Gun Banning perspective... - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

TylerH860 · #1 12-22-2012, 02:49 PM

Gun people help me understand...

Why do you want to have assault rifles and high capacity magazines? Should your desire to own these guns trounce safety concerns with all the nut jobs?

I'm honestly having a hard time wrapping my head around this. I am not interested in second amendment arguments like, "because I can" or "because 'Merica", nor am I interested in the cars, drugs, people kill people argument or somesuch. Just wondering what is your motivation to own one of these killing machines, despite them being so easy to fall into the hands of crazies.

Unlike a handgun you can't use it for defense, unless its in your home, but I'd think you'd do lots of damage to your house or risk hitting a family member should you unload a magazine when the adrenaline is pumping. I have some experience with guns and would think a pistol would be much better for protection and home defense. Its not a practical gun for hunting either; the only use I can see is for fun at the shooting range.

All assault weapons are good at is killing large amounts of people, plain and simple. Is it just fun to have that kind of power in your hands, are you preparing for a zombie apocalypse, or what?

Banning Assault weapons and high capacity magazines makes perfect sense. The nutties can still get guns but they won't be able to kill as many people.

elchivito · #2 12-22-2012, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TylerH860

Gun people help me understand...

Why do you want to have assault rifles and high capacity magazines?

I don't, but that's personal choice. I don't find military styled guns, for lack of a better description, attractive or useful. Expensive toys and nothing more.

Quote:

Should your desire to own these guns trounce safety concerns with all the nut jobs?

No. I'm not afraid of some imaginary slippery slope.

Quote:

I'm honestly having a hard time wrapping my head around this. I am not interested in second amendment arguments like, "because I can" or "because 'Merica", nor am I interested in the cars, drugs, people kill people argument or somesuch. Just wondering what is your motivation to own one of these killing machines, despite them being so easy to fall into the hands of crazies.

I'll let the fans of these arms answer. There are groups and websites set up to prove to the disbelieving anti-gun crowd that people actually hunt with these weapons, but the mods necessary to make them hunting friendly weapons are not what the guns were originally designed for. In my opinion anyone who needs more than a couple of rounds to kill a coyote probably shouldn't be allowed outside of a shooting range with a loaded weapon. My own take: I see these guns all the time. Many of the guys I routinely shoot with have them. Sometimes they bring them to our shoots for after-match show and tell. There is great storytelling and much oohing and aaahing and everybody gets to try out a round or two. It's a showoff deal from the get go if you ask me. Nobody who has a practical use for a firearm, whether it's for protection or hunting needs one and IMO they are not the first or best choice for either activity. It's sort of like seeing some numbnuts using a foot long serrated Rambo styled survival knife to gut an 8 inch hatchery trout. That there is machismo involved is beyond arguable.

The sticky wicket for me is how high capacity magazines are defined. There would have to be a line drawn somewhere. Only a set number of rounds or any legislation would be meaningless. I posted this conundrum early on somewhere in this discussion. Take two pistols that I own. One is a 1911 designed to hold 8 shots of 45ACP. The other is a Sig Sauer 9mm pistol designed to hold 16 rounds. If I am practiced and trained, I can arguably do more damage with my 1911 than I can with the Sig, as a 45 is a potentially much more damaging bullet. It makes a bigger hole. Where is the line? This is what perplexes me and however it's drawn, I'm afraid it won't be fair, and won't protect the innocent from the crazies. The extreme magazines; 100 round drum mags, 30 round extended mags for pistols like the one G. Giffords' shooter used. If they were banned tomorrow it wouldn't bother me. It is notable to me that THESE are the kinds of accessories the mass shooters are using.
Any time you get a slippery slope argument from somebody you are at that point on a fool's errand and might as well quit. There is no reasoning with those individuals. Their argument is based in fear.

TylerH860 · #3 12-22-2012, 04:12 PM

So they're worried if Rambo guns get banned it will eventually lead to a ban on all firearms? Are these the same people that believe Obama is a Muslim anti-christ?

You're right, its impossible to argue with someone who's that far gone...

t walgamuth · #4 12-22-2012, 04:35 PM

(I did not make this up) ...the head of the NRA said people need a 100 round magazines so they don't have to reload at the firing range.

something I have not seen here is mention of the armor piercing guns. I heard of them on the radio a couple of days ago. 5.7 i think they called it. The bullets are very small diameter and very high velocity and they pierce body armor.

They were developed for LEO I believe and the mfgr promised not to let them out on the streets for ordinary folks. Naturally thye did not honor their promise and they are now fairly common amongst the criminals. I believe they have been sold in quantity to Mexico so they also come back across the border too.

Diesel911 · #5 12-22-2012, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TylerH860

Gun people help me understand...

Why do you want to have assault rifles and high capacity magazines? Should your desire to own these guns trounce safety concerns with all the nut jobs?

I'm honestly having a hard time wrapping my head around this. I am not interested in second amendment arguments like, "because I can" or "because 'Merica", nor am I interested in the cars, drugs, people kill people argument or somesuch. Just wondering what is your motivation to own one of these killing machines, despite them being so easy to fall into the hands of crazies.

Unlike a handgun you can't use it for defense, unless its in your home, but I'd think you'd do lots of damage to your house or risk hitting a family member should you unload a magazine when the adrenaline is pumping. I have some experience with guns and would think a pistol would be much better for protection and home defense. Its not a practical gun for hunting either; the only use I can see is for fun at the shooting range.

All assault weapons are good at is killing large amounts of people, plain and simple. Is it just fun to have that kind of power in your hands, are you preparing for a zombie apocalypse, or what?

Banning Assault weapons and high capacity magazines makes perfect sense. The nutties can still get guns but they won't be able to kill as many people.

It is illegal to own an Assault Rifle. A real Assault Rifle has a selector Switch/Lever that changes it from Semi Automatic (one shot per Trigger Squeeze) to Fully Automatic (it will keep shooting as long as the Trigger is held down until the Magazine is Empty).
Normally not Legal. The exception to the Rule is there was/is a special Machine Gun registration.

No registed Machine Gun has ever been used to commit a Murder; ever.

The Semiautomatic Versions of the real Assault Rifles look the similar even though the do not function the same.

The term Assault Weapon was invented by the News Media because of the emotional strings it pulls by tagging on the "Assault"; yes they are yanking your emotional Chain.
When I was a kid in the 1950s and early 1960s there was no such term.

Part of the issue with Banning Assult Weapons it that it is a made up Term that allows someone to define the Term; meaning the Law might choose to define it any way they like to.

I don't have any person issues with how many Bullets are in a Magazine. The Killer in the latest Mass Murder just brought several Guns a long with Him; that is one way to compensate for a lower Magazine Capacity.

In the State I am in you can still own high capacity Magazines they just have to be Manufactured before a certain Date.

People have not only defended themselves with what you call an Assault Weapon they go Hunting with them. But, the peaceful use of something is not going to make the News.
(Hunting stuff. The 30 Cal Cartridges used in the older AK-47 type Guns is similar in ballistics to the venerable 30-30 Whinchester Cartridge; a well know hunding Cartridge for Deer.)

When they had the Riots out here in CA over the Rodney King Verdict you the News would occasionally flash pics of Korean Store owners Armed with what you Call Assult Weapons.

They protected their Stores until the National Guard (the Guard arrived with no Bullets or orders to stop Looters) came a long and forced them to leave; resulting in their businesses being pillaged.
See Pic Korean Store Owners defending there Homes and Businesses.
In the Pic I point to a Mini-14, in the back round is a Shot Gun with the evil high capacity Magazine.
Past the Shot Gun it looks like that a Guy with an UZI.

So in the above paragraph the Firearm owners are using their Guns to defend property and maybe their lives if they tried to defend property without Guns.

Most Mass Murders or even regular Murders have not been comitted with Assault Rifles or even Assault Weapons if that had been so it clearly would have been in the News.

People like to ignor the fact that in Switzerland the Soldiers have their real Assult Rifles with them at Home and they do a lot of compative shooting with them. Yet no one runs amuck with them.

The issue with Violince is a problem of our Society not with Guns.

TylerH860 · #6 12-22-2012, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diesel911

It is illegal to own an Assault Rifle. A real Assault Rifle has a selector Switch/Lever that changes it from Semi Automatic (one shot per Trigger Squeeze) to Fully Automatic (it will keep shooting as long as the Trigger is held down until the Magazine is Empty).
Normally not Legal. The exception to the Rule is there was/is a special Machine Gun registration.

No registed Machine Gun has ever been used to commit a Murder; ever.

The Semiautomatic Versions of the real Assault Rifles look the similar even though the do not function the same.

The term Assault Weapon was invented by the News Media because of the emotional strings it pulls by tagging on the "Assault"; yes they are yanking your emotional Chain.
When I was a kid in the 1950s and early 1960s there was no such term.

Part of the issue with Banning Assult Weapons it that it is a made up Term that allows someone to define the Term; meaning the Law might choose to define it any way they like to.

I don't have any person issues with how many Bullets are in a Magazine. The Killer in the latest Mass Murder just brought several Guns a long with Him; that is one way to compensate for a lower Magazine Capacity.

In the State I am in you can still own high capacity Magazines they just have to be Manufactured before a certain Date.

People have not only defended themselves with what you call an Assault Weapon they go Hunting with them. But, the peaceful use of something is not going to make the News.
(Hunting stuff. The 30 Cal Cartridges used in the older AK-47 type Guns is similar in ballistics to the venerable 30-30 Whinchester Cartridge; a well know hunding Cartridge for Deer.)

When they had the Riots out here in CA over the Rodney King Verdict you the News would occasionally flash pics of Korean Store owners Armed with what you Call Assult Weapons.

They protected their Stores until the National Guard (the Guard arrived with no Bullets or orders to stop Looters) came a long and forced them to leave; resulting in their businesses being pillaged.
See Pic Korean Store Owners defending there Homes and Businesses.
In the Pic I point to a Mini-14, in the back round is a Shot Gun with the evil high capacity Magazine.
Past the Shot Gun it looks like that a Guy with an UZI.

So in the above paragraph the Firearm owners are using their Guns to defend property and maybe their lives if they tried to defend property without Guns.

Most Mass Murders or even regular Murders have not been comitted with Assault Rifles or even Assault Weapons if that had been so it clearly would have been in the News.

People like to ignor the fact that in Switzerland the Soldiers have their real Assult Rifles with them at Home and they do a lot of compative shooting with them. Yet no one runs amuck with them.

The issue with Violince is a problem of our Society not with Guns.

Thank you, this is exactly what I was looking for, a justifiable reason. I guess if I owned a car lot in Compton or Oakland instead of Wichita I might feel better about having some bigger firepower.

Hatterasguy · #7 12-22-2012, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TylerH860

Gun people help me understand...

Why do you want to have assault rifles and high capacity magazines? Should your desire to own these guns trounce safety concerns with all the nut jobs?

I'm honestly having a hard time wrapping my head around this. I am not interested in second amendment arguments like, "because I can" or "because 'Merica", nor am I interested in the cars, drugs, people kill people argument or somesuch. Just wondering what is your motivation to own one of these killing machines, despite them being so easy to fall into the hands of crazies.

Unlike a handgun you can't use it for defense, unless its in your home, but I'd think you'd do lots of damage to your house or risk hitting a family member should you unload a magazine when the adrenaline is pumping. I have some experience with guns and would think a pistol would be much better for protection and home defense. Its not a practical gun for hunting either; the only use I can see is for fun at the shooting range.

All assault weapons are good at is killing large amounts of people, plain and simple. Is it just fun to have that kind of power in your hands, are you preparing for a zombie apocalypse, or what?

Banning Assault weapons and high capacity magazines makes perfect sense. The nutties can still get guns but they won't be able to kill as many people.

I'll take a crack at this.

I'd love to be able to afford an assault rifle, but since they are class 3 and expensive, and I don't have $100k to throw at collecting them right now I settle for semi automatic sporting rifles.

I'd love to ad an M16 and STG44 to my collection, but doing so would cost the better part of $40k.

I buy and collect military rifles because I find them to be very interesting. Its not different than collecting Mercedes, you get into the back story of an FN49 and before you know it you have one, and you just have to have the latest expression of FN's design the Scar while your at it.

Very few things in this day and age of disposable consumer goods are built like firearms. A good rifle like a Stag or Colt AR is built to last for decades, its something you can pass on to your kids. I own and shoot a number of rifles that are approaching 100 years old. Its very impressive that a Swiss gunsmith in 1915 cared enough about his job, and was so good at it that almost 100 years later his rifles bolt still locks up solid, and it still prints a nice group on paper 100 yards out. The gunsmith is long gone, but his creation and the expression of his skill is still with us.

kmaysob · #8 12-23-2012, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TylerH860

Gun people help me understand...

Why do you want to have assault rifles and high capacity magazines? Should your desire to own these guns trounce safety concerns with all the nut jobs?

I'm honestly having a hard time wrapping my head around this. I am not interested in second amendment arguments like, "because I can" or "because 'Merica", nor am I interested in the cars, drugs, people kill people argument or somesuch. Just wondering what is your motivation to own one of these killing machines, despite them being so easy to fall into the hands of crazies.

Unlike a handgun you can't use it for defense, unless its in your home, but I'd think you'd do lots of damage to your house or risk hitting a family member should you unload a magazine when the adrenaline is pumping. I have some experience with guns and would think a pistol would be much better for protection and home defense. Its not a practical gun for hunting either; the only use I can see is for fun at the shooting range.

All assault weapons are good at is killing large amounts of people, plain and simple. Is it just fun to have that kind of power in your hands, are you preparing for a zombie apocalypse, or what?

Banning Assault weapons and high capacity magazines makes perfect sense. The nutties can still get guns but they won't be able to kill as many people.

its no different than any other gun. they all shoot bullets, alot of them are semi auto as well. the difference is, they dont take hi cap mags and they dont look scary to the general public. High capacity mags, i have no use for, ammo goes quick when you dont have to load a magazine. the question is, at how many rounds do you consider high capacity?

an ar15 is actually one of the most common used for varmint hunting. if youve never tried it, how can you draw that conclusion?

btw what exactly is your def. of assault weapon?

cjlipps · #9 12-23-2012, 08:16 PM

I didn't read all the posts so please forgive if this is redundant or trite, but where do the wackos go to shoot innocents in large numbers? They go to places where they know nobody will be armed.
Why are we talking about the possibility of increasing the number of places where nobody will be armed?

Diesel911 · #10 12-23-2012, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cjlipps

I didn't read all the posts so please forgive if this is redundant or trite, but where do the wackos go to shoot innocents in large numbers? They go to places where they know nobody will be armed.
Why are we talking about the possibility of increasing the number of places where nobody will be armed?

Exactly.

My opinion there is to rush into decision because "something has to be done" and there is a highly vocal portion of the Public (I assume potential Voters) that simply don't like or understand People who own Guns and are determined cause the Law abiding Gun owners all the trouble they possibly can.
They certainly don't focus on School Security.

In this case it plays into the hands of the Politicos (who have no coherent idea of what to do) giving them an easy way to appeasement and making it appears like they actually did something instead of coming up with a real solution.

If it does not work the Politicos scapegoat and say they did what the Public wanted.

In the mean time no effort and recourses are being spent on finding a real solution or solutions. The tragic part is that it does not only apply to Gun Issues.

cjlipps · #11 12-23-2012, 09:18 PM

Let's do exactly the opposite of what the politicos think feels good:
1 FREE gun and a box of ammo per month (Let's say a .38 Special revolver) to all American citizens over the age of 21 who have no criminal record and can pass a comprehensive drug test. And if you returned your spent casings along with perforated targets you could get more free ammo.
Yeah, this is unorthodox and yeah it would have it's downside but how would the wackos feel if they were faced with the likelihood that everyone over 21 was armed and proficient with said arms?

Diesel911 · #12 12-23-2012, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cjlipps

Let's do exactly the opposite of what the politicos think feels good:
1 FREE gun and a box of ammo per month (Let's say a .38 Special revolver) to all American citizens over the age of 21 who have no criminal record and can pass a comprehensive drug test. And if you returned your spent casings along with perforated targets you could get more free ammo.
Yeah, this is unorthodox and yeah it would have it's downside but how would the wackos feel if they were faced with the likelihood that everyone over 21 was armed and proficient with said arms?

Not exactly to the point but before WWII got into full swing the Germans ask the Swiss what they would do if the Germans invaded Switzerland with 2x the number of Troops. The Swiss told them that each Swiss Soldier would just have to fire Twice.

After that Switzerland was never threatened with invasion by Germany.

So there can be a deterrent effect to be had from being armed.

In Arizona you are allowed to carry a Hand Gun as long as it is not concealed. The Anti Gun Factions prediction was there would be a Blood Bath.
Nothing of the kind happend; and of course no admission from the Antis saying they were wrong.

Benz Dr. · #13 12-23-2012, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diesel911

Not exactly to the point but before WWII got into full swing the Germans ask the Swiss what they would do if the Germans invaded Switzerland with 2x the number of Troops. The Swiss told them that each Swiss Soldier would just have to fire Twice.

After that Switzerland was never threatened with invasion by Germany.

So there can be a deterrent effect to be had from being armed.

In Arizona you are allowed to carry a Hand Gun as long as it is not concealed. The Anti Gun Factions prediction was there would be a Blood Bath.
Nothing of the kind happend; and of course no admission from the Antis saying they were wrong.

Good point. After all, where would they have been able to hide all of the gold they pryed from all the dead concentration camp vitcims if it wasn't for Swiss bankers.

cmbdiesel · #14 12-23-2012, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cjlipps

Let's do exactly the opposite of what the politicos think feels good:
1 FREE gun and a box of ammo per month (Let's say a .38 Special revolver) to all American citizens over the age of 21 who have no criminal record and can pass a comprehensive drug test. And if you returned your spent casings along with perforated targets you could get more free ammo.
Yeah, this is unorthodox and yeah it would have it's downside but how would the wackos feel if they were faced with the likelihood that everyone over 21 was armed and proficient with said arms?

I got an idea...how about we all agree that some people are just idiots who spout complete nonsense??

Diesel911 · #15 12-23-2012, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diesel911

Exactly.

My opinion there is to rush into decision because "something has to be done" and there is a highly vocal portion of the Public (I assume potential Voters) that simply don't like or understand People who own Guns and are determined cause the Law abiding Gun owners all the trouble they possibly can.
They certainly don't focus on School Security.

In this case it plays into the hands of the Politicos (who have no coherent idea of what to do) giving them an easy way to appeasement and making it appears like they actually did something instead of coming up with a real solution.

If it does not work the Politicos scapegoat and say they did what the Public wanted.

In the mean time no effort and recourses are being spent on finding a real solution or solutions. The tragic part is that it does not only apply to Gun Issues.

Where is the National cry for Psychologists, Criminologists, Security Experts; Law Enforcement, Scientists or who ever else might be needed to be gathered together to form some sort of investigating board to find real solutions?
I am speculating that there is not going to be one (or even an effort made) because while some groups have their own ajenda they want pushed no one really cares enough to look for real world solutions.