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

[packs]

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.

[lonejacklarry]

Originally Posted by packs

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.

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?

[packs]

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.

[lonejacklarry]

Originally Posted by packs

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. 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."

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

This is a thread about gun rights so I'm talking about gun rights.

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

Thanks for proving me right.

[packs]

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.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

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.

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?

[packs]

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.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

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

[packs]

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.

[SAllen2556]

Originally Posted by packs

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.

Would it make you feel better if they was all pushed outta windows?
-Archie Bunker

Seriously though, do you not remember the Boston Marathon bombing? They had guns and instead chose to use a bomb! Oklahoma City - bomb! 9/11 - airplanes.

I don't mean to be rude but you're really demonstrating some extremely narrow-minded thinking. You have your opinion and no form of persuasive argument will change your mind. Your opinion is based on only those selected mass murder events that fit your apparently ingrained indoctrination. Frankly, people like you scare me way more than anyone who owns an assault rifle.

Look, think about it logically: If you want to kill a bunch of people and you can't get one type of gun, wouldn't you just use a different kind or come up with a different method? You don't honestly believe outlawing one type of deadly weapon will prevent anyone seriously bent on mass murder from using another method do you? That's just insane. Your only real logical argument is to ban all guns. At least admit that that's what you really favor. Because I'd bet if you could vote to ban all guns, you'd do it.

Here's a novel idea: Instead of banning these weapons so only the bad guys have them, how about giving one volunteer at each public high school access to one along with extensive training. That, my friend, would do more to end mass murders at schools than anything anyone like you could ever come up with.

[packs]

Well in response all I can say is that we don't really have a bombing problem in this country. Bombings like the Boston bombing and Oklahoma City are very rare. And a 9/11 event even rarer. What we do have in this country is a higher than usual rate of mass shootings.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

Well in response all I can say is that we don't really have a bombing problem in this country. Bombings like the Boston bombing and Oklahoma City are very rare. And a 9/11 event even rarer. What we do have in this country is a higher than usual rate of mass shootings.

Yes, and we also have a high rate of DWI related deaths. You said you asked your question to understand my persepctive. I'm trying to understand yours, and those that think like you. Given the high rate of DWI deaths (something that could absolutely be avoided), where is your outrage over that? And don't give me your chicken chit answer that this thread is about gun control and blah, blah, blah...

[packs]

You are someone I will never engage with again, either in conversation or otherwise. You insulted me twice now for no reason and I won't tolerate your antics.