter will have to use two hands, so can't have a gun in both hands.  After six bullets they will have to pull out another gun or reload,, which takes 4-5 seconds with a speedloader and fair amount of training, though some highly trained and practiced people can do it very quickly, under controlled conditions.    During this time, there is the potential for unarmed people to escape or even potentially rush and overpower the shooter."

 

Edited by DCSaints_fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Larry said:

Pointing out that the fact that something won't pass our government does not mean that it's not logical or correct.  

Passing doesnt make it logical or correct, either.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

Caught Gillibrand on CNN talking about criminalizing possession of assault style firearms and how arresting people who dont turn them over as logical next step of that policy.  Good f'n luck with that.

 

Yup

 

thats the problem. If we ban something do you confiscate it or not?

 

do you rely on turn-ins? 

 

In either case it would be hard to know how many are out there and where. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

Caught Gillibrand on CNN talking about criminalizing possession of assault style firearms and how arresting people who dont turn them over as logical next step of that policy.  Good f'n luck with that.

 

Yup

 

thats the problem. If we ban something do you confiscate it or not?

 

do you rely on turn-ins? 

 

In either case it would be hard to know how many are out there and where. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nearly 200 Dem congresscritters are insane.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, tshile said:

Yup

 

thats the problem. If we ban something do you confiscate it or not?

 

do you rely on turn-ins? 

 

In either case it would be hard to know how many are out there and where. 

 

I was thinking about this while you was talkin singled you brought it up.  It will always be an estimate, but dont expect anyone to register their weapon if they believe it will jus be a list used to eventually take them away. 

 

Theres no way to get rid of all assault style weapons, even by force, and it would be ugly if we tried. What we could do is stop allowing their sale, stop allowing the bullets to be bought here and not allow open carry, grandfather them in wait a couple generations for them to eventually state failing from wear and tear. 

 

Need to be realistic about it. And honestly, keep in mind the advantage of having a heavily armed civilian population in the event of invasion as a deterrent. 

Edited by Renegade7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really do try to stay out of politics, but I'm going to put my 2 cents in about proposals to increase taxes on ammunition as a way of reducing gun violence.  If we use the phrase "common sense" gun legislation, I ask:

 

Which of the following people will NOT be discouraged from using guns because of the cost of ammunition?

A. Hunters

B. People that like to shoot targets at gun ranges

C. People who want to commit mass murder (usually knowing they will die in the process)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Nerm said:

I really do try to stay out of politics, but I'm going to put my 2 cents in about proposals to increase taxes on ammunition as a way of reducing gun violence.  If we use the phrase "common sense" gun legislation, I ask:

 

Which of the following people will NOT be discouraged from using guns because of the cost of ammunition?

A. Hunters

B. People that like to shoot targets at gun ranges

C. People who want to commit mass murder (usually knowing they will die in the process)

 

 

As long as that money goes directly into prevent gun violence like how the gas tax is supposed to go directly into the highway fund for infrastructure, I'm all for it regardless.  I agree it wont be a deterent the way some want it to be, but I'm sure if it's high enough it wont not do anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, kfrankie said:

The question was:  What do responsible gun owners hate even more than liberal lawmakers attempting to pass legislation to outlaw/restrict the right to own firearms?

 

The answer is: irresponsible gun owners.

I knew that’s where you were going. Can’t say I agree with the statement though. It’s pretty clear that irresponsible gun ownership is more acceptable than any restriction.

Edited by Sacks 'n' Stuff
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

As long as that money goes directly into prevent gun violence like how the gas tax is supposed to go directly into the highway fund for infrastructure, I'm all for it regardless.  I agree it wont be a deterent the way some want it to be, but I'm sure if it's high enough it wont not do anything.

 

The proposal for ammunition tax, in response to a mass murder, always reminds me of this sign.

 

image.png

Edited by Nerm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

I would think that would be self-explanatory.  But, what the heck, I'll toss in my two cents.

 

Anyone that owns firearms that doesn't take the proper precautions to secure them from others (including children, family members, friends, strangers, etc.).  By secure, meaning storage in a locked gun safe/lock box when they are not in use, where only the owner and say his/her spouse/partner are the only ones with access to remove the firearms.  This also goes with the proper storage of ammunition.  

 

I also think that it is irresponsible for a gun owner to not have their children or spouse/partner (if they don't own guns) properly trained on firearm safety.  Our daughter is 11 years old, but within the next year we plan on signing her up to take a gun safety/training class with the instructor that does conceal carry classes at our range.  

 

 

 

 

This is what I'm getting at (and perhaps a couple other points).  Which leads to next "query" which shall be yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welp...sounds like the NRA has made a phone call.

Wasn't it just last week that Trump said that he'd have to see where the NRA was on things before moving forward?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.