Proud of our Youth !

[tschock]

Originally Posted by packs

Assault Rifle for example. The term seems to matter to gun advocates but in my opinion its semantics. I think people are really saying they have an issue with a type of weapon, let's say AR-15 since it has a history of being used in these types of situations, and it doesn't truly matter if Assault Rifle is the definitive term. They're saying they see a pattern of abuse of a certain weapon, that is the true point. But that is sometimes lost in an endless loop of definition.

Well, it's very important if the facts either don't support the claim or your intention for banning/restriction is unclear. So let's use your definition for sake of argument. Assault Rifle = AR-15. Why do you or others want assault rifles (AR-15s) banned (or restricted)? Is it because of the amount of damage they can do based on the magazine capacity? That would be my guess, but facts and technical details don't back up the claim.

"One of the Columbine shooters used 10-round magazines, and the Virginia Tech shooter used mostly 10-round magazines. The shooter from the recent Florida school shooting, although he had an AR-15-style rifle, used 10-round magazines to commit the crime. And Maryland, where the most recent school shooting occurred, already has laws banning the purchase of “high-capacity” magazines." - http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/21/...trol-debunked/

Many other weapons have this capacity (or more) including handguns. If your real reason for wanted these types of weapons banned (or restricted) is something other than capacity, then please correct me.

Hopefully with the above you can understand it's not just semantics.

[packs]

People talk about semi-automatic rifles because that type of weapon is most commonly used to carry out large scale mass shootings. You rarely see one of these individuals choose to carry out a shooting with a handgun or shotgun or .22 caliber rifle. But when someone calls the weapon an "Assault Rifle" the conversation devolves into what is what rather than discussing the propensity for a certain type of weapon to be used in carrying out these shootings.

We outlawed automatic weapons in the 30s because they posed a danger to society and law enforcement. Why was that acceptable but a ban on semi-automatic rifles is met with such opposition?

I'd love to hear a gun advocate answer that question.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

We outlawed automatic weapons in the 30s because they posed a danger to society and law enforcement. Why was that acceptable but a ban on semi-automatic rifles is met with such opposition?

I'd love to hear a gun advocate answer that question.

Most handguns are semi-automatic. A lot of hunting rifles are semi-automatic. Do you even understand the difference in the action of a gun - automatic, semi-automatic, pump, lever action, bolt action, etc.?

So you want to ban handguns and hunting rifles?

[packs]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Most handguns are semi-automatic. A lot of hunting rifles are semi-automatic. Do you even understand the difference in the action of a gun - automatic, semi-automatic, pump, lever action, bolt action, etc.?

So you want to ban handguns and hunting rifles?

I didn't say anything about handguns and hunting rifles have not been semi-automatic since their inception so I see no logical reason why you couldn't hunt with one that wasn't semi-automatic.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by packs

I didn't say anything about handguns and hunting rifles have not been semi-automatic since their inception so I see no logical reason why you couldn't hunt with one that wasn't semi-automatic.

Hunting is not about feeding anybody anymore it is a sport(hobby) done for recreation. Semi-automatic guns make hunting more fun.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by packs

People talk about semi-automatic rifles because that type of weapon is most commonly used to carry out large scale mass shootings. You rarely see one of these individuals choose to carry out a shooting with a handgun or shotgun or .22 caliber rifle. But when someone calls the weapon an "Assault Rifle" the conversation devolves into what is what rather than discussing the propensity for a certain type of weapon to be used in carrying out these shootings.

And what's even more rare? That these people tend to carry out these type of shootings in zones that aren't "gun free" zones. So banning all "assault rifles", what's next in the gun free zones? I mean, since most shootings occur with handguns. Care to venture a guess?

The conversation likely devolves because "people" are reacting more with 'feelz' rather than facts and logic. I'm not imply you are, and I appreciate the discussion.

And I'm not proposing the silly argument that handguns kill more people so mass shootings aren't 'important' (bad choice of words, but at times seems suggestive on the gun rights side). Both are a problem, but the solution isn't further restriction.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by packs

People talk about semi-automatic rifles because that type of weapon is most commonly used to carry out large scale mass shootings. You rarely see one of these individuals choose to carry out a shooting with a handgun or shotgun or .22 caliber rifle. But when someone calls the weapon an "Assault Rifle" the conversation devolves into what is what rather than discussing the propensity for a certain type of weapon to be used in carrying out these shootings.

We outlawed automatic weapons in the 30s because they posed a danger to society and law enforcement. Why was that acceptable but a ban on semi-automatic rifles is met with such opposition?

I'd love to hear a gun advocate answer that question.

they banned them because of ignorant, panicky politicians not because of any threat to society.

and you can still possess an automatic weapon, it just costs more and requires giving more $$$ to the govt.

semi-automatic rifles are not the most often used weapon in a mass shooting, handguns are

you don't get to take my rights away because you want safety. anyone who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserves neither.

any individual who thinks that gun laws stop violence must also think that prohibition stopped drinking

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by tschock

Many other weapons have this capacity (or more) including handguns. If your real reason for wanted these types of weapons banned (or restricted) is something other than capacity, then please correct me.

I've already explained this to Packs in the past. He either doesn't get it, or just doesn't want to get it.

If I wanted to shoot up a place, my weapon of choice would be my Glock. It has the same magazine capacity as an AR-I5, the clips are lighter and less bulky and the weapon itself is lighter and less bulky. I can fire off just as many rounds, drop the clip, reload it and continue firing just as quickly as someone with an AR-15.

The AR-15 is the weapon of choice for the sick-minded individuals simply because of its cosmetics - it looks scary and it makes the sickos feel empowered. Its nothing more than a handgun with a longer barrel.

[packs]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I've already explained this to Packs in the past. He either doesn't get it, or just doesn't want to get it.

If I wanted to shoot up a place, my weapon of choice would be my Glock. It has the same magazine capacity as an AR-I5, the clips are lighter and less bulky and the weapon itself is lighter and less bulky. I can fire off just as many rounds, drop the clip, reload it and continue firing just as quickly as someone with an AR-15.

The AR-15 is the weapon of choice for the sick-minded individuals simply because of its cosmetics - it looks scary and it makes the sickos feel empowered. Its nothing more than a handgun with a longer barrel.

That's not totally true though. In some states handguns are met with stricter restrictions than rifles. In Colorado for example, you need to have a concealed carry permit to carry a handgun but you don't need one for a long gun. You could conceal your rifle lawfully but not your glock.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I've already explained this to Packs in the past. He either doesn't get it, or just doesn't want to get it.

If I wanted to shoot up a place, my weapon of choice would be my Glock. It has the same magazine capacity as an AR-I5, the clips are lighter and less bulky and the weapon itself is lighter and less bulky. I can fire off just as many rounds, drop the clip, reload it and continue firing just as quickly as someone with an AR-15.

The AR-15 is the weapon of choice for the sick-minded individuals simply because of its cosmetics - it looks scary and it makes the sickos feel empowered. Its nothing more than a handgun with a longer barrel.

I live in NC now, but yelled out Holy Sh*t so loud the other day when I saw something on the news, that my wife thought something happened to me. I am now the proud alumni of the school district in PA that wants to put buckets of rocks in the schools to throw at someone with a gun. I hope they decide to issue fake beards so that the girls can throw them as well.

[barrysloate]

A question for David, Taylor, and pretty much anyone else, and I ask this without any cynicism at all:

What do you want to see done to make America safer from these terrible assaults? Do you suggest any changes at all with any gun laws, or do you think the status quo is just fine? You guys know a whole lot more than I do, so I take your words seriously. Again, this is a sincere question. Your encyclopedic knowledge on guns is duly respected.

The floor is yours.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

A question for David, Taylor, and pretty much anyone else, and I ask this without any cynicism at all:

What do you want to see done to make America safer from these terrible assaults? Do you suggest any changes at all with any gun laws, or do you think the status quo is just fine? You guys know a whole lot more than I do, so I take your words seriously. Again, this is a sincere question. Your encyclopedic knowledge on guns is duly respected.

The floor is yours.

Barry, I don't have the answer. When I asked you the same question, you didn't have the answer either. Guess what? There are many problems in America that we just don't have answers to. If we had all the answers, why is there still a drug problem in America? Why is there still a gang problem in America? Why is there still a (fill in the blank) problem in America?

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that the tools are in place to try and prevent the whackos from getting the guns, but the information isn't being disseminated. Look at the church shooter in San Antonio. He received a dishonorable discharge from the military, but the military failed to report that. That should have kept him from purchasing the weapon. And look at the Florida shooter. The cops were called to his house thirty-something times. He was reported to the FBI more than once. But, once again, the information wasn't disseminated.

[barrysloate]

I certainly agree that better information would be one way to make things safer. And I didn't dodge your question, but like you said I didn't have an answer. I'm smart enough to know that you know a whole lot more about gun culture than I do. I didn't grow up in that environment, never owned a gun, and never knew anyone who had one where I lived. So it's silly for me to pretend I have all the answers. I don't. I would rather listen than preach.

[chlankf]

The issues with gun control are not the guns but with the was children are raised, desensitization of minds and the media.

I have been an avid shooter and sportsman since 5 years old. I was raised with guns in the open in my home. Difference is I was educated on safety, use and history. I was the state championship in marksmanship with a rifle at 11 and then again with a shotgun for trap and skeet at 13. My family takes opening day of pheasant and deer season off each year. BTW, hunting is not just sport. I do fill a freezer and feed my family for a year with my harvests, and yes at times I use a semi-automatic shotgun.

Families don't sit down for dinner each night, play board games or spend the quality time together as in the past. We see horrible images in pop culture that would have shocked our grandparents. The media makes sure that they get the highest ratings by replying over and over again tragedies across the globe. Here is the root of the problems that plague our country. The gun issues are not global but local. Why? Family values and upbringing. Unfortunately, we can't parent all the children that have a lacking home life but small steps can help. Turn off or disconnect the cable/dish TV, shut off the Xbox and power down the PC. Buy a firearm, learn to safely use and teach your children the same and finally get a permit to carry. These sick humans wouldn't think of harming our children if the entire lawful community was armed.

I know this is a pipe dream that Americans way of life will de-evolve to a simpler way but one can hope.

Sorry for the long rant.

Craig

[bravos4evr]

Hey Craig, legit question from someone who has never done shotgun shooting.

what is the difference between trap and skeet?

thanks, and thank you for your support of the 2nd Amendment!

[tschock]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

A question for David, Taylor, and pretty much anyone else, and I ask this without any cynicism at all:

What do you want to see done to make America safer from these terrible assaults? Do you suggest any changes at all with any gun laws, or do you think the status quo is just fine? You guys know a whole lot more than I do, so I take your words seriously. Again, this is a sincere question. Your encyclopedic knowledge on guns is duly respected.

The floor is yours.

It's not an either or. See Post 54 ("two of the biggest deterrents would be not declaring schools as gun-free zones and not providing 24/7 coverage to these events."). Those will be the biggest deterrents (IMO), though I acknowledge the second one would be much harder to do. There are other factors as well (social media, violence accepted as part of the culture, lack of respect for others, lack of responsibility for ones actions, et al).

I question all those asking for changes in gun laws to show me were this has worked. Gun laws and access to guns including semi and fully automatic weapons are more restrictive now than in the 40s-60s, yet there are more mass shootings now. The AR-15 was introduced in the mid '50s (I believe), yet has only recently become the 'weapon de jour'.

The problem I have with ANY laws is they are useless if not or capriciously enforced.

[packs]

In the two most recent examples of a shooting taking place at a school where armed security officers were present, their presence did not stop the shooting. We all know about the officer in Florida, but the shooting in Maryland occurred at a school with an armed security officer too. That shooter had a single objective: kill a student he had a relationship with. He succeeded and then shot himself while the armed officer was on the premises.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by packs

In the two most recent examples of a shooting taking place at a school where armed security officers were present, their presence did not stop the shooting. We all know about the officer in Florida, but the shooting in Maryland occurred at a school with an armed security officer too. That shooter had a single objective: kill a student he had a relationship with. He succeeded and then shot himself while the armed officer was on the premises.

So, what's your idea to reduce mass shootings?

[barrysloate]

Taylor- if you want schools not to be gun free zones, who do you see as having the guns? The teachers? The students? I just don't know how that could possibly work.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by packs

In the two most recent examples of a shooting taking place at a school where armed security officers were present, their presence did not stop the shooting. We all know about the officer in Florida, but the shooting in Maryland occurred at a school with an armed security officer too. That shooter had a single objective: kill a student he had a relationship with. He succeeded and then shot himself while the armed officer was on the premises.

Not sure of the point, but would like a citation, please.

The authorities were quick to praise the school resource officer at Great Mills High, Deputy Blaine Gaskill, who they said responded almost immediately to the gunman and fired his weapon. Deputy Gaskill was unharmed in the exchange.

“He pursued the shooter, engaged the shooter,” Sheriff Timothy K. Cameron of St. Mary’s County said. The officer, he said, then “fired a round at the shooter; simultaneously the shooter fired a round as well.”

That would lead me to believe that he fired at the SRO as well. He probably didn't mean to though, right?

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

A question for David, Taylor, and pretty much anyone else, and I ask this without any cynicism at all:

What do you want to see done to make America safer from these terrible assaults? Do you suggest any changes at all with any gun laws, or do you think the status quo is just fine? You guys know a whole lot more than I do, so I take your words seriously. Again, this is a sincere question. Your encyclopedic knowledge on guns is duly respected.

The floor is yours.

I gave a large list a few pages back on what could be done.

and no, more gun laws will make no difference at all. They never have and they never will. Not only that, but they are morally abhorrent.

Not one anti-gunner has been able to demonstrate that gun laws stop violence. Why might that be?

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by tschock

I live in NC now, but yelled out Holy Sh*t so loud the other day when I saw something on the news, that my wife thought something happened to me. I am now the proud alumni of the school district in PA that wants to put buckets of rocks in the schools to throw at someone with a gun. I hope they decide to issue fake beards so that the girls can throw them as well.

I heard that as well. I thought it was a joke at first.