The Gun Control Debate Thread

[TradeTheBeal!]

4 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

How are you determining this?  I know plenty of people that use an AR-15 or similar rifle to hunt.  Mainly be cause it gives them what they want without buying a second gun.

 

 

Personal anecdotes. I “know people”.

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 minute ago, TryTheBeal! said:

 

Personal anecdotes. I “know people”.

 

I mean it's about as valid as your claim. 

 

At least I can say that my experience based on everyone I know that owns those types of weapons.  Can you say that, based on everyone you know that owns those types of rifles, use them more for hunting people than animals?

[TradeTheBeal!]

1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

I mean it's about as valid as your claim. 

 

At least I can say that my experience based on everyone I know that owns those types of weapons.  Can you say that, based on everyone you know that owns those types of rifles, use them more for hunting people than animals?

 

Yes.  Those are the people I know.

[Springfield]

@TheGreatBuzz

 

Say you wanted to shoot up, maybe a Mosque or a country rock concert, or a movie theater...

 

What gun that is readily available to the general public, in your opinion, would be the most effective at inflicting the most harm?

[TheGreatBuzz]

59 minutes ago, Springfield said:

@TheGreatBuzz

 

Say you wanted to shoot up, maybe a Mosque or a country rock concert, or a movie theater...

 

What gun that is readily available to the general public, in your opinion, would be the most effective at inflicting the most harm?

One, I dont like to even think about that and I'm not sure it is even appropriate to discuss.  I'll let some others weigh in on with their thoughts of a discussion like that.

 

Two, those are 3 vastly different places that would probably have 3 different answers.  

 

EDIT:  I have considered whether it would be an appropriate discussion and have also spoken with a spiritual leader. 

 

I am so much an expert that it would be irresponsible for me to share such knowledge, and that I suspect that this would not be the place to assist in tutorials on how to best execute any criminal activity, including mass murder. 

Edited March 15, 2019 by TheGreatBuzz

[Springfield]

Good call Buzz.  As I hope you know, always respect for you.

 

As, you can probably figure, my point was that there’s a very relevant reason why so many mass murders are committed with AR-15 (Or military wannabe long rifles).  Now if they should be banned isn’t the purpose of my post.  Mainly, it was to point out that ARs are the most efficient killing machines.

[Burgold]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

One, I dont like to even think about that and I'm not sure it is even appropriate to discuss.  I'll let some others weigh in on with their thoughts of a discussion like that.

 

Two, those are 3 vastly different places that would probably have 3 different answers.  

 

EDIT:  I have considered whether it would be an appropriate discussion and have also spoken with a spiritual leader. 

 

I am so much an expert that it would be irresponsible for me to share such knowledge, and that I suspect that this would not be the place to assist in tutorials on how to best execute any criminal activity, including mass murder. 

Believe it or not this is the kind of answer that makes me trust you to own a firearm. Not that you need or want my permission

[TheGreatBuzz]

1 hour ago, Springfield said:

Good call Buzz.  As I hope you know, always respect for you.

 

As, you can probably figure, my point was that there’s a very relevant reason why so many mass murders are committed with AR-15 (Or military wannabe long rifles).  Now if they should be banned isn’t the purpose of my post.  Mainly, it was to point out that ARs are the most efficient killing machines.

I did think about it and not one of my choices was an AR.  I don't think they are the most efficient killing machines.  I think they are commonly used because they are so plentiful, the tactical look appeals to those that would do such things, and the person gets a certain "feel" holding one.  Its similar to why I think there is a rise in police brutality when less and less officers wear a professional looking uniform with a vest underneath to now all the ones running around and tactile looking gear.  Like why is the traffic cop dressed like that and not the classic uniform with a tie?  

Edited March 15, 2019 by TheGreatBuzz
Spelling

[Springfield]

1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I did think about it and not one of my choices was an AR.  I don't think they are the most efficient killing machines.  I think they are commonly used because they are so plentiful, the tactical look appeals to those that would do such things, and the person gets a certain "feel" holding one.  Its similar to why I think there is a rise in police brutality when less and less officers wear a professional looking uniform with a vest underneath to know all the ones running around and tactile looking gear.  Like why is the traffic cop dressed like that and not the classic uniform with a tie?  

 

A great response that I generally agree with.

[TheGreatBuzz]

10 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

A great response that I generally agree with.

Thanks.  I will say two of my choices could be purchased with a fine walnut stock.  Not sure if you saw my pics on the last page but there are 3 different pics that have totally different vibes.  But are essentially the same gun.

[Simmsy]

I hate when people dismiss the whole gun control debate with "guns don't kill people, people kill people" (this isn't aimed at anyone in this thread btw). These people are using the gun for what its for, its a tool to kill. How can you say that they're misusing it when they're using it EXACTLY for the reason it was invented?

[TheGreatBuzz]

28 minutes ago, Simmsy said:

I hate when people dismiss the whole gun control debate with "guns don't kill people, people kill people" (this isn't aimed at anyone in this thread btw). These people are using the gun for what its for, its a tool to kill. How can you say that they're misusing it when they're using it EXACTLY for the reason it was invented?

I think there is merit to both sides.  Guns, in the hands of someone who isn't crazy, aren't going to kill numerous people.  Just because it is a tool to kill doesn't mean it is a tool to kill irresponsibly.  That said, to lay the blame 100% on the person is wrong also as they can use a bomb, a truck, etc.  Anyone blaming 100% the tool OR the person has an agenda to drive.

[Commander PK]

18 hours ago, Simmsy said:

I hate when people dismiss the whole gun control debate with "guns don't kill people, people kill people" (this isn't aimed at anyone in this thread btw). These people are using the gun for what its for, its a tool to kill. How can you say that they're misusing it when they're using it EXACTLY for the reason it was invented?

 

For me its less about the means used and more about irresponsibility, recklessness, and a lack of respect for human life.  Like I said earlier, guns are designed to kill, but not to murder.    

 

In a world that has guns, they will not go away and they can’t be un-invented...to restrict the law-abiding good people from owning a gun (or a particular type) when the criminal element will just break another law to have one makes no sense to me.

[crabbypatty]

On 3/14/2019 at 10:16 PM, Springfield said:

 

But they do, though.

 

How many times, on this very board have I heard that an AR-15 is nothing more than a dressed up hunting rifle, shooting a round no larger than a 9mm.

 

Its absolutely, 100%, limp dick, bull****.

 

NOBODY is hunting with an AR.  ****, nobody is even using an AR for home defense.

 

Just stop bull****ting people and say that you want an AR-15 because it looks cool and you can play make believe soldier with one.  Maybe then people would take the gun movement more seriously if they weren’t incredibly full of ****.

 

This shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. And you and others of the same mindset feel the need to dictate policy to the rest of us on a constitutionally protected right, when you have no idea what you're even talking about, much like the politicians and their "clips" and "fully semi-auto"???

An ar15 fires a .22 caliber round.. a tiny little thing but it's typically moving around 3,000 fps for most rifle length barrels. It's nowhere near the size of a 9mm round, but it travels 2.5 to 3x the speed of a 9mm.

Many do hunt with an ar, but usually for smaller game/varmints. You'd be hard pressed to bring down large game even with several well placed shots. Ever shoot a deer with a larger caliber rifle and see it run hundreds of yards or further? no?

And plenty of people use an ar for home defense. Do you know why? I'd bet not. Because contrary to what the media and your assumptions tell you, there's actually LESS of a risk for overpenetration due to deflection and the lighter round, vs bigger heavier pistol rounds like 9mm in a HD situation.

My ar pistol is one of my HD guns. I also have a cz scorpion pistol that I keep for HD because it's shorter and with subsonic ammo is perfect for a suppressor.

Many of us that own ar's WERE/ARE real life "make believe soldiers". The gun is popular because it's accurate, light weight, ergonomic, FAMILIAR, easy to field strip and there's literally a gazillion parts out there that you can interchange pretty freely to make different configurations.

 

As for your last statement, it's pretty obvious that you and people with your mindset are the ones who are full of ****. You want to talk about being taken seriously with your preconceived notions of "playing make believe soldier", you're just chock full of it. You make it glaringly apparent that you have made your mind up based off of nonsense you see/read, with zero in the way of real world experience to speak knowledgeably on the subject. At least try not to sound like a cnn article.

[Springfield]

23 minutes ago, crabbypatty said:

 

This shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. And you and others of the same mindset feel the need to dictate policy to the rest of us on a constitutionally protected right, when you have no idea what you're even talking about, much like the politicians and their "clips" and "fully semi-auto"???

An ar15 fires a .22 caliber round.. a tiny little thing but it's typically moving around 3,000 fps for most rifle length barrels. It's nowhere near the size of a 9mm round, but it travels 2.5 to 3x the speed of a 9mm.

Many do hunt with an ar, but usually for smaller game/varmints. You'd be hard pressed to bring down large game even with several well placed shots. Ever shoot a deer with a larger caliber rifle and see it run hundreds of yards or further? no?

And plenty of people use an ar for home defense. Do you know why? I'd bet not. Because contrary to what the media and your assumptions tell you, there's actually LESS of a risk for overpenetration due to deflection and the lighter round, vs bigger heavier pistol rounds like 9mm in a HD situation.

My ar pistol is one of my HD guns. I also have a cz scorpion pistol that I keep for HD because it's shorter and with subsonic ammo is perfect for a suppressor.

Many of us that own ar's WERE/ARE real life "make believe soldiers". The gun is popular because it's accurate, light weight, ergonomic, FAMILIAR, easy to field strip and there's literally a gazillion parts out there that you can interchange pretty freely to make different configurations.

 

As for your last statement, it's pretty obvious that you and people with your mindset are the ones who are full of ****. You want to talk about being taken seriously with your preconceived notions of "playing make believe soldier", you're just chock full of it. You make it glaringly apparent that you have made your mind up based off of nonsense you see/read, with zero in the way of real world experience to speak knowledgeably on the subject. At least try not to sound like a cnn article.

 

Not knowledgeable on the subject?  Get over yourself.

 

People are out here dying for no reason and you’re just proud how much you know about guns.

[crabbypatty]

1 minute ago, Springfield said:

 

Not knowledgeable on the subject?  Get over yourself.

 

People are out here dying for no reason and you’re just proud how much you know about guns.

nice way to move the goalposts.

you need to get over yourself.. you spout all your nonsense like it's fact. I point that out and then you want to change the subject LOL

 

Here's another fact for you. NZ has a LAW mandating that standard mag capacity is 7 rounds. 7.

The shooter had 30, 40 and 60 round magazines according to an article I read.. So obviously the LAW prohibiting using those magazines worked, right?

 

You people will never get it through your heads that laws don't matter to criminals and those intent on killing. The only thing they do is penalize those who would follow the law.. you know, the LAW ABIDING citizens. Hell NZ and everywhere else has laws against murder, it doesn't seem to stop those who are so inclined, does it?

I know, maybe they should pass MORE laws banning murder. I'm sure that will work this time.

[Springfield]

3 minutes ago, crabbypatty said:

nice way to move the goalposts.

you need to get over yourself.. you spout all your nonsense like it's fact. I point that out and then you want to change the subject LOL

 

Here's another fact for you. NZ has a LAW mandating that standard mag capacity is 7 rounds. 7.

The shooter had 30, 40 and 60 round magazines according to an article I read.. So obviously the LAW prohibiting using those magazines worked, right?

 

You people will never get it through your heads that laws don't matter to criminals and those intent on killing. The only thing they do is penalize those who would follow the law.. you know, the LAW ABIDING citizens. Hell NZ and everywhere else has laws against murder, it doesn't seem to stop those who are so inclined, does it?

I know, maybe they should pass MORE laws banning murder. I'm sure that will work this time.

 

Moving the goalposts?  The post you quoted was in response to someone claiming that the NRA doesn’t claim that guns are harmless.

 

And “you people”?  Don’t be a douchebag, we are all Americans.  We’re playing for the same team.

[TradeTheBeal!]

Laws don’t prevent crimes.  Laws allow society to impose punitive measures against lawbreakers as a disincentive to potential future crime.  Laws also allow innocent victims of crime to seek redress for their losses.

 

Laws work.  Slowly, but surely...they do work.  To insist otherwise is ignorant and foolish to the extreme.

Edited March 18, 2019 by TryTheBeal!

[crabbypatty]

2 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

Moving the goalposts?  The post you quoted was in response to someone claiming that the NRA doesn’t claim that guns are harmless.

 

And “you people”?  Don’t be a douchebag, we are all Americans.  We’re playing for the same team.

 

It doesn't matter what it was in response to, it was mickey mouse horse**** you were spouting, so like I said, at least try to be a little knowledgeable.

and yes, "you people". As in, you people who want to try and eviscerate a constitutionally protected right, by lumping all us law abiding gun owners together as crazy wannabe "play solders".

If we're playing for the same team, then why are we arguing about trying to erase the constitutionally protected rights of fellow citizens? Or do we just pay attention to the ones we like and ignore the parts of the document that this country was founded on?

I think it's pretty obvious which side of that fence you stand on.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

[PleaseBlitz]

The Constitution does not give anyone the right to own any weapon they want.  Every right conveyed by the Bill of Rights is subject to reasonable restrictions.  

 

Maybe stop calling other people unknowledgeable on the subject if you think it does. 

 

Carry on. 

 

 

 

Edited March 18, 2019 by PleaseBlitz

[twa]

4 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

The Constitution does not give anyone the right to own any weapon they want.  Every right conveyed by the Bill of Rights is subject to reasonable restrictions.  

 

Maybe stop calling other people unknowledgeable on the subject if you think it does. 

 

Carry on. 

 

 

 

 

It does give most people the right to own a AR-15  at the present though.

[Burgold]

27 minutes ago, crabbypatty said:

nice way to move the goalposts.

you need to get over yourself.. you spout all your nonsense like it's fact. I point that out and then you want to change the subject LOL

 

Here's another fact for you. NZ has a LAW mandating that standard mag capacity is 7 rounds. 7.

The shooter had 30, 40 and 60 round magazines according to an article I read.. So obviously the LAW prohibiting using those magazines worked, right?

 

You people will never get it through your heads that laws don't matter to criminals and those intent on killing. The only thing they do is penalize those who would follow the law.. you know, the LAW ABIDING citizens. Hell NZ and everywhere else has laws against murder, it doesn't seem to stop those who are so inclined, does it?

I know, maybe they should pass MORE laws banning murder. I'm sure that will work this time.

Well, if you want to go in that direction... In 2018, New Zealand suffered forty-eight deaths by firearms. In 2018, the US suffered over forty thousand deaths by firearm. We can go country by country by country. 

 

For an even starker reality check, Syria a country actively engaged in a brutal and bloody civil war only had 20,000 deaths. In other words, a country at war suffered half as many gun deaths as the US does in peacetime. Even if you want to remove the percentage of people who committed suicide by firearm you would have the US equaling or besting the amount of death as a country suffering a brutal war where civilian casualties are the norm and the goal.

 

Something is broken.

 

Edit: I'd also argue a responsible gun owner would be for background checks, mandatory safety and firearm training, licences, and some method of safe storage of their fire amrs such as a gun safe. After all, what responsible gun owner wants to bare the burden of the thousands of children who die or hurt every year because they got a hold of their parents' gun?

 

Something is broken.

Edited March 18, 2019 by Burgold

[PleaseBlitz]

6 minutes ago, twa said:

 

It does give most people the right to own a AR-15  at the present though.

 

AR-15s are legal in most places at the present.  That does not mean that owning an AR is protected by the Constitution.  

[twa]

1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

AR-15s are legal in most places at the present.  That does not mean that owning an AR is protected by the Constitution.  

 

Nothing is protected if the court decides to eliminate it.