| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/28/2012 04:33:50 PM · #451 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
The unarmed part of the populace is getting tired of being shot at and killed. I'm sure the gun rights folks are a bit tired to our objecting to being shot, but we find it a bit irksome to be killed. |
I have a solution to your prob....Get a gun and shoot back. |
The fun part is that they just seem to either ignore, or not realize, that the people who are shooting them will be the very last to give up their weapons, and once all the weapons have been confiscated, they will simply manufacture more, guns are easier to make than meth, and can you imagine the value of a gun once they're all illegal? Meth labs are easy to locate (smell, traffic, etc), yet there are plenty enough in operation to supply the needs of users, do you honestly think that weapons manufacturing facilities would be any different, other than harder to detect?
I just don't see how you can possibly get rid of all the guns.. Answer that question and I'd like to hear more about what you have to say - but your answer had darn well better tell me how you're going to deal with the aforementioned problem. |
|
|
|
07/28/2012 04:35:05 PM · #452 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
The unarmed part of the populace is getting tired of being shot at and killed. I'm sure the gun rights folks are a bit tired to our objecting to being shot, but we find it a bit irksome to be killed. |
I have a solution to your prob....Get a gun and shoot back. |
Yea! Let's all just kill each other! |
Ever hear of MAD? Not the prettiest idea in the world, but it darn sure has worked well so far hasn't it? (thank goodness...) |
|
|
|
07/28/2012 05:54:35 PM · #453 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Ever hear of MAD? Not the prettiest idea in the world, but it darn sure has worked well so far hasn't it? (thank goodness...) |
Bad example. We're not helping Iran and North Korea go nuclear as a solution for peace, but trying to limit access to responsible parties (the same argument being made for gun control). Countries like Japan and Canada don't need nuclear weapons for their own protection because they rely on the "police" (USA) to defend them. Ever hear of arms race or Cold War? The notion that other people sitting with me in a theater or stadium probably DON'T have a gun is a much more secure feeling than the Wild West approach.
Originally posted by Cory:
The fun part is that they just seem to either ignore, or not realize, that the people who are shooting them will be the very last to give up their weapons... I just don't see how you can possibly get rid of all the guns. |
It's been done. |
|
|
|
07/28/2012 06:26:28 PM · #454 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Cory:
Ever hear of MAD? Not the prettiest idea in the world, but it darn sure has worked well so far hasn't it? (thank goodness...) |
Bad example. We're not helping Iran and North Korea go nuclear as a solution for peace, but trying to limit access to responsible parties (the same argument being made for gun control). Countries like Japan and Canada don't need nuclear weapons for their own protection because they rely on the "police" (USA) to defend them. Ever hear of arms race or Cold War? The notion that other people sitting with me in a theater or stadium probably DON'T have a gun is a much more secure feeling than the Wild West approach.
|
Great example. Iran and North Korea are going to do whatever they want, no matter what the laws / international outcry is... How great would you feel if you knew the only ones with nukes were those two and their ilk? |
|
|
|
07/28/2012 07:11:46 PM · #455 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Great example. Iran and North Korea are going to do whatever they want, no matter what the laws / international outcry is... How great would you feel if you knew the only ones with nukes were those two and their ilk? |
Your solution, then, would be for South Korea and Saudi Arabia to arm themselves with nuclear weapons to counter the threat of regimes with a long history of irrational behavior and paranoia? Both Iran and North Korea have already carried out multiple attacks against the U.S. despite our arsenal. If either one suspected a nuclear-armed neighbor was about to attack them, do you think they would be more or less likely to hit the big red button?
Message edited by author 2012-07-28 19:29:52. |
|
|
|
07/28/2012 07:22:38 PM · #456 |
Guns, in the wrong hands can lead to really strange scenarios... check This out.
He could be a candidate for the Darwin awards. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
07/30/2012 08:33:38 AM · #457 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Guns, in the wrong hands can lead to really strange scenarios... check This out.
He could be a candidate for the Darwin awards. :O)
Ray |
Makes me wonder where this rifle was loacted that it provided such immediate access that it was the first item he grabbed to use as a club. Further that it was in that location LOADED!!! Certainly not what the NRA would recommend nor condone. In all my training, every lesson plan included Treat EVERY gun as if it were LOADED! Obviously this person missed those classes. Glad he survived with a grazing - however if the lesson is not learned and internalized to actually change behavior, then a repeat is on the horizon perhaps next time with more serious consequences. |
|
|
|
07/30/2012 08:54:26 AM · #458 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Flash:
To answer your question (which I think you already know the answer to) the pro-gun rights folks get bit tired of when a tragedy of this type ocurrs, the anti-gun zealots seem to use these as a means to advance their agenda. |
The unarmed part of the populace is getting tired of being shot at and killed. I'm sure the gun rights folks are a bit tired to our objecting to being shot, but we find it a bit irksome to be killed. |
I see you came back and edited this sentance. I had read the prior version, missed this update.
If I were to promote the abolishment or severe restriction on firearms, I would take a different tack. Rather than focusing on their misuse, I would concentrate on the logic associated with a lack of need. Basic percentages provide enough evidence that individual harm is unlikely in one's lifetime - thus the need for employing a firearm for self rescue is rare. (It was already challenged that John Lott's data was bad and both the Huffington Post and HCI have data showing the dangers of firearms in the general populace). Therefore the risk of being mauled, assaulted, robbed, raped, beaten, etc is so low for the average citizen that firearms are not needed - and for those who do get assaulted, robbed, raped, beaten, etc, that is simply the price paid for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. I would show the numerous examples of how the Police have stopped crime and protected the citizenry and how the citizens can rely on law enforcement to be their protector. Adding the various court rulings that hold law enforcement accountable and liable for protecting the citizenry. I would try to show how individual responsibility is bad and how a collective responsibility promotes a more healthy community. I would use law enforcement officers own experience as evidence of why guns are not needed as there are many offocers who go their entire careers without ever employing their sidearm (except for qualification proficiency) in the line of their job responsibilities. Decades of interacting with criminals and never using their gun. Why then would a citizen civilian need one? I would use every day data of the millions and millions of people who go to work or school and never are harmed - thus had no need for a firearm.
|
|
|
|
07/30/2012 02:06:01 PM · #459 |
Originally posted by Flash:
If I were to promote the abolishment or severe restriction on firearms, I would take a different tack. |
The fundamental disconnect in this conversation seems to be the assumption of greater limits on what classes of firearm ought to be available to Americans, and which Americans ought to have the right to own them, will somehow result in the banning of all legal firearms.
This is not an either or case, between everyone should be able to buy anything they want, and no one should ever be able to own a weapon. We are living in a middle ground between those two extremes, and there is plenty of room to adjust gun policy before we end up at one of those poles.
Countering an argument that proposes somewhat greater limits on future gun sales, by assuming that any greater limits will result in a full ban on firearms is a great tool stir up gun owners who are terrified that their guns will be taken from them, but that is not the argument.
A scoped 30-6 or a Beretta A400 is a very different beast than a MAC-10 or an AR-15.
As far as who should be able to own one, it seems to me that the more firepower you want to acquire the more rigorous the screening ought to be. A 22 bolt rifle has different risks to society than an AK-47.
When defenders of gun rights lump all guns in one category, and all people who want to have greater gun limits together as wishing to abolish guns, it is of course easier to knock down that straw man, but it does nothing to deal with the very real problems that a heavily armed criminal class create in our country.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2012 08:44:24 AM · #460 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
A scoped 30-6 or a Beretta A400 is a very different beast than a MAC-10 or an AR-15. |
Not sure I understand this sentance.
1. a 30-06 is a very powerful rifle round capable of taking any game animal in North America.
2. a Mac-10 is a fully automatic small arm that fires a 9mm handgun round and is already illegal (without special licensing).
3. an AR15 is a semiautomatic version of the military M16 full auto (illegal to own without special licensing) firing a .223 rifle round that's primary role on the battlefield is to wound rather than kill as it takes more personel out of the fight if soldiers are wounded. The AR15 is no different functionally than a Ruger Ranch Rifle - a tool designed for critter control on working Ranchs. Cosmetically, the AR15 is Black as opposed to the wood stock of the Ruger Ranch Rifle.
So - if one is to ban/restrict AR15's, then effectively any rifle with similar mechanics would also be banned/restricted (including the Ruger Ranch Rifle) thus all semi-automatic arms (rifles, shotguns and handguns). Mac10's are already banned as are other arms in that category like Uzis and full auto H&K MP5's. The "Tommy Gun" aka Thompson Maching Gun popular in the 20's shot a .45 caliber pistol round and again is illegal to own without special licensing. That leaves revolvers, lever actions, bolt actions and single shots. Perhaps the argument is the banning/restricting of all semi-automatic firearms and limiting magazine capacity.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2012 09:37:45 AM · #461 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
When defenders of gun rights lump all guns in one category, and all people who want to have greater gun limits together as wishing to abolish guns, it is of course easier to knock down that straw man, but it does nothing to deal with the very real problems that a heavily armed criminal class create in our country. |
Bingo. Guns don't kill people the same way bombs, flamethrowers, hand grenades and nuclear weapons don't kill people, and restricting access to the firearms most likely to kill large numbers of people does not eliminate the general right to bear arms any more than restricting access to shoulder-fired missiles does. It's common sense public safety. |
|
|
|
07/31/2012 10:23:02 AM · #462 |
2 very different views on guns...
anti gun
Pro gun
|
|
|
|
07/31/2012 03:48:55 PM · #463 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
A scoped 30-6 or a Beretta A400 is a very different beast than a MAC-10 or an AR-15. |
Not sure I understand this sentance.
1. a 30-06 is a very powerful rifle round capable of taking any game animal in North America.
2. a Mac-10 is a fully automatic small arm that fires a 9mm handgun round and is already illegal (without special licensing).
3. an AR15 is a semiautomatic version of the military M16 full auto (illegal to own without special licensing) firing a .223 rifle round that's primary role on the battlefield is to wound rather than kill as it takes more personel out of the fight if soldiers are wounded. The AR15 is no different functionally than a Ruger Ranch Rifle - a tool designed for critter control on working Ranchs. Cosmetically, the AR15 is Black as opposed to the wood stock of the Ruger Ranch Rifle. |
Yes a 30-6 is a powerful hunting rifle. It is well suited to kill large game. The other 2 are designed for warfare, that is the hunting and killing of humans. Yes, I know the argument that all weapons were once military so it is a distinction some are unable to make. For others it is easy; If it is a battlefield weapon it ought not be dispensed to the general public. As far as the AR-15 being "already illegal" then can you explain to me how the Aurora shooter purchased his legally along with thousands of rounds of ammunition?
Thank God the gun jammed and that the range master at the shooting range he tried to join black balled him for being "bizarre and strange" Had he gotten familiar with the AR-15 he might not have jammed it and many more people would have died. I find it shocking that the only person who said "NO" to this whack job was a rangemaster. Not the gun shop where he bought the battelfield rifle, not the people who were supposed to assure the public he was safe to sell the gun to, and not the internet site that sold him the so much ammo. All it took was for one guy to look at him as a possible danger, to bother making one phone call, to spot him as someone who should not be allowed to own a gun, let alone a gun which is according to you "already illegal". |
|
|
|
07/31/2012 05:25:12 PM · #464 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
A scoped 30-6 or a Beretta A400 is a very different beast than a MAC-10 or an AR-15. |
Not sure I understand this sentance.
1. a 30-06 is a very powerful rifle round capable of taking any game animal in North America.
2. a Mac-10 is a fully automatic small arm that fires a 9mm handgun round and is already illegal (without special licensing).
3. an AR15 is a semiautomatic version of the military M16 full auto (illegal to own without special licensing) firing a .223 rifle round that's primary role on the battlefield is to wound rather than kill as it takes more personel out of the fight if soldiers are wounded. The AR15 is no different functionally than a Ruger Ranch Rifle - a tool designed for critter control on working Ranchs. Cosmetically, the AR15 is Black as opposed to the wood stock of the Ruger Ranch Rifle. |
Yes a 30-6 is a powerful hunting rifle. It is well suited to kill large game. The other 2 are designed for warfare, that is the hunting and killing of humans. Yes, I know the argument that all weapons were once military so it is a distinction some are unable to make. For others it is easy; If it is a battlefield weapon it ought not be dispensed to the general public. As far as the AR-15 being "already illegal" then can you explain to me how the Aurora shooter purchased his legally along with thousands of rounds of ammunition?
Thank God the gun jammed and that the range master at the shooting range he tried to join black balled him for being "bizarre and strange" Had he gotten familiar with the AR-15 he might not have jammed it and many more people would have died. I find it shocking that the only person who said "NO" to this whack job was a rangemaster. Not the gun shop where he bought the battelfield rifle, not the people who were supposed to assure the public he was safe to sell the gun to, and not the internet site that sold him the so much ammo. All it took was for one guy to look at him as a possible danger, to bother making one phone call, to spot him as someone who should not be allowed to own a gun, let alone a gun which is according to you "already illegal". |
Well to be fair, he did say "illegal to own without special licensing". Perhaps the special licensing means its got glitter on it?
Message edited by author 2012-07-31 17:25:31. |
|
|
|
08/01/2012 07:24:05 AM · #465 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
A scoped 30-6 or a Beretta A400 is a very different beast than a MAC-10 or an AR-15. |
Not sure I understand this sentance.
1. a 30-06 is a very powerful rifle round capable of taking any game animal in North America.
2. a Mac-10 is a fully automatic small arm that fires a 9mm handgun round and is already illegal (without special licensing).
3. an AR15 is a semiautomatic version of the military M16 full auto (illegal to own without special licensing) firing a .223 rifle round that's primary role on the battlefield is to wound rather than kill as it takes more personel out of the fight if soldiers are wounded. The AR15 is no different functionally than a Ruger Ranch Rifle - a tool designed for critter control on working Ranchs. Cosmetically, the AR15 is Black as opposed to the wood stock of the Ruger Ranch Rifle. |
Yes a 30-6 is a powerful hunting rifle. It is well suited to kill large game. The other 2 are designed for warfare, that is the hunting and killing of humans. Yes, I know the argument that all weapons were once military so it is a distinction some are unable to make. For others it is easy; If it is a battlefield weapon it ought not be dispensed to the general public. As far as the AR-15 being "already illegal" then can you explain to me how the Aurora shooter purchased his legally along with thousands of rounds of ammunition?
Thank God the gun jammed and that the range master at the shooting range he tried to join black balled him for being "bizarre and strange" Had he gotten familiar with the AR-15 he might not have jammed it and many more people would have died. I find it shocking that the only person who said "NO" to this whack job was a rangemaster. Not the gun shop where he bought the battelfield rifle, not the people who were supposed to assure the public he was safe to sell the gun to, and not the internet site that sold him the so much ammo. All it took was for one guy to look at him as a possible danger, to bother making one phone call, to spot him as someone who should not be allowed to own a gun, let alone a gun which is according to you "already illegal". |
You have misread my post. I wrote that the M16 (a full automatic) was illegal without special licensing and that the AR15 was the semi-automatic version no different than a Ruger Ranch Rifle.
eta: to label a semi-automatic AR15 a "battlefield rifle" is simply not true. It "looks" like one cosmetically, but functions identical to the more "civilized" Ruger Ranch Rifle. This was the problem with the 1994 Asault Weapons Ban - it was about cosmetics. "Battlefield" rifles (aka "Assault rifles" - meaning fully automatic) are already illegal and have been for decades. Holmes had a semi-automatic AR15, meaning one round fired and the case ejected for each pull of the trigger. No different functionally than a Berretta semi-automatic shotgun used for skeet or a Colt .45 used for Bowling pin matches.
Message edited by author 2012-08-01 09:58:15. |
|
|
|
08/01/2012 07:44:13 PM · #466 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Bingo. Guns don't kill people the same way bombs, flamethrowers, hand grenades and nuclear weapons don't kill people, and restricting access to the firearms most likely to kill large numbers of people does not eliminate the general right to bear arms any more than restricting access to shoulder-fired missiles does. It's common sense public safety. |
I would just like to bring attention to the fact that bombs are illegal. However, that didn't stop the Colorado shooter from wiring his home to blow using homemade bombs.
Again, the problem isn't the laws governing guns, its the criminals that obtain them. Even if laws make the firearms most likely to kill large numbers of people illegal, the criminals do not follow laws. You will only be disarming law abiding citizens.
Plus, you will not eliminate the potency of mass killers. The shooter at Virginia Tech only had a 9mm and a .22 handgun. I believe he still holds the record for most kills, or did someone since break it? |
|
|
|
08/01/2012 07:53:14 PM · #467 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Bingo. Guns don't kill people the same way bombs, flamethrowers, hand grenades and nuclear weapons don't kill people, and restricting access to the firearms most likely to kill large numbers of people does not eliminate the general right to bear arms any more than restricting access to shoulder-fired missiles does. It's common sense public safety. |
I would just like to bring attention to the fact that bombs are illegal. However, that didn't stop the Colorado shooter from wiring his home to blow using homemade bombs.
Again, the problem isn't the laws governing guns, its the criminals that obtain them. Even if laws make the firearms most likely to kill large numbers of people illegal, the criminals do not follow laws. You will only be disarming law abiding citizens.
Plus, you will not eliminate the potency of mass killers. The shooter at Virginia Tech only had a 9mm and a .22 handgun. I believe he still holds the record for most kills, or did someone since break it? |
Seems to be a case for eliminating all guns then hmm? If you are so worried about criminals with guns you should wear a bulletproof vest or take some Krav Maga classes. ;)
The idea of having a gun to combat criminals doesn't even work in cases like this. Are you going to carry your gun 24/7 because perhaps there will be a psycho at the movie theater? No way. Keep it in your house, I don't care. Don't bring it on the street.
Message edited by author 2012-08-01 19:56:40. |
|
|
|
08/01/2012 08:56:10 PM · #468 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
I would just like to bring attention to the fact that bombs are illegal. However, that didn't stop the Colorado shooter from wiring his home to blow using homemade bombs.
Again, the problem isn't the laws governing guns, its the criminals that obtain them. Even if laws make the firearms most likely to kill large numbers of people illegal, the criminals do not follow laws. You will only be disarming law abiding citizens. |
The fact that criminals do illegal things (the definition of criminal) is a ridiculous argument against making those things illegal. Shall we also legalize cocaine and murder because criminals will continue anyway? Guns are used in defense of violent crime something like .02% of the time compared to 40% of homicides and 55% of suicides (let alone the percentage of crimes that didn't result in homicide because a gun wasn't handy). Effective gun control disproportionately affects those much larger percentages while the effect on self defense is statistically zilch. |
|
|
|
08/01/2012 09:22:57 PM · #469 |
Originally posted by Flash:
eta: to label a semi-automatic AR15 a "battlefield rifle" is simply not true. |
"The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire assault rifle for the United States armed forces. Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt. The select-fire AR-15 entered the US military system as the M16 rifle. Colt then marketed the Colt AR-15 as a semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle for civilian sales in 1963"
With a bump stock it can fire 900 rounds per minuet, all perfectly legal. |
|
|
|
08/01/2012 09:25:14 PM · #470 |
I love my ar-15 and it is a great hunting rifle
|
|
|
|
08/01/2012 10:06:11 PM · #471 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Seems to be a case for eliminating all guns then hmm? If you are so worried about criminals with guns you should wear a bulletproof vest or take some Krav Maga classes. ;)
The idea of having a gun to combat criminals doesn't even work in cases like this. Are you going to carry your gun 24/7 because perhaps there will be a psycho at the movie theater? No way. Keep it in your house, I don't care. Don't bring it on the street. |
Can we all agree that "no guns" isn't a real option? It doesn't fly under our constitution, nor does it work in practice. Just like saying "lets all give up our nukes". Its a great dream, but it will never happen. Enjoy living in your utopian world.
I personally went through the Virginia Tech incident (as in, I was physically in the building, I saw the aftermath), and soon after was when I purchased my first handgun. Just a matter of if you trust the government to protect you, or if you trust your own two hands. I don't really trust the government to do anything right. When I lived in a state that allowed me to carry, I often did though it wasn't 100% of the time. I have since moved to a state where it is not legal, and I follow the law. However this state's murder rates are much higher than the one that allowed carry.
Originally posted by scalvert:
The fact that criminals do illegal things (the definition of criminal) is a ridiculous argument against making those things illegal. Shall we also legalize cocaine and murder because criminals will continue anyway? Guns are used in defense of violent crime something like .02% of the time compared to 40% of homicides and 55% of suicides (let alone the percentage of crimes that didn't result in homicide because a gun wasn't handy). Effective gun control disproportionately affects those much larger percentages while the effect on self defense is statistically zilch. |
Can you protect yourself against cocaine with cocaine? Nope so that's a bad comparison.
Can you protect yourself against murder with murder? Well, yes! And that is quite legal.
Forget about suicides - if someone wants to end their life, it's only their choice of how to do it. That shouldn't even factor into gun control debate.
Homicide rates trend with drug use. That's one of the biggest reasons for the war on drugs. If anything, that's one of the best indicators of gun violence. So lets make drugs illegal... wait, that hasn't worked so well.
I wonder what is more prevalent, a gun owner legally using a weapon to defend himself or ward off a perpetrator... or a mass killing. Should the fear of such rare incidents be reason for us to blindly give up our rights? Fear is nothing to base governmental policy on (though sadly it often is). It kind of reminds me of a quote from Star Wars... "So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause". Don't let fear of the irrational cloud your sound judgement.
Can you explain your last sentence a little more? I'm not exactly sure what you meant. What do you mean by 'effective gun control'? That term tends to mean vastly different things from different sides of the argument. I don't think there is much argument against 'effective gun control'... the argument centers around what is actually 'effective'.
Message edited by author 2012-08-01 22:08:04. |
|
|
|
08/01/2012 10:58:48 PM · #472 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I love my ar-15 and it is a great hunting rifle |
Just out how mean and fast are the critters you hunt down there.
My dad fed a family of 13 with deer, moose, rabbits and a host of other critters and he rarely went into the bush with more than three bullets.
I asked him about that one day and he replied that if he couldn't hit his target with three bullets he really did not belong in the bush.
Ray
Message edited by author 2012-08-01 23:00:52. |
|
|
|
08/01/2012 10:58:53 PM · #473 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
soon after was when I purchased my first handgun. |
With that move, the odds of you dying by gunfire went up, not down. Gun sales have spiked in Colorado, too. Don't let fear of the irrational cloud your sound judgement.
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
I wonder what is more prevalent, a gun owner legally using a weapon to defend himself or ward off a perpetrator... or a mass killing. |
If mass killing means more than one person killed in the incident, then the answer is very likely mass killing by a wide margin. Again, criminals disobeying the law and rare use for positive purposes is not a sound argument. Criminals also found another way to bring down airliners, and knives may be used for cutting horrid airline food, but we still have reason to restrict guns and knives on planes.
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
What do you mean by 'effective gun control'? |
What do you think I mean? Common sense approaches. The automatic weapons ban that several have noted is already in place (without ranting about how their rights were taken away) was a good start. Complete bans on extended magazines, armor piercing and hollow point bullets should be similarly non-controversial. The assault weapons ban was not so effective because it restricted guns by cosmetic appearance (dumb) and date of manufacture (as if earlier or later assault weapons were harmless). A law that actually bans military-type assault weapons by design and purpose makes more sense, and those are not required for self defense or sport. Existing laws banning sales to felons are not consistently backed with checks or enforcement, and thanks to the NRA, violent criminals may petition for "relief" from the "disability" of not owning guns. Again, dumb. The same background check requirements for guns should apply to ammunition and body armor, too. If a photo ID is such a critical requirement for casting a vote, then we can ask at least that much for purchasing weaponry.
I have no problem with the right to bear arms, but literally half of the entire world's privately owned firearms are in this country, and we have become the supermarket of choice for drug lords and gangs. Those are not sane conditions for protection nor necessary to maintain the 2nd amendment. |
|
|
|
08/01/2012 11:56:19 PM · #474 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I love my ar-15 and it is a great hunting rifle |
Some people like fishing with dynamite. It is a very quick way to get many fish. |
|
|
|
08/02/2012 07:27:41 AM · #475 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Flash:
eta: to label a semi-automatic AR15 a "battlefield rifle" is simply not true. |
"The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire assault rifle for the United States armed forces. Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt. The select-fire AR-15 entered the US military system as the M16 rifle. Colt then marketed the Colt AR-15 as a semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle for civilian sales in 1963"
With a bump stock it can fire 900 rounds per minuet, all perfectly legal. |
a couple of things.
1. Are we now in agreement that the M16 is the military "battlefield" rifle and the AR15 is the civilian semi-automatic version that functions like any other semi-automatic? I see you found Wikipedia's reference to the AR15 and it states clearly that the AR15 is the semi-automatic version. Unless you are claiming that a hoarde of selective fire pre-Colt AR15's from Armalite have found their way to the masses and are a threat to society. Even if they did - they would still be illegal due to the 1968 ban/restriction on automatic rifles.
2. There is a difference between a cyclic rate of fire and the ability to actually fire 900 rounds per minute. Your link states rate of fire yet you post 900 rounds per minute. A physical improbability for an AR15. A). even if one had nine 100 round drum magazines that functioned properly (unlikely due to the mechanical limitations placed on the spring), the next hurde would be to physically fire each of those 9 magazines in a time period of 60 seconds including changing them when empty. Unlikely. B). A shotgun with pellet shot has a comparable cyclic rate of fire that exceeds 800-900 rounds per minute due to its sending multiple projectiles downstream with each discharge compared to a single round from a full automatic firearm. However due to the limited magazine capacity and the physical limitations of reloading, the actual rounds per minute is far short of the cyclic rate. An important distinction.
eta: the bumpstock appears to function on the mechanics of a piston that moves the entire gun forward while your arms bring it back to your shoulder with your finger on the trigger. The gun itself actually fires in semi-automatic mode - meaning one round per each trigger activation. The bumpstock mechanically enhances your fingers ability to activate the trigger faster. This is not good for accuracy.
Message edited by author 2012-08-02 08:12:33. |
|
