Here Is the Place, if any on this forum, for Gun Discussion
 

First question:

Why does anyone need to own an assault rifle?

I am admittedly ignorant when it comes to guns. For this reason I avoid them and don't really want them around. YES MY FEAR STEMS FROM IGNORANCE!

That said, I would think the answer would come down to the same reason people own pieces of cardboard with pictures of men playing games on them. People just want it for fun. Those guns have no use in a daily living any more than our collectibles have, but they may enjoy having in a collection or shooting them.

My question is why would you need to carry it around in daily living with kids around?
http://www.motherjones.com/files/tar...arry-1-630.jpg




I don't even trust my children near my wife's open purse because of fear of the mess they would make with the chap stick, lotions, and hand sanitizer. So it is beyond me to think of them being around loaded guns like the mother in this story (not associated with the above picture):
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...-gun/21062089/

I will admit that I don't really understand why you would need to take a gun to a baseball game. There are police everywhere and besides that, I can't imagine a situation where you deciding to use your weapon in a crowded stadium would not put the people around you in danger. The police are there for a reason.

Well, there you go again, trying to be rational. :rolleyes:

I understand the argument that it's your right or whatever, but from a logical perspective, what do you expect to do with that gun? And how do you expect to shoot your weapon in a crowd and not hurt someone else? It just seems to me that a baseball game is not the place for your weapon. There are police everywhere to maintain order and make those types of decisions.

The police are not always around to respond in the parking lots (see Bryan Stow), in the streets surrounding the stadium, on the subway (Bernie Goetz), or in a whole host of other places.

Like I said, in other life situations, sure. But in the crowd at the baseball game? How can you shoot your weapon inside the stadium and not put people at risk? Plus if someone sees you with that weapon, they don't know who you are. If they tell a cop and that cop approaches you and your gun, that could spark a pretty serious confrontation and create a lot of fear for people around you.

In the examples I listed, leaving the weapon in the car wouldn't make it available for the situations where it is needed. Leaving it would probably be worse, because of the risk of theft. And you don't give firearm owners enough credit; the ones I know when questioned by police, calmly explain that they have the required license, produce said license if necessary, and that's the end of it.

I don't know what to say to that other than you can't live your life thinking about how you might have to shoot someone at any moment all the time. At least I wouldn't want to live my life that way. But I do support the right to own guns all the same.

The problem with enforcing rights is that little thought is given to enforcing responsibility with those rights. You should NEVER have one without the other!

Was just reading this story about a Lightning fan being charged with a misdemeanor for carrying his firearm into the stadium, even though he had a concealed carry permit.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...132938146.html

Conceaed weapons are not allowed at events that have a capacity of 5000 or more(I believe that is the number).
Personally, I am not a fan of concealed weapons, because once a thug has the drop on you, by the time you get your gun out, you will be dead. If they pat you down to get you wallet and find your gun, now there is another gun on the street. In addition, citizens do not get the training the police officers get, when understanding "when to shoot", and understanding what is in the background behind the person you are trying to shoot at.
Yes there have been some good things that have happened when someone had there gun on them, believe me, they were lucky.
There are some that the CCW permit is warranted. If a business owner has to take large sums of money to the bank, he could be a target, and he needs that weapon to protect himself, as many times the thug is a known person, and will actually kill the owner to prevent recognition.
Assault weapons, they are not needed. You can protect yourself much better with a shotgun then an assault rifle. And you can use the shotgun for multiple type of game birds or animals. Assault weapons, you do not need that kind of firepower to kill a deer.
But I truly believe in the right to own firearms. But assault weapons are not needed.

Concealed weapons permits do not allow a person to carry at most of the following venues:

- federal government facilities
- state government facilities
- political events
- educational institutions
- public, interscholastic, and sporting events
- amusement parks, fairs
- businesses that sell alcohol
- hospitals
- churches
- municipal mass transit
- aboard aircraft, or on ships
- any place, while under the influence of drugs or alcohol

Some states, of course, are more liberal than others. I could not imagine under any circumstances carrying a weapon to a public event. I live in the country, and we have had cougars, and bears encroach on our property. Unless it's a .45, a hand gun is going to tickle a black bear, so I have an AR-15, and Winchester XLR shotgun for these purposes. I consider them practical for protection and security. They are kept in a gun safe. Have a nice day.

Well, it is because it is called the Bill of Rights and not the Bill of Needs.

This is my first post here as a 67 year old newbie and I hope it does not get
me kicked off.

I notice that each has an opinion and some are diametrically opposed to other posts. That's the way it is supposed to be instead of one person or group dictating to the rest of the folks.

Thanks for having me.

Larry

no, you wont get kicked off larry. your opinion is as valid as anyone else's. why would someone start a discussion if all they could expect is EVERYONE to agree with them. That wouldn't make sense. There would be nothing to discuss.

Thanks, Travis, it is nice to meet you.

Larry

Here,here!

I think the better question to ask is why you want an assault rifle.

They're pretty freaking cool to shoot :cool:

+1

Why do you collect baseball cards?

That's the beauty of this country so far, anyway. The "assault rifles", a name tagged dreamed up by the media, is a piece of equipment like any other piece of equipment. An assault rifle, by definition, is an automatic weapon. The AR15 is semi-automatic. Fully automatic weapons are regulated by a whole different group of laws.

Any firearm is not dangerous by itself. Every time a drunk driver hits a pedestrian there is never a call for General Motors or Budweiser to be boycotted.

My dad told me that one should not ever fool around with stuff that one does not understand: rattlesnakes, hand grenades, red headed bartenders (I think there was a story there), etc.

If you don't want one, then good for you. No one is making you buy one. I never did understand why that whenever someone shoots up a church or school the push is one to take away weapons from the people that did not do it.

And I learned how to shoot real "assault" weapons in my two tour senior trip to SE Asia in 1967-1969.

Well I was asking why you want an assault rifle specifically as opposed to other guns. You've more or less said: because I can have one. That's fine if that's your position. I'm just curious why people need them in their houses.

For the record I collect baseball cards because I enjoy the history behind them and players they depict. I don't collect baseball cards because it's not illegal to collect them.

Most people that own assualt rifles DO own other types of guns as well. I have pistols (revolvers and semi-automatic) and I have rifles (lever action, bolt action, pump and semi-automatic).

:confused: As opposed to keeping them where else??

Most people that own 'assault rifles' don't own them just because it's not illegal to own them.

I was interested in why people want assault rifles. These weren't accusations. I asked the question and he said in response, why do you collect baseball cards? And then he started talking about America and free enterprise. So I made the point that I don't collect something just because I can.

So, please, why do you want an assault rifle other than because it's legal to own one? I am honestly curious because every time I have the debate I get the same answer: because I can.

As I already pointed out, most people that own assault rifles own other types of guns as well. So why are you limiting the question to assault rifles??? Why aren't you asking, "Why do you want a 9mm?" or "Why do you want a .30-06?"

Well because assault rifles are different in many ways from a hand gun or a .22 rifle. I consider hand guns and rifles and shotguns to be adequate protection. So I am wondering why people want to own assault rifles too.

It's like if you were saying you wanted to buy a grenade because you own a hand gun. I'd still ask why you felt like you needed to have a grenade and if you said: because I have this other gun, that wouldn't make a lot of sense to me.

I don't understand why you're asking to justify it though. As was pointed out in a couple posts back, if you don't want one then don't buy one. So why are you questioning other's desires to own one?

It would be like me asking you, "You have a Warren Spahn card, why do you want a Walter Johnson too?"

Sometimes the answer is, "Just because I want to and it's none of anybody elses business."

Well actually there are large numbers of people in this country who want to ban assault rifles. So I'm asking the people who want to continue to buy them why they need them. And that is because there is a national debate on the issue and you fall on the side I don't understand. I don't think it's super complicated. You want to continue to buy assault rifles. I'm asking why you want to continue to buy assault rifles specifically, when, as you've pointed out, there are plenty of other types of firearms you can buy.

Kill tyrants
Home defense
Business defense (looters)
Fun to shoot
Hunting (quick extra shots)
Investment
Conversation piece
Collecting
Economic growth (keep the arms/ammo industry strong)
Competition target shooting

How many reasons do you want?

Those are valid reason and I appreciate your perspective. All I got before were things like "why not?" and "it's legal".

Those are all great reasons with #4 being my favorite. They are really fun to shoot.

There's historical reasons. One of the first things, historically, tyrants have done is to disarm the populace (See Hitler, Adolf, and Stalin, Josef). For many, it's the "slippery slope" argument. Ban one type of gun and it makes it easier to ban all of them.

The second amendment clearly allows the right of citizens to bear arms. Again, the "slippery slope". Take away even a portion of that right and many believe it will lead to government taking away other rights, such as free speech.

Agree or not, but that's what many people, even those who don't own an assault rifle, believe. It's what I believe and I do not own an assault rifle.

The United States is a very unique country in the history of the world. I would respectfully recommend you do some reading on the founding of the nation and why the Bill of Rights was included in the Constitution. The Founders feared that government would become too powerful and did everything they could to limit the powers of government in hopes that we would not turn into the same monarchy they fought to separate from.

If they were around today, do you think they would agree they succeeded? I wonder!

Great post! Thank you!

Ok, you seem like a nice guy so I'll go on here.

I have several AR-15s. I also have several AK-47s. I shoot all of these on a
regular basis as well as many more rifles and handguns. My collection is that of USGI M1 carbines as well as M1 Girands. (I like history, as well).

There are many, many other rifles that shoot the 5.56 mm round as well as the civilian .223. What has happened is that there is a hysteria over the black rifles. Scary, I know. The detriments to the rifle, as seen by the liberal gun grabbers, is a pistol grip. Another is a magazine that holds a lot of rounds. Yet another is that they look scary. Oh, yeah, they have flash suppressors. And the finale' reason is that some have a bayonet lug.

So, if you were to buy a Ruger mini 14 it would be fine with the gun goofies. It has a wood stock instead of plastic, it has no bayonet lug, and it does not look scary. This rifle has the capability to use large capacity magazines.

The kicker? This rifle uses the same 5.56 or .223 ammo but it is perfectly fine with the goofies. It just doesn't look scary. Make sense to you?

You mentioned the folks that want to ban "assault rifles" a name dreamed up by the media. They live and breathe shootings that involve an AR-15. The AR does not stand for assault rifle, by the way. They were made by the ArmaLite Corp originally so you might be able to figure out why their rifle is named AR.

Do you remember the episode in DC when a black guy shot up the place and killed 14 people. He used a shotgun and was black. That did not fit the agenda so it was only in the news a couple of days. It would have been better if he were a long haired white kid that was a loner with an AR-15.

The recent episode in South Carolina came closer to fitting. He was a long haired kid but did not use an AR. He used a .45 and reloaded several times.

The point is that these things are not any more dangerous than the person behind the rear sight.

So my question to you, sir, is why you point out AR-15s and no other weapon? You don't want an AR in your home? Your choice and i respect that. How about the aforementioned Ruger mini 14? It has a wood stock and does not look scary but shoots the same ammo and large capacity magazines are readily available.

See why I don't understand the mania about AR-15s?

I support the right to own guns. I asked about assault rifles, or weapons, because it's a hot topic these days. Personally, while I feel that gun ownership is fine, I don't think the general public should have access to assault rifles or assault weapons or semi-automatic handguns. More than half of all mass shootings were carried out by assault weapons or semi-automatic handguns. Those were some of the deadliest of all the shootings. And the guns were for the most part purchased legally. That's just my opinion though and I was looking for some insight from the other side, which I appreciate you guys sharing.

This is the slippery slope. Who are you to decide? What do you know about guns, technically, to determine what type should be outlawed? Yet, if it were put to a vote, you'd vote to outlaw these weapons. There are many who believe people like you are a genuine threat to freedom in this country. You espouse your beliefs based on feelings and what "seems" right without having a clue what you're talking about or any sense of historical perspective.

And to continue down the slope, what will you feel we need to outlaw in a few years when another murder takes place with a different type of weapon? Shotguns? Because, sadly, it will happen again. You can't legislate away evil and you can't legislate away insanity no matter how much freedom you take away from people.

Some guns but not all guns? Whom would you put in charge of deciding?


Hot to whom? The topic is hot to me as people are trying to violate my constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Why is is hot to you?

I don't think you do. You seem to believe that gun ownership is fine except for most of the weapons out there. Actually there are comparatively very few handguns sold that are not semi-automatic. The same with single shot rifles.

There are 40,000+ people killed in motor vehicle accidents every year and no one seems inclined to ban cars. Actually, there are more people killed every year with shovels and baseball bats than with "assault rifles".

Where is the outrage?

Once again, great post Scott! There are some of us who get exactly what you're saying. For others, it goes right over their heads. No, you can not legislate away evil or insanity, just like legislature to remove the Confederate flag won't eradicate racism.

Let's take this even a bit further. About 30% of motor vehicle fatalities are alcohol related. In other words, EVERY ONE OF THEM could have been prevented.

Where is the outrage to ban alcohol?

Packs, since I answered your question, please oblige me and answer mine. Thank you!

This is a thread about gun rights so I'm talking about gun rights. I also never inferred I would be the arbiter of who gets a gun or who doesn't. I simply stated that I think powerful guns like assault rifles, assault weapons, and semi-automatic handguns should not be available to the mass public. I laid out my reasons why, which include the propensity for the guns to be used in some of the deadliest mass shootings in this country, as well as in half of all mass shootings in this country. These guns were purchased legally in almost every case.

I think you should have your guns, just not these guns.

What is a "powerful gun"? In actuality, most AR-15s shoot the 5.56 NATO (.223) round, which by any measure, is an intermediate round. It shoots a small round that is about the same diameter as a .22. It goes faster yes but the bullet weighs about 56 grains where a .22 is about 30 grains. It's really not much of a bullet especially compared to the 30-06 which has been the deer hunters favorite for 50+ years. The bullet weight runs from about 150 grains to 220 grains and has a diameter of about .308, Now THAT is a powerful weapon!

Packs, you have been indoctrinated by the liberal media and agenda. You really have no rational reason to dislike the AR platform. If you were opposed to anyone possessing any firearm, then it would make some sense. You cannot tell us why you don't like them other than you simply do not like them.

Are you saying then that deer hunters should be allowed to use a 30-06 but I should not be able to possess a 5.56 mm weapon?

One more time--where do you draw the line? And hand grenades are a whole different deal. We weren't talking about hand grenades, were we?

Assault weapons and definitions for them are laid out in the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. You can look it up. It expired in 2004. Since 2004, 48 weapons which would have previously been banned have been used in mass shootings. Most of these weapons, with the exception of very few of them, were purchased legally. I am in favor of keeping them out people's hands because of their propensity to be used in mass shootings.

And how many people have been killed in auto accidents? How many people have been killed falling off ladders? How many people have been killed in fires? How many people have been killed in industrial accidents? No, sir, none of the above figures in with the liberal agenda.

And, most importantly, how many people were killed with "assault weapons" during the ban? Somehow, they banned the sale but could not ban the killings.

I will end my contribution to this thread with this quote from Ronald Reagan:

"The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

I didn't think you would (or even could) answer my question.

Thanks for proving me right.

Proving you right about what? We're talking about specific weapons under a broad umbrella of firearms. So where does drinking or ladders or automobiles fit in? I've expressed numerous times why I think specific firearms should be banned and not available for public sale. It has to do with them being legally available for purchase and the rate in which those weapons are then used to murder large numbers of people in a single event. If the federal ban were still in place, you would still be free to buy any other gun you wanted.

I can't think of a single mass car murder or mass ladder murder. Please point one out to me so I can make an informed decision. For the last time, my opinion is driven by mass murder events. Not the number of total gun deaths. Not figures that have to do with gun violence. My opinion is driven by mass shootings. That's very specific.

Ok, I'm pointing it out to you so you can make an infomred decision.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/driver-p...tremist-fears/

This is ONLY ONE example How many do you want?

Any while you could argue that nobody was killed, that's irrelevant. It was his intentions that matter. Several could have been killed.

So I repeat the same question. Why are you not as passionate about motor vehicles since they can obviously be used as weapons to cause mass casualties too?

I am of course against mass car murder, although as I said it never happened. If there is one particular model of car that mass car murderers prefer, please take it off the streets. There are countless other cars I can drive.

You're uninformed!

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/dr...eports-n378976

I think you're misconstruing violence and mass murder my man. If you're comparing these events to Sandy Hook, maybe you should chill out before calling me names.

No, mass murder "is the act of murdering many people, typically simultaneously or over a relatively short period of time."

If ones intentions are to murder as many people as possible, what difference does it matter what they use - a car, a knife, a gun or anything else? In both stories I linked, the intentions of the driver was to kill several people at once - the difinition of a mass murderer. I'm still trying to undertand why you are not as passionate about banning other instruments of mass murder? Why only assault rifles?