Gun Control

[bartipero]

Originally Posted by dirty dog

Okay but where did he get the AR15, .

I don't think it was an AR, he popped out of the car and shot both with a pistol before they could react as I recall. Gun control or not, he was a criminal and that is why he had it, and would have anyway.

[i'va biggen]

How about the dude in K.C. discharged his CC in pocket shot his wife in the leg.May loose his CCL.

[swarmyone]

From the KCStar - "Car burglars swipe Jackson County deputies’ guns
Read more here": http://www.kansascity.com/2013/01/07...#storylink=cpy

This is outrageous! They should pass a law that says you can't break into a police car and steal their AR-15's...oh wait...it is against the law. Somehow that didn't stop the crook. Hmmm....you would think that a LAW would be enough to protect your firearm.

Gun control debates are about as worthless as UN Resolutions....scary stuff that doesn't accomplish anything.

[BigMikeinKC]

Originally Posted by deacon

.............................. .............................. ............are you talking about assault weapons? there is no difference other then cosmetics. just because it looks military doesn't mean you cant use it to hunt or target practice. its the SHOOTER who makes the choice to kill not the GUN.

I think you missed my point. IMO, hand guns and assault weapons main design is to kill people. Most we designed, initially, for military use. Hunting rifles main purpose is to hunt. Therefore, for me personally, I do not own hand guns, assault rifles. It is my personal opinion and choice.

Not asking you to follow my choice or give up your weapons. You want to argue that hand guns and assault rifles have other purposes, that's fine, to me it does not change my opinion. You have your opinions and I have mine, what's the problem?

BTW, when I was in the military I used several weapons and was awarded the Navy's E marksmanship device. In the service of my country I have pointed a 45 (giving away my age, as those aren't standard issue anymore) at a person with the intent to use it if needed. I'm sure I could still pick up a 45 or a M16 and still be more accurate than most.

Funny story, to me anyway, in basic during weapon orientation, another recruit pointed his 45 at my head. Although, it was first orientation and the weapons were disabled, I put him on his ass. CC saw what happened, just smiled at me and nodded. Nothing more ever said to me, but the other recruit was PT'd for the rest of day and part of the night.

[dirty dog]

Saw a video last night where a guy using a semi automatic pistol shot 18 rounds and reloaded twice in 4.79 seconds. reload times were .80 and .90 seconds. Just an example of how ineffective a 10 round mag restriction would be. While I am not saying that everyone can do it this fast, a seasoned person in the use of a firearm can exchange magazines in 1..5 to 2 seconds. Magazine capasity will not change anything.

[i'va biggen]

how many would he have shot with a 30 round mag?

[Johnny4455]

Originally Posted by dirty dog

Saw a video last night where a guy using a semi automatic pistol shot 18 rounds and reloaded twice in 4.79 seconds. reload times were .80 and .90 seconds. Just an example of how ineffective a 10 round mag restriction would be. While I am not saying that everyone can do it this fast, a seasoned person in the use of a firearm can exchange magazines in 1..5 to 2 seconds. Magazine capasity will not change anything.

Wasn't the Tucson shooter stopped when he was trying to reload a 2nd 15 bullet magazine?

[lacrew_2000]

Loughner had 33 round magazine.

Limits on magazine sizes can be circumvented by simply bringing a second gun.

[Johnny4455]

Wasn't the Tucson shooter stopped when he was reloading with another magazine?

[bigryan222]

He was stopped while trying to pick up the magazine he dropped to the ground.

[Johnny4455]

Originally Posted by bigryan222

He was stopped while trying to pick up the magazine he dropped to the ground.

So he didn't reload in 2.9 seconds.... If there would have been laws that prevented the sale of magazines with more than 10 bullets, or how ever many is a reasonable restriction, might that have saved lives here? He bought them at Walmart right, the day of or shortly before? Look back at my post with the link to the op ed article by the republican appointed federal judge who sentenced Loughner, with regard to a conservative approach on reasonable restrictions to gun ownership. He can articulate it better than I. I am for Americans possessing guns, the 2nd amendment, but I can't believe the atttitude by some to not even consider any legislation to restrict things like plastic guns, guns that can shoot a bullet every second, etc.... Not consider them with the idea that nothing works (which is not true), there are other ways to kill people, etc.Sure there are a ton of reasons that this mass killings happen. We put mentally ill in jail more than we treat them. Irresponsible gun owners. Perhaps we could put more cops in schools and fortify the entryways... Lots of smart things we can do that will not eliminate the problem but may save lives. Again, read the conservative judge's firsthand view of one way to save lives without violating the constitutional right to bear arms - which is reasonable gun control laws. Remember the right to bear arms is a law. There are plenty of good laws on the books. It is the rule of law that makes our country great, and ensures that we have freedoms. Laws in and of themselves are not bad. People who support laws only to get votes or contributions, are bad. Orginizations like the NRA that take on contributions and pay high salaries to their leaders to lobby against about every gun law, are not really good for our country, in my humble opinion. Why can't we be smart and together on some of this. Speed limit on I-70 should be what? None? 25mph? what's reasonable and you make the law. It's against the law to threaten to kill somebody, but we have the first amendement.

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

how many would he have shot with a 30 round mag?

Do you shoot guns, have you ever shot a semi auto pistol. If you have then you would know it take a practiced person less than 2 seconds to change magazines. Do you really think you will have enough time to close the distance to a shooter before he puts one through your forehead. The simple fact of the matter is that in the case of the CT shooting, he could have used a single shot rifle and killed as many as he did because there was no one there to stop him once he got started. Who settled on a 10 round magazine as the "perfect" number, how did they acertain that number.Why not a 4 round magazine, is 10 somehow the acceptible number of dead, dont you see the absurdity of this approach, its a bandaid on an open chest would. You want to stop this from happening, change the laws to allow background checks to include mental history, enforce the laws on the books regarding straw purchasing, and make getting a sales transfer through a licensed dealer a requirement for all private sales so that the buyer has to go through a back ground check. Banning weapons because they look more lethal and thinking your solving the problem by limiting the size of the magazine, will only mean the the crazy person who still go the gun will have to use a different and/or multiple weapons and the body counts will not change much. Bans have been tried before and they did not change anything. Columbine occured during the 1994 assault weapons ban and the ban on high capasity magazines, I guess they did not get the memo.

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by Johnny4455

So he didn't reload in 2.9 seconds.... If there would have been laws that prevented the sale of magazines with more than 10 bullets, or how ever many is a reasonable restriction, might that have saved lives here? He bought them at Walmart right, the day of or shortly before? Look back at my post with the link to the op ed article by the republican appointed federal judge who sentenced Loughner, with regard to a conservative approach on reasonable restrictions to gun ownership. He can articulate it better than I. I am for Americans possessing guns, the 2nd amendment, but I can't believe the atttitude by some to not even consider any legislation to restrict things like

plastic guns(already a law, the government requires all polymer guns to have a regulated amount of metal in them, guns that can shoot a bullet every second (they have in 1934 the government made automatic weapons illegal without the owner getting a federally issue stamp which requires considerable money and a very extensive backgroud check, the weapon cannot be sold or transfered to anyone except a class 3 firearms dealer), etc.... Not consider them with the idea that nothing works (which is not true)(not saying nother works, but in this case banning weapons and high caps mags has been tried and did not reduce crime, in fact in 2004 to current date the FBI statistics indicate a fall in violent crime since the repeal of the assault weapons bill, why do we want to return to a practice that has already failed), while the assault weapons/high cap ban was in effect you had 13 school shootings in this country with a large number of the shooters being deemed mentally ill. there are other ways to kill people, etc.Sure there are a ton of reasons that this mass killings happen. We put mentally ill in jail more than we treat them. Irresponsible gun owners. Perhaps we could put more cops in schools and fortify the entryways... Lots of smart things we can do that will not eliminate the problem but may save lives. Again, read the conservative judge's firsthand view of one way to save lives without violating the constitutional right to bear arms - which is reasonable gun control laws. Remember the right to bear arms is a law (incorrect, the right to bear arms is not a law, it is in fact a right contained in the bill of rights and has as much authority as the 1st admendment). There are plenty of good laws on the books. It is the rule of law that makes our country great, and ensures that we have freedoms. Laws in and of themselves are not bad. People who support laws only to get votes or contributions, are bad. Orginizations like the NRA that take on contributions and pay high salaries to their leaders to lobby against about every gun law, are not really good for our country(The NRA is the only thing which prevents the second amendment from being trampled on, without it liberal leaning politicans with the support of the Gun Control lobby who also spend millions on lobbyiest to obtain their goals of the complete disarmament of this country, why is the NRA evil and HGI is not, could their be a little bias). How come whenever liberals spoke of gun control prior to the supreme court decison supporting it they call was for gun bans, do you think that the history of this battle may be the reason gun supporters are taking a hard stance, why can a gun owner out as much support in the 2nd admendment as most liberals do the 1st. How come liberals only believe in the bill of rights if its a right they enjoy), in my humble opinion. Why can't we be smart and together on some of this.We can, but your example above are no different than banning this or banning that, it does not get to the heart of the matter and that is the mental history not being available to back ground investigators before someone purchases a gun. They hide this behind the 4th amedment of the bill of rights, and no politician wants to touch this 3rd rail because it means changing the 4th amendment and this amendment is popular with the liberal left, , Speed limit on I-70 should be what? None? 25mph? what's reasonable and you make the law. It's against the law to threaten to kill somebody, but we have the first amendement.

The problem is most supporter of the 2nd amedment do not believe the gun control lobby will stop once they started. I can remember the press conference where they were signing the Brady bill into law, the President had not even finished signing the bill when Sarah Brady (Hand gun Incorperated) screamed out now its time for brady bill 2.

Once final example is the absurdity of the bill. The assault weapons ban of 1994 banned the MI garand rifle, this is the rifle the military used in WW2

The rifle is semi automatic, (1 trigger pull per round fired)
The rifle had a 8 round internal magazine
The rifle was 30/06 caliber
This rifle was deemed banned under the law

but:

The remmington model 760 was semi automatic (1 trigger pull per round fired)
The rifle had an external 8 round magazine
The rifle was 30/06 in caliber
This rifle was legal

Why, what was the difference other than looks. The M1 Grand was a rifle the civilan marksman group in this country used to compete in shooting matches sponsered by the military but it was deemed banned under the law. People that know guns cannot understand how many on the gun control side come up with their rational in making decisions and they also see whats really going on when you already have Nancy Pelosi commenting on further gun bans down the road.

PS in a hurry did not have time for spell checking

[Johnny4455]

dd, read this... http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec...s-ban-20121220

this isn't a matter of politics, or liberal left..... it is a matter of saving lives. It's not just gun laws that can help.

See the conservative gun owner judge's realistic approach to the AZ shooter (he knows what happened, he was the judge) and the aftermath. Read it with an open mind.

On a side note, I am so sorry for your recent loss. I have lots of respect for you, I know you've been through alot. I appreciate the civil discussion with you.thanks bro

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by Johnny4455

dd, read this... http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec...s-ban-20121220

this isn't a matter of politics, or liberal left..... it is a matter of saving lives. It's not just gun laws that can help.

See the conservative gun owner judge's realistic approach to the AZ shooter (he knows what happened, he was the judge) and the aftermath. Read it with an open mind.

On a side note, I am so sorry for your recent loss. I have lots of respect for you, I know you've been through alot. I appreciate the civil discussion with you.thanks bro

Johnny the judge makes some good points but for everyone of his points I have counter points. The judge wants gun bans and to make it a crime to possess these weapons, is the federal goverment going to refund the cost of these weapons to the honest and law biding citizens who have done nothing wrong, what he fails to point out is that the persons who have decided to perform these mass murders are mentally ill and should never have had these weapons to begin with. How come he does not want to infrige on the 4th adementment and trample on the rights of the mentally ill, but is more than willing to infridge on the law biding gun owners and their rights under the second admendment. Why are these law biding gun owners going to pay the price of the acts committed by the criminally insane whom would not in most cases even had access to the weapons if their mental histroy was not being hidden behind the 4th amendment. Why are we going after the tool and not the person using the tool. You may laugh at this but I will tell you that neither my AK47 or my Bushmaster AR have ever killed anyone and in fact they have never even fired by themselves. Now the .22 rifle is a different matter he is a crazy bastard LOL. Nor have I in the middle of the night heard voices from my gun safe telling me to shoot up the school down the street. Why dont we trample on the rights of the mentally ill bastards doing the killing and not the law biding people who use their rifle for sport/hunting and have never used it to harm anyone.