OT: Colorado shooting

[bmarlowe1]

The posts are general clear and intentionally general.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by bmarlowe1

The posts are clear.

Backed into a corner and you can't answer the question. Ok.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Backed into a corner and you can't answer the question. Ok.

Discussing the relative merits of, say, a vintage govt. 1911 (or even a specific revolver) vs a Glock 17 would be ludicrous in a forum like this, hence general comments are most appropriate. I think this is evident to most. If you don't understand what I posted, I don't know how to make it more clear.

You do seem to have trouble understanding the posts you are responding to (at least mine). Maybe it's my writing style.

I'm still waiting to hear why equating a multi-level house or a truck (clear economic necessities) to a gun in the context of the arguments you made is anything but ridiculous.

[tiger8mush]

Mark & David, forgive me if I'm wrong, but don't you both seem to be arguing that we should allow guns but not the kind that can fire a million rounds per second with an endless supply of ammo? And that maybe if there was some signs that the feds could've picked up on, then those signs should've been looked into in the case of Holmes, the Colorado shooter? It seems like you both agree but are just coming at it from different angles.

I'm not big into politics, but I believe in less laws/gov't (maybe I'm a libertarian???). I don't own a gun, but believe they should be allowed. Freedom to protect oneself and family. If a few restrictions go into play when purchasing a gun, such as a waiting period etc, then I'm fine with it.

An example to go along with what David is saying, people die every day in backyard pools. We create a few guidelines to minimize deaths/injuries (such as fences around the pools, "no diving" signs in shallow depths, etc) but unless you ban backyard pools there will always be accidents. We shouldn't ban backyard pools and we shouldn't ban guns. Just educate people on them and create guidelines to keep the bad people with bad intentions away.

Carry on ...

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

Mark & David, forgive me if I'm wrong, but don't you both seem to be arguing that we should allow guns but not the kind that can fire a million rounds per second with an endless supply of ammo?

Rob, you're pretty close. I know the "million rounds per second" comment was an exaggeration, but I think that's where me and Mark differ. I agree that fully automatic weapons (the million rounds per socond ones) should be banned - and they already are - but I think he's saying that semi-automatic weapons should be banned as well. If he is, good luck with that one, but won't clarify his comments.

The AR-15 "assault rifle" like the one used in Aurora was not a fully automatic weapon. It was a semi-automatic weapon, like many, many other rifles/pistols.

A fully automatic weapon will disburse rounds at a high rate of speed as long as the finger is held on the trigger. A semi-automatic weapon will only fire with each pull of the trigger.

Also, the AR-15 only holds one round in the chamber. The gun itself is not a high capacity gun. The rest of the rounds are housed in the clip. You can get anything from a 5 round clip (very reasonable) to a 100 round drum/clip (not reasonable). So this conversation shouldn't be about "gun control," it should be a magazine capacity issue. I already said in post #55 that we should "ban high capacity clips." What else does Mark want? He just wants to argue and be vague with his comments.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

So this conversation shouldn't be about "gun control," it should be a magazine capacity issue. I already said in post #55 that we should "ban high capacity clips." What else does Mark want? He just wants to argue and be vague with his comments.

I saw that post and I did not disagree with you on magazine size. It is a major concern. If you carefully look at what I posted, it was primarily directed at the specific analogies you presented. That is because I often hear them (or similar) as general arguments against restrictions (including magazine size, ammunition availability, whatever, etc.) and in my view they aren't well thought through.

[Runscott]

My apologies to Zach and Ty for my responses - I took their posts in the worst possible way, which is always a bad move.