1FastGambler
Active Member
- Messages
- 983
Guns DON'T kill people
- Thread starter 1FastGambler
- Start date
S
slickrock
Guest
"Guns DON'T kill people"
Now that right there is one profound statement! I'll be up all night thinking about that one.
Slick
"The Road goes on forever & the Party never Ends"
Now that right there is one profound statement! I'll be up all night thinking about that one.
Slick
"The Road goes on forever & the Party never Ends"
elkassassin
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 39,712
He's for Gun Control!
Thinks if his Buddy makes a Law Banning Assault Weapons & Hi-Capacity Magazines/Clips everybody will willingly hand them over & Problem Fixed!
WRONG slick,WRONG!
Him & his Buddy's Plan would do nothin but SCREW the Honest Americans over even more!
We know you're a Bull Headed Ole Bastard slick but you really need to Re-Think this one out all the way!
Maybe if the Kid they caught Packin in the TARDville School yesterday woulda been there,He mighta Slowed the Sick SOB down in Conn. before killin all them people?
No,I'm not sayin the Kid was right by takin the weapon to School,but you gotta admit,kids think,and a bunch of them know how to protect theirselves,you wanna/gonna take that away from them slick?
If I had Listened!
I wouldn't be here today Living & Dieing with the Choices I've made!
Thinks if his Buddy makes a Law Banning Assault Weapons & Hi-Capacity Magazines/Clips everybody will willingly hand them over & Problem Fixed!
WRONG slick,WRONG!
Him & his Buddy's Plan would do nothin but SCREW the Honest Americans over even more!
We know you're a Bull Headed Ole Bastard slick but you really need to Re-Think this one out all the way!
Maybe if the Kid they caught Packin in the TARDville School yesterday woulda been there,He mighta Slowed the Sick SOB down in Conn. before killin all them people?
No,I'm not sayin the Kid was right by takin the weapon to School,but you gotta admit,kids think,and a bunch of them know how to protect theirselves,you wanna/gonna take that away from them slick?
If I had Listened!
I wouldn't be here today Living & Dieing with the Choices I've made!
T
TAGATTRACTER
Guest
Gun control quiz for slick.
1. Ted Kennedy, Charles Schumer and Barbara Boxer strongly denounce private gun ownership. Their bodyguards; however, carry:
A. Berettas
B. Glocks
C. Garbage can lids
D. Slingshots
E. Very heavy purses
2. You and your baby daughter are awakened in the middle of the night by your estranged, abusive ex-husband. Yes, I said husband. Although you have a restraining order against him, he is drunk and beats down your front door with a crowbar screaming, "If I can't have you, nobody can!" You should:
A. Call Barbara Boxer.
B. Call 911, and tell them that they should arrive within 30 seconds.
C. Threaten legal action.
D. Grab a ping-pong paddle.
E. Reason with him (maybe he was an abused child).
3. Since 1987, 34 states have enacted concealed carry laws. Violent crime decreased in these states and the anticipated "Dodge City" mayhem never materialized. Even critics were surprised. Concealed carry succeeded because:
A. Sunspot activity decreased after 1987.
B. Trigger locks rendered guns inoperative and therefore safe.
C. Sarah Brady scared the crooks away.
D. A healing wave of pacifism swept over the hearts of criminals in these 34 states.
E. Janet Reno said that crime should stop.
4. Schools, churches, subways, and restaurants have often been assaulted, but rarely military bases, police stations, or shooting clubs. The reason for this is because:
A. The targets aren't sitting or kneeling.
B. VA benefits are lost if you shoot a soldier.
C. You can't enter an army base without bumper stickers.
D. Schools don't threaten felons with detention hall.
E. All of the above.
5. Logic, reason, and common sense:
A. Are irrelevant if they contradict your feelings.
B. Should not apply to firearms.
C. Defy opinion polls.
D. Pale beside hysteria, fear, and political ambition.
E. All of the above.
6. Every dictator always disarms his victims, before beginning to annihilate freedom loving people. The reason for this is because:
A. Guns cause crime.
B. Guns cause accidents
C. Guns cause suicides
D. Being defenseless is the only way that mothers can demonstrate their love for their children
E. All of the above
7. The FBI states that every 5 minutes there is a woman who is raped. Because of this you should:
A. Wear crotchless panties
B. Carry extra condoms
C. Always have an inflatable mattress in the trunk of your car
D. Invest in pepperspray scented underwear
E. Don't vote for a Democrat
1. Ted Kennedy, Charles Schumer and Barbara Boxer strongly denounce private gun ownership. Their bodyguards; however, carry:
A. Berettas
B. Glocks
C. Garbage can lids
D. Slingshots
E. Very heavy purses
2. You and your baby daughter are awakened in the middle of the night by your estranged, abusive ex-husband. Yes, I said husband. Although you have a restraining order against him, he is drunk and beats down your front door with a crowbar screaming, "If I can't have you, nobody can!" You should:
A. Call Barbara Boxer.
B. Call 911, and tell them that they should arrive within 30 seconds.
C. Threaten legal action.
D. Grab a ping-pong paddle.
E. Reason with him (maybe he was an abused child).
3. Since 1987, 34 states have enacted concealed carry laws. Violent crime decreased in these states and the anticipated "Dodge City" mayhem never materialized. Even critics were surprised. Concealed carry succeeded because:
A. Sunspot activity decreased after 1987.
B. Trigger locks rendered guns inoperative and therefore safe.
C. Sarah Brady scared the crooks away.
D. A healing wave of pacifism swept over the hearts of criminals in these 34 states.
E. Janet Reno said that crime should stop.
4. Schools, churches, subways, and restaurants have often been assaulted, but rarely military bases, police stations, or shooting clubs. The reason for this is because:
A. The targets aren't sitting or kneeling.
B. VA benefits are lost if you shoot a soldier.
C. You can't enter an army base without bumper stickers.
D. Schools don't threaten felons with detention hall.
E. All of the above.
5. Logic, reason, and common sense:
A. Are irrelevant if they contradict your feelings.
B. Should not apply to firearms.
C. Defy opinion polls.
D. Pale beside hysteria, fear, and political ambition.
E. All of the above.
6. Every dictator always disarms his victims, before beginning to annihilate freedom loving people. The reason for this is because:
A. Guns cause crime.
B. Guns cause accidents
C. Guns cause suicides
D. Being defenseless is the only way that mothers can demonstrate their love for their children
E. All of the above
7. The FBI states that every 5 minutes there is a woman who is raped. Because of this you should:
A. Wear crotchless panties
B. Carry extra condoms
C. Always have an inflatable mattress in the trunk of your car
D. Invest in pepperspray scented underwear
E. Don't vote for a Democrat
grizzmoose
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,023
*Yawn*
I wish for once someone would argue something totally regurgitated from the news or from forwarded pictures. Guns do kill people. No, they don't jump up, arm themselves and shoot people. That argument is hardly compelling. Posting stuff like that makes us gun owners look like bumbling, uneducated idiots. I'm not saying I promote or support general gun control. How could I? I have weapons myself, and I want to keep them.
The thing is that guns are an easy way for these people to get the job done. Not everyone has the education, foresight, logistical know how, or plain old intelligence to carry out a large scale explosive like McVeigh. If you took away their weapons, would they all resort to something like that? I doubt it. They choose guns because they are available and require minimal planning and preparation.
I would be supportive of certain gun control measures. I would support a ban on assault weapons. Not a single person in here can make an argument that they "need" them to protect themselves or that if you take them away, you no longer have your right to bear arms. You still have the right, just not with kind of gun. The only reason people want them is because they are fun to shoot.
I also would like to see concealed weapon permit owners to go through more rigorous training and competency testing. Sitting in a class for a few hours doesn't really do much to make me comfortable knowing they could be carrying.
Perhaps more background checking into mental health is warranted as well.
I know I'll take crap for this, but I'm cool with that. I just think that if we want to preserve our right to bear arms, we need to be able to argue the point with more compelling arguments, not with worn out slogans or rally cries.
I wish for once someone would argue something totally regurgitated from the news or from forwarded pictures. Guns do kill people. No, they don't jump up, arm themselves and shoot people. That argument is hardly compelling. Posting stuff like that makes us gun owners look like bumbling, uneducated idiots. I'm not saying I promote or support general gun control. How could I? I have weapons myself, and I want to keep them.
The thing is that guns are an easy way for these people to get the job done. Not everyone has the education, foresight, logistical know how, or plain old intelligence to carry out a large scale explosive like McVeigh. If you took away their weapons, would they all resort to something like that? I doubt it. They choose guns because they are available and require minimal planning and preparation.
I would be supportive of certain gun control measures. I would support a ban on assault weapons. Not a single person in here can make an argument that they "need" them to protect themselves or that if you take them away, you no longer have your right to bear arms. You still have the right, just not with kind of gun. The only reason people want them is because they are fun to shoot.
I also would like to see concealed weapon permit owners to go through more rigorous training and competency testing. Sitting in a class for a few hours doesn't really do much to make me comfortable knowing they could be carrying.
Perhaps more background checking into mental health is warranted as well.
I know I'll take crap for this, but I'm cool with that. I just think that if we want to preserve our right to bear arms, we need to be able to argue the point with more compelling arguments, not with worn out slogans or rally cries.
NORKALNIMROD
Active Member
- Messages
- 759
LAST EDITED ON Dec-18-12 AT 03:36PM (MST)[p]There are many legitimate reasons for owning weapons that the political idiots and libs call "assault weapons", the most important is to insure that our government remembers that we that have taken an oath to protect this country along with many others can and will if need be. Also, many of us enjoy hunting and target shooting with these weapons. And yes for many of us the patrol carbine/rifle is our preferred choice for protecting what is ours. It is true that in trained hands a revolver, pump rifle and or shotgun is adequate, however the choice of what we choose to utilize should be up to us. Also, I know this to be true, no amount of laws or punishment will keep firearms of any kind out of the hands of true criminals or prevent them from using them. I also know this to be true as I have personally interviewed thousands of felons, any hardened criminal will tell you their biggest fear when committing crimes against others is coming up against a "victim" that is armed and not afraid to utilize their chosen means of defense. Even the nut cases pick victims or groups of victims that they believe to be easy targets. Any idiot can make a bomb, use a knife or use a vehicle as a weapon, I have witnessed all of these.
U.S. citizens living outside the inner cities have been sheltered from terrorism. The inner city is no stranger to terrorism, the media calls it "gang violence". U.S. citizens need to accept the fact that it is time to do away with so called "gun free" zones as these only keep the good guys from having firearms in these areas (exactly what the predators are counting on) and give the naive a false sense of being safe. Get this, the BAD GUYS don't give a rat's butt about any law, God's or societies. Our schools should be protected by armed, trained staff and volunteers. Then let's see how many massacres we have in our public schools.
Norkal
"INVEST IN LEAD FOR THE TIMES AHEAD!"
U.S. citizens living outside the inner cities have been sheltered from terrorism. The inner city is no stranger to terrorism, the media calls it "gang violence". U.S. citizens need to accept the fact that it is time to do away with so called "gun free" zones as these only keep the good guys from having firearms in these areas (exactly what the predators are counting on) and give the naive a false sense of being safe. Get this, the BAD GUYS don't give a rat's butt about any law, God's or societies. Our schools should be protected by armed, trained staff and volunteers. Then let's see how many massacres we have in our public schools.
Norkal
"INVEST IN LEAD FOR THE TIMES AHEAD!"
S
slickrock
Guest
I have never advocated gun control. I own more than most of you. Including high cap weapons.
I just think we all need to take a breath and think about what we can do to limit the horrible sh!t that is escalating in our country.
Do you really need 30 round mags? Do you really need military style weapons.
It ain't going to stop the crazies but it might save a few little kids.
I sure as hell don't wan't a f'n SWAT team assigned to the elementary schools in my town.
If you Rambo's got a better plan have at it
Slick
"The Road goes on forever & the Party never Ends"
I just think we all need to take a breath and think about what we can do to limit the horrible sh!t that is escalating in our country.
Do you really need 30 round mags? Do you really need military style weapons.
It ain't going to stop the crazies but it might save a few little kids.
I sure as hell don't wan't a f'n SWAT team assigned to the elementary schools in my town.
If you Rambo's got a better plan have at it
Slick
"The Road goes on forever & the Party never Ends"
Do you think if they take the AR's and the 30 round clips that it will stop there ? I don't think so. Once they get their foot in the door they will pass any anti gun law they want ,same way gay marriage is spreading thru the country.... because the liberals want it to... and the rest of them just follow along once they see they might "offend" some gay group that will make noise . Remember your not dealing with strong patriatic americans you're dealing with weak, meak, freaks known as politicions.
feddoc
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 7,606
>I have never advocated gun control.
>I own more than most
>of you. Including high cap
>weapons.
>
>I just think we all need
>to take a breath and
>think about what we can
>do to limit the horrible
>sh!t that is escalating in
>our country.
>
>Do you really need 30 round
>mags? Do you really need
>military style weapons.
>
>It ain't going to stop the
>crazies but it might save
>a few little kids.
>
>I sure as hell don't wan't
>a f'n SWAT team assigned
>to the elementary schools in
>my town.
>
>If you Rambo's got a better
>plan have at it
>
>Slick
>
>"The Road goes on forever &
>the Party never Ends"
You just don't get it...it isn't about need.
>I own more than most
>of you. Including high cap
>weapons.
>
>I just think we all need
>to take a breath and
>think about what we can
>do to limit the horrible
>sh!t that is escalating in
>our country.
>
>Do you really need 30 round
>mags? Do you really need
>military style weapons.
>
>It ain't going to stop the
>crazies but it might save
>a few little kids.
>
>I sure as hell don't wan't
>a f'n SWAT team assigned
>to the elementary schools in
>my town.
>
>If you Rambo's got a better
>plan have at it
>
>Slick
>
>"The Road goes on forever &
>the Party never Ends"
You just don't get it...it isn't about need.
feddoc
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 7,606
LAST EDITED ON Dec-18-12 AT 09:42PM (MST)[p]>*Yawn*
>
>I wish for once someone would
>argue something totally regurgitated from
>the news or from forwarded
>pictures. Guns do kill
>people. No, they don't
>jump up, arm themselves and
>shoot people. That argument
>is hardly compelling. Posting
>stuff like that makes us
>gun owners look like bumbling,
>uneducated idiots. I'm not
>saying I promote or support
>general gun control. How
>could I? I have
>weapons myself, and I want
>to keep them.
>
>The thing is that guns are
>an easy way for these
>people to get the job
>done. Not everyone has
>the education, foresight, logistical know
>how, or plain old intelligence
>to carry out a large
>scale explosive like McVeigh.
>If you took away their
>weapons, would they all resort
>to something like that?
>I doubt it. They
>choose guns because they are
>available and require minimal planning
>and preparation.
>
>I would be supportive of certain
>gun control measures. I
>would support a ban on
>assault weapons. Not a
>single person in here can
>make an argument that they
>"need" them to protect themselves
>or that if you take
>them away, you no longer
>have your right to bear
>arms. You still have
>the right, just not with
>kind of gun. The
>only reason people want them
>is because they are fun
>to shoot.
>
>I also would like to see
>concealed weapon permit owners to
>go through more rigorous training
>and competency testing. Sitting
>in a class for a
>few hours doesn't really do
>much to make me comfortable
>knowing they could be carrying.
>
>
>Perhaps more background checking into mental
>health is warranted as well.
>
>
>I know I'll take crap for
>this, but I'm cool with
>that. I just think
>that if we want to
>preserve our right to bear
>arms, we need to be
>able to argue the point
>with more compelling arguments, not
>with worn out slogans or
>rally cries.
**yawn**
Why support a bill, the AWB, that didn't reduce crime one bit? If one takes a critical look at data supplied by the FBI, normally via their Uniform Crime Report, you can see that violent crime didn't do much at all during the 10 year period it was intact. Nor did it rise after it was allowed to expire.
"Not everyone has the education, foresight, logistical know how, or plain old intelligence to carry out a large scale explosive like McVeigh."
No,but millions of idiots have computers and can easily obtain the info to do so. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how to make an ANFO bomb.
Guns kill people? Hmm, well, I suppose you are right, in an absolute sense. But it still takes human decision making, or lack thereof, to pull that trigger, or light that fuse, or take that drink, or leave that pail of water unattended.
Try harder.
>
>I wish for once someone would
>argue something totally regurgitated from
>the news or from forwarded
>pictures. Guns do kill
>people. No, they don't
>jump up, arm themselves and
>shoot people. That argument
>is hardly compelling. Posting
>stuff like that makes us
>gun owners look like bumbling,
>uneducated idiots. I'm not
>saying I promote or support
>general gun control. How
>could I? I have
>weapons myself, and I want
>to keep them.
>
>The thing is that guns are
>an easy way for these
>people to get the job
>done. Not everyone has
>the education, foresight, logistical know
>how, or plain old intelligence
>to carry out a large
>scale explosive like McVeigh.
>If you took away their
>weapons, would they all resort
>to something like that?
>I doubt it. They
>choose guns because they are
>available and require minimal planning
>and preparation.
>
>I would be supportive of certain
>gun control measures. I
>would support a ban on
>assault weapons. Not a
>single person in here can
>make an argument that they
>"need" them to protect themselves
>or that if you take
>them away, you no longer
>have your right to bear
>arms. You still have
>the right, just not with
>kind of gun. The
>only reason people want them
>is because they are fun
>to shoot.
>
>I also would like to see
>concealed weapon permit owners to
>go through more rigorous training
>and competency testing. Sitting
>in a class for a
>few hours doesn't really do
>much to make me comfortable
>knowing they could be carrying.
>
>
>Perhaps more background checking into mental
>health is warranted as well.
>
>
>I know I'll take crap for
>this, but I'm cool with
>that. I just think
>that if we want to
>preserve our right to bear
>arms, we need to be
>able to argue the point
>with more compelling arguments, not
>with worn out slogans or
>rally cries.
**yawn**
Why support a bill, the AWB, that didn't reduce crime one bit? If one takes a critical look at data supplied by the FBI, normally via their Uniform Crime Report, you can see that violent crime didn't do much at all during the 10 year period it was intact. Nor did it rise after it was allowed to expire.
"Not everyone has the education, foresight, logistical know how, or plain old intelligence to carry out a large scale explosive like McVeigh."
No,but millions of idiots have computers and can easily obtain the info to do so. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how to make an ANFO bomb.
Guns kill people? Hmm, well, I suppose you are right, in an absolute sense. But it still takes human decision making, or lack thereof, to pull that trigger, or light that fuse, or take that drink, or leave that pail of water unattended.
Try harder.
1FastGambler
Active Member
- Messages
- 983
Norkal, that is a great post. I feel the same way.
After all an Assault Weapon by definition could be anything.
Assault - Verb meaning a viloent physical or verbal attack.
Weapon - Noun meaning someting used to injure, defeat, or destroy.
Therefore if I attacked my neighbor with a garden hose, the garden hose could now be considered an assault weapon, right?!
Connecticut definition of "Assault Weapon" -
"Assault weapon" means any one of the following:
1. Any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user or any of the following specified semiautomatic firearms: Algimec Agmi; Armalite AR-180; Australian Automatic Arms SAP Pistol; Auto-Ordnance Thompson type; Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47 type; Barrett Light-Fifty model 82A1; Beretta AR-70; Bushmaster Auto Rifle and Auto Pistol; Calico models M-900, M-950 and 100-P; Chartered Industries of Singapore SR-88; Colt AR-15 and Sporter; Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max-1 and Max-2; Encom MK-IV, MP-9 and MP-45; Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FN/FNC; FAMAS MAS 223; Feather AT-9 and Mini-AT; Federal XC-900 and XC-450; Franchi SPAS-12 and LAW-12; Galil AR and ARM; Goncz High-Tech Carbine and High-Tech Long Pistol; Heckler & Koch HK-91, HK-93, HK-94 and SP-89; Holmes MP-83; MAC-10, MAC-11 Carbien type; Intratec TEC-9 and Scorpion; Iver Johnson Enforcer model 3000; Ruger Mini-14/5F folding stock model only; Scarab Skorpion; SIG 57 AMT and 500 Series; Spectre Auto Carbine and Auto Pistol; Springfield Armory BM59, SAR-48 and G-3; Sterling MK-6 and MK-7; Steyr AUG; Street Sweeper and Striker 12 revolving cylinder shotguns; USAS-12; USI Carbine, Mini-Carbine and Pistol; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson "Linda" Pistol.
2. A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon as defined in subdivision (1) or any combination of parts from which an assault weapon as defined in subdivision (1) may be rapidly assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.
3. Any semiautomatic firearm not listed in subdivision (1) that meets the following criteria:
(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:
i. a folding or telescopic stock;
ii. a pistol grip;
iii. a bayonet mount;
iv. a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
v. a grenade launcher.
(B) A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:
i. an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
ii. a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer;
iii. a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
iv. a manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
v. a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
(C) A semiautomatic shotgun that has at least two of the following:
i. a folding or telescoping stock;
ii. a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
iii. a fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds; and
iv. an ability to accept a detachable magazine.
4. A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (3), or any combination of parts from which an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (3), may be rapidly assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.
My interpretation after reading this tells me that the Rock River Varmint rifle would not be considered an Assault rifle because it only has one of the two criteria.
After all an Assault Weapon by definition could be anything.
Assault - Verb meaning a viloent physical or verbal attack.
Weapon - Noun meaning someting used to injure, defeat, or destroy.
Therefore if I attacked my neighbor with a garden hose, the garden hose could now be considered an assault weapon, right?!
Connecticut definition of "Assault Weapon" -
"Assault weapon" means any one of the following:
1. Any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user or any of the following specified semiautomatic firearms: Algimec Agmi; Armalite AR-180; Australian Automatic Arms SAP Pistol; Auto-Ordnance Thompson type; Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47 type; Barrett Light-Fifty model 82A1; Beretta AR-70; Bushmaster Auto Rifle and Auto Pistol; Calico models M-900, M-950 and 100-P; Chartered Industries of Singapore SR-88; Colt AR-15 and Sporter; Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max-1 and Max-2; Encom MK-IV, MP-9 and MP-45; Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FN/FNC; FAMAS MAS 223; Feather AT-9 and Mini-AT; Federal XC-900 and XC-450; Franchi SPAS-12 and LAW-12; Galil AR and ARM; Goncz High-Tech Carbine and High-Tech Long Pistol; Heckler & Koch HK-91, HK-93, HK-94 and SP-89; Holmes MP-83; MAC-10, MAC-11 Carbien type; Intratec TEC-9 and Scorpion; Iver Johnson Enforcer model 3000; Ruger Mini-14/5F folding stock model only; Scarab Skorpion; SIG 57 AMT and 500 Series; Spectre Auto Carbine and Auto Pistol; Springfield Armory BM59, SAR-48 and G-3; Sterling MK-6 and MK-7; Steyr AUG; Street Sweeper and Striker 12 revolving cylinder shotguns; USAS-12; USI Carbine, Mini-Carbine and Pistol; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson "Linda" Pistol.
2. A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon as defined in subdivision (1) or any combination of parts from which an assault weapon as defined in subdivision (1) may be rapidly assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.
3. Any semiautomatic firearm not listed in subdivision (1) that meets the following criteria:
(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:
i. a folding or telescopic stock;
ii. a pistol grip;
iii. a bayonet mount;
iv. a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
v. a grenade launcher.
(B) A semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:
i. an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
ii. a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip or silencer;
iii. a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
iv. a manufactured weight of fifty ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
v. a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.
(C) A semiautomatic shotgun that has at least two of the following:
i. a folding or telescoping stock;
ii. a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
iii. a fixed magazine capacity in excess of five rounds; and
iv. an ability to accept a detachable magazine.
4. A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a firearm into an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (3), or any combination of parts from which an assault weapon, as defined in subdivision (3), may be rapidly assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of the same person.
My interpretation after reading this tells me that the Rock River Varmint rifle would not be considered an Assault rifle because it only has one of the two criteria.
NORKALNIMROD
Active Member
- Messages
- 759
Well Slick, it is obvious to me that You fall into the "naive" category. It has nothing to do with "Rambo" mentality. It does have to do with the fact that as long as we have so called "gun free" zones the predators will target these areas as they pose the least threat to their plan, regardless if they are planning on surviving their attack or not. If the staff at any of the schools that have been victims of these crimes would have been trained and armed the perp would have been stopped. Yes there may or may not have been the loss of "innocent" lives, but not nearly as many and the perp would most likely be dead or in custody recovering from wounds inflicted by evil guns in the hands of trained staff/volunteers.
You do not get it. I believe You stated in another post that if it would save the life of just one child You would gladly give up Your Right to own "assault" weapons. Sorry, that boat don't float in my world. You may be willing to give up Your Rights to save one life, I am not and wont. Remember there have been countless thousands of lives lost obtaining and protecting our Rights. I guess we should make skateboards illegal also, same with bikes, bathtubs and school busses. We have no Rights to any of these and they result in the loss of children's lives every year. And as I stated the number one reason for us to possess "assault" weapons is to keep our corrupt government in check. IF YOU DOUBT THAT YOU TRULY ARE NAIVE!
Norkal
"INVEST IN LEAD FOR THE TIMES AHEAD!"
You do not get it. I believe You stated in another post that if it would save the life of just one child You would gladly give up Your Right to own "assault" weapons. Sorry, that boat don't float in my world. You may be willing to give up Your Rights to save one life, I am not and wont. Remember there have been countless thousands of lives lost obtaining and protecting our Rights. I guess we should make skateboards illegal also, same with bikes, bathtubs and school busses. We have no Rights to any of these and they result in the loss of children's lives every year. And as I stated the number one reason for us to possess "assault" weapons is to keep our corrupt government in check. IF YOU DOUBT THAT YOU TRULY ARE NAIVE!
Norkal
"INVEST IN LEAD FOR THE TIMES AHEAD!"
grizzmoose
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,023
So if it is so easy, and since there are millions of computers out there, why are people not making these bombs and putting them in schools and killing kids? They aren't doing it because these guns are easy. It's the path of least resistance. Might they find an alternative? They could.
I still can't believe that people are wanting to put guns in our teachers' hands. It absolutely sounds like a Rambo mentality. You do that and there will soon be a story of a large kid overpowering his teacher, getting the gun and killing her in a fit of rage. Guns are easy to get as it is. . . why make it even easier?
Seriously, this whole comparing guns to bathtubs, skateboards, and cars is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. It's a weak minded argument that holds no water.
Norkal, you are making it sound as though our corrupt government IS being kept in check because there are assault weapons out there? Sorry man, but a truly corrupt government is not going to be halted, or kept in check because a few deer hunters have an AR15.
I still can't believe that people are wanting to put guns in our teachers' hands. It absolutely sounds like a Rambo mentality. You do that and there will soon be a story of a large kid overpowering his teacher, getting the gun and killing her in a fit of rage. Guns are easy to get as it is. . . why make it even easier?
Seriously, this whole comparing guns to bathtubs, skateboards, and cars is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. It's a weak minded argument that holds no water.
Norkal, you are making it sound as though our corrupt government IS being kept in check because there are assault weapons out there? Sorry man, but a truly corrupt government is not going to be halted, or kept in check because a few deer hunters have an AR15.
NORKALNIMROD
Active Member
- Messages
- 759
LAST EDITED ON Dec-19-12 AT 05:52PM (MST)[p]Grizz,
You are mistaken about the handful of deer hunters, way mistaken. Regardless, we don't have large scale school shootings on a daily basis either. And "assault" weapons are utilized in a very small percentage of illegal shootings.
Not a comparison, fact is more kids are killed in accidents, having fun than gun violence.
We can agree to disagree.
Norkal
"INVEST IN LEAD FOR THE TIMES AHEAD!"
You are mistaken about the handful of deer hunters, way mistaken. Regardless, we don't have large scale school shootings on a daily basis either. And "assault" weapons are utilized in a very small percentage of illegal shootings.
Not a comparison, fact is more kids are killed in accidents, having fun than gun violence.
We can agree to disagree.
Norkal
"INVEST IN LEAD FOR THE TIMES AHEAD!"
So if I put a flash hider and a 30 shot clip in a Ruger 10/22 it is an assault weapon?? gosh and Ruger made over 5 million of them. Do not make any laws that can't be enforced. Bill Clinton and Obama are the 2 best assault weapon salesmen in the USA.... go to any gun stores and ask if sales on ar 15 type guns are up. ce61
grizzmoose
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,023
"Accidents". That's the key word there. That's why the comparison is ridiculous. We could start comparing bathtubs and vehicles to guns if they were used in a malicious manner.
I don't want to sound disrespectful or anything, but do you really think that assault weapon owners across the country are what is keeping the government from bringing us under the rule of a dictator? It sounds as though you feel that you and other owners are the guardians of US citizens. If that is where your head is, I'm happy to agree to disagree. I'm definitely a conservative, but that kind of right wing thinking is WAYYYYYY out to the right.
I don't want to sound disrespectful or anything, but do you really think that assault weapon owners across the country are what is keeping the government from bringing us under the rule of a dictator? It sounds as though you feel that you and other owners are the guardians of US citizens. If that is where your head is, I'm happy to agree to disagree. I'm definitely a conservative, but that kind of right wing thinking is WAYYYYYY out to the right.
HuntinFool
Active Member
- Messages
- 852
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
- Thomas Jefferson
- Thomas Jefferson
LAST EDITED ON Dec-19-12 AT 09:16PM (MST)[p]
__So at least one of you is not concerned with assault weapons being taken away from us. I guess you don't care about civil liberty either. Really? your all for seeing assault weapons go away because they are responsible for so many killings? Your nothing but a fool. You do not see what the libs really want, and that is anything they can get to chip away at your gun ownership rights. Are you smart enough to look at charts? Here is one to look at, BTW, assault weapons would pretty much fall under the "other guns" line. So by looking at this, why no rage for knives and handguns? How about shotguns that make up part of the other guns?
You want to see 30 round mags gone... how about 30 packs of Busch light? Same thing, both in excess, both kill, in fact the beer kills more. Why do you need a 350CI engine in a truck? a much smaller engine is fine, and that loss of power will surely account for lowering traffic deaths. Go ahead, be fine with the government taking things away from others, because they will never come after what you like.... FOOLS
__So at least one of you is not concerned with assault weapons being taken away from us. I guess you don't care about civil liberty either. Really? your all for seeing assault weapons go away because they are responsible for so many killings? Your nothing but a fool. You do not see what the libs really want, and that is anything they can get to chip away at your gun ownership rights. Are you smart enough to look at charts? Here is one to look at, BTW, assault weapons would pretty much fall under the "other guns" line. So by looking at this, why no rage for knives and handguns? How about shotguns that make up part of the other guns?
You want to see 30 round mags gone... how about 30 packs of Busch light? Same thing, both in excess, both kill, in fact the beer kills more. Why do you need a 350CI engine in a truck? a much smaller engine is fine, and that loss of power will surely account for lowering traffic deaths. Go ahead, be fine with the government taking things away from others, because they will never come after what you like.... FOOLS
1FastGambler
Active Member
- Messages
- 983
Good point shmalts and very true!
Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
George Washington
True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
The above quote is how the current president got his 2nd term.
I was watching Fox news this evening and a reporter was in Hawaii interviewing people. One colored lady said, "Of course I voted for Obama, Romney would have taken away my food stamps".
No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson
Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?
Patrick Henry
The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
James Madison
The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.
Samuel Adams
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country.
James Madison
These people are very unskilled in arms... with 50 men they could all be subjected and made to do all that one wished.
Christopher Columbus
To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.
Richard Henry Lee
If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I never would lay down my arms never never never!
William Pitt
You know why there's a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one.
Rush Limbaugh
There are hundreds of millions of gun owners in this country, and not one of them will have an accident today. The only misuse of guns comes in environments where there are drugs, alcohol, bad parents, and undisciplined children. Period.
Ted Nugent
Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
George Washington
True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
Franklin D. Roosevelt
The above quote is how the current president got his 2nd term.
I was watching Fox news this evening and a reporter was in Hawaii interviewing people. One colored lady said, "Of course I voted for Obama, Romney would have taken away my food stamps".
No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson
Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?
Patrick Henry
The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
James Madison
The Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.
Samuel Adams
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country.
James Madison
These people are very unskilled in arms... with 50 men they could all be subjected and made to do all that one wished.
Christopher Columbus
To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.
Richard Henry Lee
If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I never would lay down my arms never never never!
William Pitt
You know why there's a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one.
Rush Limbaugh
There are hundreds of millions of gun owners in this country, and not one of them will have an accident today. The only misuse of guns comes in environments where there are drugs, alcohol, bad parents, and undisciplined children. Period.
Ted Nugent
NORKALNIMROD
Active Member
- Messages
- 759
Griz,
As a "corporate security manager", have You prepared an "active-shooter" procedure? If You have I am going to guess that it is simply a "lets make everybody feel safe" procedure like the ones most schools and businesses in the U.S. have. You know the one that goes..."in case a terrorists tries to get us you are to lock all the doors and hide...until the SHEEP DOGS come and save you" Thing is, that almost never works. The reason I am guessing that is Your idea of preparing for an "active-shooter" is the comments made by You in regard to my suggesting that our schools be protected by trained staff and teams of trained volunteers where You stated that my suggestion is "Rambo mentality". I have written procedures to deal with "active-shooters". In my procedures the plan is to eliminate the threat by means of the use of force. You see, the Sheep dogs are to few and the response times to great for any reasonable person to believe they will arrive in time to stop evil-doers from the taking of innocent lives. It just doesn't work. So, we as a nation can continue to implement useless "feel good" laws such as creating "gun-free" zones and implementing "assault" weapon bans and continue to be warm and fuzzy in our world of make believe, or we can grow a set, admit that those that are determined to kill other humans won't be stopped by anything less than lethal force and plan to do just that. I know that for many U.S. citizens that is a hard pill to swallow, however it is reality.
I agree our system for dealing with folks that are mentally unstable suck. But even if we had the best system ever devised in place some would still slip through the cracks. And this doesn't address the issue of the run-of-the-mill terrorists or gang-banger.
Norkal
"INVEST IN LEAD FOR THE TIMES AHEAD!"
As a "corporate security manager", have You prepared an "active-shooter" procedure? If You have I am going to guess that it is simply a "lets make everybody feel safe" procedure like the ones most schools and businesses in the U.S. have. You know the one that goes..."in case a terrorists tries to get us you are to lock all the doors and hide...until the SHEEP DOGS come and save you" Thing is, that almost never works. The reason I am guessing that is Your idea of preparing for an "active-shooter" is the comments made by You in regard to my suggesting that our schools be protected by trained staff and teams of trained volunteers where You stated that my suggestion is "Rambo mentality". I have written procedures to deal with "active-shooters". In my procedures the plan is to eliminate the threat by means of the use of force. You see, the Sheep dogs are to few and the response times to great for any reasonable person to believe they will arrive in time to stop evil-doers from the taking of innocent lives. It just doesn't work. So, we as a nation can continue to implement useless "feel good" laws such as creating "gun-free" zones and implementing "assault" weapon bans and continue to be warm and fuzzy in our world of make believe, or we can grow a set, admit that those that are determined to kill other humans won't be stopped by anything less than lethal force and plan to do just that. I know that for many U.S. citizens that is a hard pill to swallow, however it is reality.
I agree our system for dealing with folks that are mentally unstable suck. But even if we had the best system ever devised in place some would still slip through the cracks. And this doesn't address the issue of the run-of-the-mill terrorists or gang-banger.
Norkal
"INVEST IN LEAD FOR THE TIMES AHEAD!"
feddoc
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 7,606
LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-12 AT 06:48AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-12 AT 06:32?AM (MST)
LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-12 AT 06:27?AM (MST)
>
>Seriously, this whole comparing guns to
>bathtubs, skateboards, and cars is
>the stupidest thing I've ever
>heard. It's a weak minded
>argument that holds no water.
>
>
Tell that to my cousin; stupid abusive chunkofshit husband left their kid unattended in a tub and he inhaled just a bit too much water.
No, it is not stupid. And her boy is still dead.
The same argument that you put forth can be used to take away a lot of things, some rights, from us.
Child molesting, abusive parents....obviously all parents are far too stupid to take care of their own kids; therefore, we need the government to step in and take over. Nevermind the good parents.
Every day, lots of drunks get behind the wheel of an auto and drive drunk, sometimes even kill people. Hey, since many of those drivers use trucks, lets limit...no, ban...pickup trucks. NO ONE NEEDS a high capacity killing machine like a pickup truck.
FBI stats reveal that hands and feet kill 730 people. How many do you suppose are killed by rifles..all rifles, not just those nasty black assault rifles? Do you have any idea? I'll give you a hint...it is less than half of 730.
IOW, your chances for being killed by body parts is far greater than that of being killed by a rifle...of any kind. Hmm, maybe, we should ban self defense academies...after all, more folks are killed by hands and feet. We surely wouldn't want more trained killers out there. Same with exercising. Maybe it should be limited to 10 minutes a week; we all know what prisoners do when in jail....and, speaking of prisoners do you know the murder rate in prison? And, I bet that not many of them used a gun
either.
Don't want teachers armed because some big kid might take the gun away from a woman..yet at the same time you propose more mandatory training for CCW holders.
It has been well publisized that the average number of innocents killed when the bad guy is stopped by LEOs is 14. The average number of people killed when the shooter is stopped by a citizen is 2.5 and the reason is simple the citizen (teacher) is already there. I'll take my chances with a well trained teacher/school official anytime over the response time of a LEO, especially where I live. The teachers are already in place.
Your emotional arguments just don't 'hold water'.
LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-12 AT 06:27?AM (MST)
>
>Seriously, this whole comparing guns to
>bathtubs, skateboards, and cars is
>the stupidest thing I've ever
>heard. It's a weak minded
>argument that holds no water.
>
>
Tell that to my cousin; stupid abusive chunkofshit husband left their kid unattended in a tub and he inhaled just a bit too much water.
No, it is not stupid. And her boy is still dead.
The same argument that you put forth can be used to take away a lot of things, some rights, from us.
Child molesting, abusive parents....obviously all parents are far too stupid to take care of their own kids; therefore, we need the government to step in and take over. Nevermind the good parents.
Every day, lots of drunks get behind the wheel of an auto and drive drunk, sometimes even kill people. Hey, since many of those drivers use trucks, lets limit...no, ban...pickup trucks. NO ONE NEEDS a high capacity killing machine like a pickup truck.
FBI stats reveal that hands and feet kill 730 people. How many do you suppose are killed by rifles..all rifles, not just those nasty black assault rifles? Do you have any idea? I'll give you a hint...it is less than half of 730.
IOW, your chances for being killed by body parts is far greater than that of being killed by a rifle...of any kind. Hmm, maybe, we should ban self defense academies...after all, more folks are killed by hands and feet. We surely wouldn't want more trained killers out there. Same with exercising. Maybe it should be limited to 10 minutes a week; we all know what prisoners do when in jail....and, speaking of prisoners do you know the murder rate in prison? And, I bet that not many of them used a gun
either.
Don't want teachers armed because some big kid might take the gun away from a woman..yet at the same time you propose more mandatory training for CCW holders.
It has been well publisized that the average number of innocents killed when the bad guy is stopped by LEOs is 14. The average number of people killed when the shooter is stopped by a citizen is 2.5 and the reason is simple the citizen (teacher) is already there. I'll take my chances with a well trained teacher/school official anytime over the response time of a LEO, especially where I live. The teachers are already in place.
Your emotional arguments just don't 'hold water'.
feddoc
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 7,606
>"Accidents". That's the key word
>there. That's why the
>comparison is ridiculous. We
>could start comparing bathtubs and
>vehicles to guns if they
>were used in a malicious
>manner.
>
>I don't want to sound disrespectful
>or anything, but do you
>really think that assault weapon
>owners across the country are
>what is keeping the government
>from bringing us under the
>rule of a dictator?
>It sounds as though you
>feel that you and other
>owners are the guardians of
>US citizens. If that
>is where your head is,
>I'm happy to agree to
>disagree. I'm definitely a
>conservative, but that kind of
>right wing thinking is WAYYYYYY
>out to the right.
A death is still a death, yet folks who think as you do aren't clamoring for controls on other things.
>there. That's why the
>comparison is ridiculous. We
>could start comparing bathtubs and
>vehicles to guns if they
>were used in a malicious
>manner.
>
>I don't want to sound disrespectful
>or anything, but do you
>really think that assault weapon
>owners across the country are
>what is keeping the government
>from bringing us under the
>rule of a dictator?
>It sounds as though you
>feel that you and other
>owners are the guardians of
>US citizens. If that
>is where your head is,
>I'm happy to agree to
>disagree. I'm definitely a
>conservative, but that kind of
>right wing thinking is WAYYYYYY
>out to the right.
A death is still a death, yet folks who think as you do aren't clamoring for controls on other things.
feddoc
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 7,606
>*Yawn*
>
>
>I would be supportive of certain
>gun control measures. I
>would support a ban on
>assault weapons. Not a
>single person in here can
>make an argument that they
>"need" them to protect themselves
>or that if you take
>them away, you no longer
>have your right to bear
>arms. You still have
>the right, just not with
>kind of gun. The
>only reason people want them
>is because they are fun
>to shoot.
>
Strawman argument? You made that statement in an earlier post, yet you use it here.
This guy states it more eloquently than many of us can.
Refute what he says.
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
>
>
>I would be supportive of certain
>gun control measures. I
>would support a ban on
>assault weapons. Not a
>single person in here can
>make an argument that they
>"need" them to protect themselves
>or that if you take
>them away, you no longer
>have your right to bear
>arms. You still have
>the right, just not with
>kind of gun. The
>only reason people want them
>is because they are fun
>to shoot.
>
Strawman argument? You made that statement in an earlier post, yet you use it here.
This guy states it more eloquently than many of us can.
Refute what he says.
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
grizzmoose
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,023
Sorry Fed, that blog is too long. I skimmed through it. I agree with some of his stuff, some I don't. I don't really consider this guy an authority on the matter. He is an author, no different than the rest of us. Being a conservative does not require me to buy into every right wing philosophy out there. I want to keep my guns. Every gun I have is a semi-auto. I also own a handgun. I don't buy into the slippery slope argument of once they start, they will take them all away.
I'm sorry about the child who passed away in the bathtub. That is a tragic accident that happens too often. I almost had it happen in my own home with my son. At no point did I consider the bathtub to be at fault. These comparisons to objects, whether it be a bathtub or a truck, that are not created to be weapons is illogical. For me personally, it tends to cause me to totally dismiss anything else coming from the source.
As far as preparing for an active shooter incident, yes I do have that training in place. It is reviewed and corroborated each year with our local SWAT team and DHS. Run. Hide. Attack. In that order. My facility is a gun free zone, and will always stay that way. We contract with our PD to provide armed officers on site. Rather than arm our teachers or employees, I believe it is a better idea to provide trained and armed officers. BTW. . . your putting my job title in quotes, if you are trying to demean my position or job, I don't care. I provide for my family and that is all I care about.
For me personally, I find absolutely nothing wrong with taking away assault weapons. I don't have one, don't need one, and will not own one. I don't fear the gov't taking away the weapons I do own. I don't believe the gov't has some kind of master plan to disarm our nation and rule over us with an iron hand. People talk about that as though they are some kind of seer who foresees the future and knows of impending domination. I think those people are lunatics. I'm not trying to convince anyone of my position or hope anyone changes theirs. I only see that some of the arguments and points of debate that are being made are completely absurd and 100% unpersuasive.
I'm sorry about the child who passed away in the bathtub. That is a tragic accident that happens too often. I almost had it happen in my own home with my son. At no point did I consider the bathtub to be at fault. These comparisons to objects, whether it be a bathtub or a truck, that are not created to be weapons is illogical. For me personally, it tends to cause me to totally dismiss anything else coming from the source.
As far as preparing for an active shooter incident, yes I do have that training in place. It is reviewed and corroborated each year with our local SWAT team and DHS. Run. Hide. Attack. In that order. My facility is a gun free zone, and will always stay that way. We contract with our PD to provide armed officers on site. Rather than arm our teachers or employees, I believe it is a better idea to provide trained and armed officers. BTW. . . your putting my job title in quotes, if you are trying to demean my position or job, I don't care. I provide for my family and that is all I care about.
For me personally, I find absolutely nothing wrong with taking away assault weapons. I don't have one, don't need one, and will not own one. I don't fear the gov't taking away the weapons I do own. I don't believe the gov't has some kind of master plan to disarm our nation and rule over us with an iron hand. People talk about that as though they are some kind of seer who foresees the future and knows of impending domination. I think those people are lunatics. I'm not trying to convince anyone of my position or hope anyone changes theirs. I only see that some of the arguments and points of debate that are being made are completely absurd and 100% unpersuasive.
Here are some examples of evil people that didn't need guns to conduct what they set out to do. Gun control is not the answer, they will just use something else.
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2015771315_jaildead30.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article293854.ece
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=8189572
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news...Man-Killed-His-Family-With-Bat-124127144.html
http://www.midlandsconnect.com/news/story.aspx?id=685128
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/09/29/Police-Friend-killed-by-tweezers/UPI-22071222728867/
Mntman
"Hunting is where you prove yourself"
Let me guess, you drive a 1 ton with oak trees for smoke stacks, 12" lift kit and 40" tires to pull a single place lawn mower trailer?
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2015771315_jaildead30.html
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article293854.ece
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=8189572
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news...Man-Killed-His-Family-With-Bat-124127144.html
http://www.midlandsconnect.com/news/story.aspx?id=685128
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/09/29/Police-Friend-killed-by-tweezers/UPI-22071222728867/
Mntman
"Hunting is where you prove yourself"
Let me guess, you drive a 1 ton with oak trees for smoke stacks, 12" lift kit and 40" tires to pull a single place lawn mower trailer?
feddoc
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 7,606
LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-12 AT 11:40AM (MST)[p]>Sorry Fed, that blog is too
>long. I skimmed through
>it. I agree with
>some of his stuff, some
>I don't. I don't
>really consider this guy an
>authority on the matter.
>He is an author, no
>different than the rest of
>us. Being a conservative
>does not require me to
>buy into every right wing
>philosophy out there. I
>want to keep my guns.
> Every gun I have
>is a semi-auto. I
>also own a handgun.
>I don't buy into the
>slippery slope argument of once
>they start, they will take
>them all away.
>
>I'm sorry about the child who
>passed away in the bathtub.
> That is a tragic
>accident that happens too often.
> I almost had it
>happen in my own home
>with my son. At
>no point did I consider
>the bathtub to be at
>fault. These comparisons to
>objects, whether it be a
>bathtub or a truck, that
>are not created to be
>weapons is illogical. For
>me personally, it tends to
>cause me to totally dismiss
>anything else coming from the
>source.
>
>As far as preparing for an
>active shooter incident, yes I
>do have that training in
>place. It is reviewed
>and corroborated each year with
>our local SWAT team and
>DHS. Run. Hide.
> Attack. In that
>order. My facility is
>a gun free zone, and
>will always stay that way.
> We contract with our
>PD to provide armed officers
>on site. Rather than
>arm our teachers or employees,
>I believe it is a
>better idea to provide trained
>and armed officers. BTW.
>. . your putting my
>job title in quotes, if
>you are trying to demean
>my position or job, I
>don't care. I provide
>for my family and that
>is all I care about.
>
>
>For me personally, I find absolutely
>nothing wrong with taking away
>assault weapons. I don't
>have one, don't need one,
>and will not own one.
> I don't fear the
>gov't taking away the weapons
>I do own. I
>don't believe the gov't has
>some kind of master plan
>to disarm our nation and
>rule over us with an
>iron hand. People talk
>about that as though they
>are some kind of seer
>who foresees the future and
>knows of impending domination.
>I think those people are
>lunatics. I'm not trying
>to convince anyone of my
>position or hope anyone changes
>theirs. I only see
>that some of the arguments
>and points of debate that
>are being made are completely
>absurd and 100% unpersuasive.
Blog too long = I can't refute what he said. Ok, I got that. And I also get the idea that your thoughts on this subject are not at all fact based.
Your ability to analyze is, well, different...you say, in effect, that guns kill people but then you say that bathtubs aren't at fault. In reality, neither is the gun.
With respect to putting your job in quotes, you should re-think that, or perhaps show where I did that. And, you do care...otherwise you would not have bothered with a rebuttal.
And why would you support another AWB when the first one didn't work? That makes no sense at all; except, perhaps, to someone who prefers to argue on emotional issues and not facts.
>long. I skimmed through
>it. I agree with
>some of his stuff, some
>I don't. I don't
>really consider this guy an
>authority on the matter.
>He is an author, no
>different than the rest of
>us. Being a conservative
>does not require me to
>buy into every right wing
>philosophy out there. I
>want to keep my guns.
> Every gun I have
>is a semi-auto. I
>also own a handgun.
>I don't buy into the
>slippery slope argument of once
>they start, they will take
>them all away.
>
>I'm sorry about the child who
>passed away in the bathtub.
> That is a tragic
>accident that happens too often.
> I almost had it
>happen in my own home
>with my son. At
>no point did I consider
>the bathtub to be at
>fault. These comparisons to
>objects, whether it be a
>bathtub or a truck, that
>are not created to be
>weapons is illogical. For
>me personally, it tends to
>cause me to totally dismiss
>anything else coming from the
>source.
>
>As far as preparing for an
>active shooter incident, yes I
>do have that training in
>place. It is reviewed
>and corroborated each year with
>our local SWAT team and
>DHS. Run. Hide.
> Attack. In that
>order. My facility is
>a gun free zone, and
>will always stay that way.
> We contract with our
>PD to provide armed officers
>on site. Rather than
>arm our teachers or employees,
>I believe it is a
>better idea to provide trained
>and armed officers. BTW.
>. . your putting my
>job title in quotes, if
>you are trying to demean
>my position or job, I
>don't care. I provide
>for my family and that
>is all I care about.
>
>
>For me personally, I find absolutely
>nothing wrong with taking away
>assault weapons. I don't
>have one, don't need one,
>and will not own one.
> I don't fear the
>gov't taking away the weapons
>I do own. I
>don't believe the gov't has
>some kind of master plan
>to disarm our nation and
>rule over us with an
>iron hand. People talk
>about that as though they
>are some kind of seer
>who foresees the future and
>knows of impending domination.
>I think those people are
>lunatics. I'm not trying
>to convince anyone of my
>position or hope anyone changes
>theirs. I only see
>that some of the arguments
>and points of debate that
>are being made are completely
>absurd and 100% unpersuasive.
Blog too long = I can't refute what he said. Ok, I got that. And I also get the idea that your thoughts on this subject are not at all fact based.
Your ability to analyze is, well, different...you say, in effect, that guns kill people but then you say that bathtubs aren't at fault. In reality, neither is the gun.
With respect to putting your job in quotes, you should re-think that, or perhaps show where I did that. And, you do care...otherwise you would not have bothered with a rebuttal.
And why would you support another AWB when the first one didn't work? That makes no sense at all; except, perhaps, to someone who prefers to argue on emotional issues and not facts.
NORKALNIMROD
Active Member
- Messages
- 759
Griz,
Was not trying to demean You. We obviously come from two very different schools. You have plans that Your PD's SWAT team has endorsed. That is great. I am sure they have copies of Your facilities blue prints and hopefully all modifications. Also I hope You have worked with them and had on-site training. The schools have approved "feel good, run, hide, wait for the Sheep Dog" plans that are approved also. IT DOES NOT WORK! Again, the problem is response time. THEY CAN NOT GET THERE IN TIME TO PREVENT THE LOSS OF LIVES. We will agree to disagree.
Feddoc,
I do not believe Griz was accusing You of trying to demean him. It was I that used His position by name, in quotes. I had no intention of demeaning Him, I just don't understand how people in these positions believe that locking doors, running, hiding and waiting for the good guys works. It is proven time and time again that these type of "feel good" procedures fail to save the unarmed victims.
Norkal
"INVEST IN LEAD FOR THE TIMES AHEAD!"
Was not trying to demean You. We obviously come from two very different schools. You have plans that Your PD's SWAT team has endorsed. That is great. I am sure they have copies of Your facilities blue prints and hopefully all modifications. Also I hope You have worked with them and had on-site training. The schools have approved "feel good, run, hide, wait for the Sheep Dog" plans that are approved also. IT DOES NOT WORK! Again, the problem is response time. THEY CAN NOT GET THERE IN TIME TO PREVENT THE LOSS OF LIVES. We will agree to disagree.
Feddoc,
I do not believe Griz was accusing You of trying to demean him. It was I that used His position by name, in quotes. I had no intention of demeaning Him, I just don't understand how people in these positions believe that locking doors, running, hiding and waiting for the good guys works. It is proven time and time again that these type of "feel good" procedures fail to save the unarmed victims.
Norkal
"INVEST IN LEAD FOR THE TIMES AHEAD!"
1FastGambler
Active Member
- Messages
- 983
>Sorry Fed, that blog is too
>long. I skimmed through
>it. I agree with
>some of his stuff, some
>I don't. I don't
>really consider this guy an
>authority on the matter.
>He is an author, no
>different than the rest of
>us.
______________________________________
WRONG Griz... he is absolutely an authority on the subject!!
>long. I skimmed through
>it. I agree with
>some of his stuff, some
>I don't. I don't
>really consider this guy an
>authority on the matter.
>He is an author, no
>different than the rest of
>us.
______________________________________
WRONG Griz... he is absolutely an authority on the subject!!
grizzmoose
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,023
Nork,
I really don't think we disagree on this particular topic as much as you think we do. Put an armed officer in the schools, train students and teachers to do that feel good stuff you were talking about. We use the same philosophy at my facility. Armed officers, trained people. Ironically, my position happens to be in conjunction with what the NRA released today.
Those procedures, the feel good ones, are effective. Most of the victims of these active shooter incidents are unfortunate to be at the incipient stage. Say you went to a doughnut shop chuck full of cops. It's business as usual. Some guy walks in with an AR15 and starts shooting the sh!t out of the place. How cops are going to get shot? A lot. Having a gun on your person is not going to do anything for you at that stage. It will after you get your wits together, if you were lucky enough to not get struck. And don't tell me that situation isn't going to happen because there are guns around. It's happened in police stations and on military bases. In the CT and VT shootings, there were many people who were spared because of feel good procedures. If you have read about these things as I think you have, you would know this. Don't say they don't work, because they do. Say that they would work better if there was an armed officer in the school. In regards to teachers carrying guns, there are no facts that show this would make it things better or worse, so all we can both do is argue on conjecture and emotion.
Fed, I didnt read the whole blog. It is long. I'll commit to reading it when time permits. Besides, I dont go into articles like that hoping or expecting to refute it. I'm sure there is some I would refute, and some I would agree with. You criticize my ability to analyze something. I might do the same. At no point have I suggested or stated that guns are at fault anymore than a bathtub is at fault. What I am saying is those comparisons are ineffective arguments. You cannot compare an object designed to kill with an object designed to hold water. It's stupid, and conservatives, including myself, should avoid this crappy reasoning. Im sorry you thought I was speaking to you about my job title. I wasn't. Perhaps your ability to analyze things are also in question.
Fast,
Larry Correia is a fantasy fiction writer who writes about monsters and vampires. So he owned a gun store and teaches people how to shoot. He knows his weapons a hell of a lot better than I do. Does that make him, or me, for that matter an authority on the 2nd amendment or how to mitigate an active shooter? For me it doesn't. If you want use him as your source, knock yourself out. His opinion, like mine, is just an opinion. We all have one.
Someone mentioned that my position, which I think I have only said I don't support assault weapons and don't want teachers with guns, is strictly emotionally based with no facts. Is that wrong? Everyone uses emotion to form their positions. Someone mentioned that nothing changed during the AWB. Perhaps not if you look at numbers. I'm not suggesting that this happened, but is it not reasonable to consider the idea that someone during that period of time may have tried to get an assault weapon, couldn't and perpetrated a crime with a handgun causing fewer casualties? It is possible, which is why those numbers mean nothing to me.
I'll say it one more time just to be clear. . . I don't support private citizens owning assault weapons. (Spare me the definitions, you know what weapons Im talking about). By taking them away, your rights are not being violated. You are entitled to bear arms and you retain that right. You do not need them to protect your home. A shotgun would be more effective. If a zombie apocalypse is imminent or if you have reason to believe that 20 people are going to raid your home, we can talk. If you think that you and all your assault weapon friends are the sole protector of American citizens from an oppressive dictator, I think you are a lunatic. And no, I don't have any facts to back up that statement. Just an opinion. If you think that teachers with weapons will solve all of our violence in school problems, your position is an opinion, just like mine.
I really don't think we disagree on this particular topic as much as you think we do. Put an armed officer in the schools, train students and teachers to do that feel good stuff you were talking about. We use the same philosophy at my facility. Armed officers, trained people. Ironically, my position happens to be in conjunction with what the NRA released today.
Those procedures, the feel good ones, are effective. Most of the victims of these active shooter incidents are unfortunate to be at the incipient stage. Say you went to a doughnut shop chuck full of cops. It's business as usual. Some guy walks in with an AR15 and starts shooting the sh!t out of the place. How cops are going to get shot? A lot. Having a gun on your person is not going to do anything for you at that stage. It will after you get your wits together, if you were lucky enough to not get struck. And don't tell me that situation isn't going to happen because there are guns around. It's happened in police stations and on military bases. In the CT and VT shootings, there were many people who were spared because of feel good procedures. If you have read about these things as I think you have, you would know this. Don't say they don't work, because they do. Say that they would work better if there was an armed officer in the school. In regards to teachers carrying guns, there are no facts that show this would make it things better or worse, so all we can both do is argue on conjecture and emotion.
Fed, I didnt read the whole blog. It is long. I'll commit to reading it when time permits. Besides, I dont go into articles like that hoping or expecting to refute it. I'm sure there is some I would refute, and some I would agree with. You criticize my ability to analyze something. I might do the same. At no point have I suggested or stated that guns are at fault anymore than a bathtub is at fault. What I am saying is those comparisons are ineffective arguments. You cannot compare an object designed to kill with an object designed to hold water. It's stupid, and conservatives, including myself, should avoid this crappy reasoning. Im sorry you thought I was speaking to you about my job title. I wasn't. Perhaps your ability to analyze things are also in question.
Fast,
Larry Correia is a fantasy fiction writer who writes about monsters and vampires. So he owned a gun store and teaches people how to shoot. He knows his weapons a hell of a lot better than I do. Does that make him, or me, for that matter an authority on the 2nd amendment or how to mitigate an active shooter? For me it doesn't. If you want use him as your source, knock yourself out. His opinion, like mine, is just an opinion. We all have one.
Someone mentioned that my position, which I think I have only said I don't support assault weapons and don't want teachers with guns, is strictly emotionally based with no facts. Is that wrong? Everyone uses emotion to form their positions. Someone mentioned that nothing changed during the AWB. Perhaps not if you look at numbers. I'm not suggesting that this happened, but is it not reasonable to consider the idea that someone during that period of time may have tried to get an assault weapon, couldn't and perpetrated a crime with a handgun causing fewer casualties? It is possible, which is why those numbers mean nothing to me.
I'll say it one more time just to be clear. . . I don't support private citizens owning assault weapons. (Spare me the definitions, you know what weapons Im talking about). By taking them away, your rights are not being violated. You are entitled to bear arms and you retain that right. You do not need them to protect your home. A shotgun would be more effective. If a zombie apocalypse is imminent or if you have reason to believe that 20 people are going to raid your home, we can talk. If you think that you and all your assault weapon friends are the sole protector of American citizens from an oppressive dictator, I think you are a lunatic. And no, I don't have any facts to back up that statement. Just an opinion. If you think that teachers with weapons will solve all of our violence in school problems, your position is an opinion, just like mine.
feddoc
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 7,606
grizzmoose, you said this:
"You cannot compare an object designed to kill with an object designed to hold water. It's stupid, and conservatives, including myself, should avoid this crappy reasoning. Im sorry you thought I was speaking to you about my job title. I wasn't. Perhaps your ability to analyze things are also in question."
It is just an opinion. Guns aren't designed to kill, anymore that is alcohol or cars or bathtubs.
Responsible use is the key; you seem to have decided otherwise.
And, with respect to me thinking you talking about your job titel, I was the only one addressed in your post. Seemed pretty clear to me.
If you answered this question, I have asked it three times now, I haven't seen it.
If the 94 AWB didn't work, and FBI Uniform Crime Report states that, why do you think this one will?
"You cannot compare an object designed to kill with an object designed to hold water. It's stupid, and conservatives, including myself, should avoid this crappy reasoning. Im sorry you thought I was speaking to you about my job title. I wasn't. Perhaps your ability to analyze things are also in question."
It is just an opinion. Guns aren't designed to kill, anymore that is alcohol or cars or bathtubs.
Responsible use is the key; you seem to have decided otherwise.
And, with respect to me thinking you talking about your job titel, I was the only one addressed in your post. Seemed pretty clear to me.
If you answered this question, I have asked it three times now, I haven't seen it.
If the 94 AWB didn't work, and FBI Uniform Crime Report states that, why do you think this one will?
S
slickrock
Guest
"I stated the number one reason for us to possess "assault" weapons is to keep our corrupt government in check. IF YOU DOUBT THAT YOU TRULY ARE NAIVE!"
YIKES!!
Slick
"The Road goes on forever & the Party never Ends"
YIKES!!
Slick
"The Road goes on forever & the Party never Ends"
grizzmoose
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,023
"Guns aren't designed to kill." I suppose you are right. They are designed to tickle little kids and dig holes for spring tulips. Please, educate me on what they are designed for.
grizzmoose
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,023
Fed,
About your question. Here is some info from 1985ish and to present. Most weapons used in mass or spree killings are obtained legally. 80% in fact.
84% of the shootings in the referenced time period have come after 1994.
When a handgun or semi-auto is used, victim tolls are about 13.
When an assault weapon is thrown in the mix, victim tolls are about 20.
I said before, I'm not one to buy into #'s just because they are there. Too many factors involved to make a conclusion. However, if I were a numbers guy like you appear to be, I could draw a conclusion that since the ban has come off, spree shootings have dramatically increased, the guns are obtained legally, and victim tolls are larger.
Careful when you start throwing numbers out there. It can come back to bite you.
About your question. Here is some info from 1985ish and to present. Most weapons used in mass or spree killings are obtained legally. 80% in fact.
84% of the shootings in the referenced time period have come after 1994.
When a handgun or semi-auto is used, victim tolls are about 13.
When an assault weapon is thrown in the mix, victim tolls are about 20.
I said before, I'm not one to buy into #'s just because they are there. Too many factors involved to make a conclusion. However, if I were a numbers guy like you appear to be, I could draw a conclusion that since the ban has come off, spree shootings have dramatically increased, the guns are obtained legally, and victim tolls are larger.
Careful when you start throwing numbers out there. It can come back to bite you.
feddoc
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 7,606
LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-12 AT 09:01PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Dec-21-12 AT 08:57?PM (MST)
>"Guns aren't designed to kill."
>I suppose you are right.
> They are designed to
>tickle little kids and dig
>holes for spring tulips.
>Please, educate me on what
>they are designed for.
I see...you are losing the argument and you resort to childishness. Ok.
Educate on what they are for? We both know that no matter how many people 'educate' you that you won't change your mind...despite the facts.
You also said this: "but is it not reasonable to consider the idea that someone during that period of time may have tried to get an assault weapon, couldn't and perpetrated a crime with a handgun causing fewer casualties? It is possible, which is why those numbers mean nothing to me. "
Hmm, yes could be.
That same theory also says that it is reasonable that one person had their life saved by use of a (previously) banned weapon.
However, the lack of effectiveness of the AWB was not measured in what might have been.
>"Guns aren't designed to kill."
>I suppose you are right.
> They are designed to
>tickle little kids and dig
>holes for spring tulips.
>Please, educate me on what
>they are designed for.
I see...you are losing the argument and you resort to childishness. Ok.
Educate on what they are for? We both know that no matter how many people 'educate' you that you won't change your mind...despite the facts.
You also said this: "but is it not reasonable to consider the idea that someone during that period of time may have tried to get an assault weapon, couldn't and perpetrated a crime with a handgun causing fewer casualties? It is possible, which is why those numbers mean nothing to me. "
Hmm, yes could be.
That same theory also says that it is reasonable that one person had their life saved by use of a (previously) banned weapon.
However, the lack of effectiveness of the AWB was not measured in what might have been.
feddoc
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 7,606
>Fed,
>
>About your question. Here is
>some info from 1985ish and
>to present. Most weapons
>used in mass or spree
>killings are obtained legally.
>80% in fact.
>
>84% of the shootings in the
>referenced time period have come
>after 1994.
>
>When a handgun or semi-auto is
>used, victim tolls are about
>13.
>When an assault weapon is thrown
>in the mix, victim tolls
>are about 20.
>
>I said before, I'm not one
>to buy into #'s just
>because they are there.
>Too many factors involved to
>make a conclusion. However,
>if I were a numbers
>guy like you appear to
>be, I could draw a
>conclusion that since the ban
>has come off, spree shootings
>have dramatically increased, the guns
>are obtained legally, and victim
>tolls are larger.
>
>Careful when you start throwing numbers
>out there. It can
>come back to bite you.
>
Ok, so you cannot answer my question. Thanks for trying...sorta.
And since you posted some numbers...do you have a source?
>
>About your question. Here is
>some info from 1985ish and
>to present. Most weapons
>used in mass or spree
>killings are obtained legally.
>80% in fact.
>
>84% of the shootings in the
>referenced time period have come
>after 1994.
>
>When a handgun or semi-auto is
>used, victim tolls are about
>13.
>When an assault weapon is thrown
>in the mix, victim tolls
>are about 20.
>
>I said before, I'm not one
>to buy into #'s just
>because they are there.
>Too many factors involved to
>make a conclusion. However,
>if I were a numbers
>guy like you appear to
>be, I could draw a
>conclusion that since the ban
>has come off, spree shootings
>have dramatically increased, the guns
>are obtained legally, and victim
>tolls are larger.
>
>Careful when you start throwing numbers
>out there. It can
>come back to bite you.
>
Ok, so you cannot answer my question. Thanks for trying...sorta.
And since you posted some numbers...do you have a source?
grizzmoose
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,023
You will actually have to crunch some numbers to get the figures. If you just like to copy and paste numbers from web sites, this won't do you any good. You will have to look at each incident, guns used, and victim tallies.
http://www.timetoast.com/timelines/active-shooters-in-history
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
I answered your question, you just didn't like my answer.
Can you answer mine? What were guns intended for?
http://www.timetoast.com/timelines/active-shooters-in-history
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
I answered your question, you just didn't like my answer.
Can you answer mine? What were guns intended for?
NORKALNIMROD
Active Member
- Messages
- 759
Slick,
What do You think the Second Amendment is for...hunting, target shooting, gun collecting? None of the above! It was put in place by our Founding Fathers so that We The People can defend ourselves, defend our country from invaders (which our government will not allow us to do) and first and foremost, to defend OUR constitution from our government, period.
Those who state that "when the Constitution was drafted all the citizens had were muzzle loaders" are morons! How fricken stupid! Yes, that statement is true. However the muzzle loaders the "civilians" had were in fact in many cases better than the muskets the military had. Using that logic, I guess it is ok for our government to take all firearms that are not muzzleloaders away from us because that's what the Founding Fathers had intended.
Modern weapons exist throughout the world. No BS law is going to keep them out of the hands of criminals. The only folks affected by "gun control" laws is the law abiding citizen.
Yes, You are in fact naive.
Norkal
"INVEST IN LEAD FOR THE TIMES AHEAD!"
What do You think the Second Amendment is for...hunting, target shooting, gun collecting? None of the above! It was put in place by our Founding Fathers so that We The People can defend ourselves, defend our country from invaders (which our government will not allow us to do) and first and foremost, to defend OUR constitution from our government, period.
Those who state that "when the Constitution was drafted all the citizens had were muzzle loaders" are morons! How fricken stupid! Yes, that statement is true. However the muzzle loaders the "civilians" had were in fact in many cases better than the muskets the military had. Using that logic, I guess it is ok for our government to take all firearms that are not muzzleloaders away from us because that's what the Founding Fathers had intended.
Modern weapons exist throughout the world. No BS law is going to keep them out of the hands of criminals. The only folks affected by "gun control" laws is the law abiding citizen.
Yes, You are in fact naive.
Norkal
"INVEST IN LEAD FOR THE TIMES AHEAD!"
S
slickrock
Guest
I give.. you win Nimrod.
Slick
"The Road goes on forever & the Party never Ends"
Slick
"The Road goes on forever & the Party never Ends"
feddoc
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 7,606
LAST EDITED ON Dec-22-12 AT 04:11AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Dec-22-12 AT 04:01?AM (MST)
LAST EDITED ON Dec-22-12 AT 03:55?AM (MST)
LAST EDITED ON Dec-22-12 AT 03:42?AM (MST)
LAST EDITED ON Dec-22-12 AT 03:33?AM (MST)
LAST EDITED ON Dec-22-12 AT 03:32?AM (MST)
>You will actually have to crunch
>some numbers to get the
>figures. If you just
>like to copy and paste
>numbers from web sites, this
>won't do you any good.
> You will have to
>look at each incident, guns
>used, and victim tallies.
>
>http://www.timetoast.com/timelines/active-shooters-in-history
>http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
>
>I answered your question, you just
>didn't like my answer.
>
>Can you answer mine? What
>were guns intended for?
Um ,no, you did not answer my question. I asked specifically about the lack of effectiveness regarding the 1994 AWB; you replied with some data about some things that happened in 1985 (and some that happened later).
From your first link, I opened 11 random dots...only 1 dealt with an 'assault' weapon.
From your second link, I opened 12 spots at random...only one dealt with an assault weapon....and I chose that one on purpose because it happened in my back yard.
I do hope you realize that my questions revolved ONLY around the AWB of 1994..that is Assault Weapons Ban. Yet you give me numbers from: 1. A decidedly antigun site (motherjones) and 2: a blog...BTW, it was you who sorta/kinda criticized one of my sources as being a blog and only 'opinion'...hmmm, double standards on your part? Maybe I am supposed to accpept *your* blog as gospel.
Come on, focus on the topic...AWB of 1994 ... why would you want another one when this one (according to an unbiased source..FBI) was unsuccessful?
In post #37, you freely mixed info from different eras and different weapons into a question which was only about a specific topic (1994 AWB). Your inclusion of information markedly outside a well defined timeline is misinformative...at best.
Furthermore, after chastising my source of info as being a blog and nothing but opinion, you post this from a blog: "About your question. Here is some info from 1985ish and to present. Most weapons used in mass or spree killings are obtained legally. 80% in fact."
IN FACT...your words. Why is your blog 'in fact' when mine is just an opinion? Where is the difference?
And why do you choose to take info from that persons opinion and from an anti-gun source? Seems like a guy with a degree in Criminal JUSTICE would want unbiased information.
LAST EDITED ON Dec-22-12 AT 03:55?AM (MST)
LAST EDITED ON Dec-22-12 AT 03:42?AM (MST)
LAST EDITED ON Dec-22-12 AT 03:33?AM (MST)
LAST EDITED ON Dec-22-12 AT 03:32?AM (MST)
>You will actually have to crunch
>some numbers to get the
>figures. If you just
>like to copy and paste
>numbers from web sites, this
>won't do you any good.
> You will have to
>look at each incident, guns
>used, and victim tallies.
>
>http://www.timetoast.com/timelines/active-shooters-in-history
>http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
>
>I answered your question, you just
>didn't like my answer.
>
>Can you answer mine? What
>were guns intended for?
Um ,no, you did not answer my question. I asked specifically about the lack of effectiveness regarding the 1994 AWB; you replied with some data about some things that happened in 1985 (and some that happened later).
From your first link, I opened 11 random dots...only 1 dealt with an 'assault' weapon.
From your second link, I opened 12 spots at random...only one dealt with an assault weapon....and I chose that one on purpose because it happened in my back yard.
I do hope you realize that my questions revolved ONLY around the AWB of 1994..that is Assault Weapons Ban. Yet you give me numbers from: 1. A decidedly antigun site (motherjones) and 2: a blog...BTW, it was you who sorta/kinda criticized one of my sources as being a blog and only 'opinion'...hmmm, double standards on your part? Maybe I am supposed to accpept *your* blog as gospel.
Come on, focus on the topic...AWB of 1994 ... why would you want another one when this one (according to an unbiased source..FBI) was unsuccessful?
In post #37, you freely mixed info from different eras and different weapons into a question which was only about a specific topic (1994 AWB). Your inclusion of information markedly outside a well defined timeline is misinformative...at best.
Furthermore, after chastising my source of info as being a blog and nothing but opinion, you post this from a blog: "About your question. Here is some info from 1985ish and to present. Most weapons used in mass or spree killings are obtained legally. 80% in fact."
IN FACT...your words. Why is your blog 'in fact' when mine is just an opinion? Where is the difference?
And why do you choose to take info from that persons opinion and from an anti-gun source? Seems like a guy with a degree in Criminal JUSTICE would want unbiased information.
T
TAGATTRACTER
Guest
Oh boy. We can't even agree between sportsmen. How will we ever win this fight with the general public ?
grizzmoose
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,023
The information I posted was not an opinion based on a blog. It is based on events that happened from the early 80's to present day. The blog, or whatever, just happened to have the raw data I was looking for. If you only clicked on a couple of events, then you used sampling. I didn't. I clicked on every single one, marked the number of victims and whether or not an assault weapon was used. If you can't see that, then you're an idiot. Why I am debating with someone who says that guns are not designed to kill is beyond me. That might be the stupidest thing Ive ever heard.
My response to your AWB was pretty simple. I used data, not opinions, to justify a position that since the ban was released, the number of spree killings and mass murders using AW has dramatically increased, as has the number of victims in those events. I also stated that the majority of those weapons were obtained legally, which may justify the position that during the AWB, the weapons were harder to get, which may mean the AWB was effective. I've told you already that I don't get into all these numbers. You used them in a previous post, so I responded with numbers of my own. You can now choose some other numbers which will no doubt justify your position, and you will be right. That is how it goes when you use data. You find the information that best suits your position. I'm surprised I have to explain this to you. Your theory about one person had their life saved by an automatic weapon is totally justified.
You mentioned that I'm "losing" an argument. I'm not trying to win. This isn't a contest. It is sharing an opinion on a position in which there is no right and no wrong. You can't win or lose an argument on a situation like that. You can share your thoughts, hope that they are considered, and either retain or modify your position.
If you are in this to "win", you can debate with yourself and you'll always come out a winner. You are welcome to respond if you would like, but it is probably best that we call it quits. I didn't share my opinion in hopes of waging a war and making an enemy.
My response to your AWB was pretty simple. I used data, not opinions, to justify a position that since the ban was released, the number of spree killings and mass murders using AW has dramatically increased, as has the number of victims in those events. I also stated that the majority of those weapons were obtained legally, which may justify the position that during the AWB, the weapons were harder to get, which may mean the AWB was effective. I've told you already that I don't get into all these numbers. You used them in a previous post, so I responded with numbers of my own. You can now choose some other numbers which will no doubt justify your position, and you will be right. That is how it goes when you use data. You find the information that best suits your position. I'm surprised I have to explain this to you. Your theory about one person had their life saved by an automatic weapon is totally justified.
You mentioned that I'm "losing" an argument. I'm not trying to win. This isn't a contest. It is sharing an opinion on a position in which there is no right and no wrong. You can't win or lose an argument on a situation like that. You can share your thoughts, hope that they are considered, and either retain or modify your position.
If you are in this to "win", you can debate with yourself and you'll always come out a winner. You are welcome to respond if you would like, but it is probably best that we call it quits. I didn't share my opinion in hopes of waging a war and making an enemy.
feddoc
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 7,606
>The information I posted was not
>an opinion based on a
>blog. It is based
>on events that happened from
>the early 80's to present
>day. The blog, or
>whatever, just happened to have
>the raw data I was
>looking for. If you
>only clicked on a couple
>of events, then you used
>sampling. I didn't.
>I clicked on every single
>one, marked the number of
>victims and whether or not
>an assault weapon was used.
> If you can't see
>that, then you're an idiot.
> Why I am debating
>with someone who says that
>guns are not designed to
>kill is beyond me.
>That might be the stupidest
>thing Ive ever heard.
>
>My response to your AWB was
>pretty simple. I used
>data, not opinions, to justify
>a position that since the
>ban was released, the number
>of spree killings and mass
>murders using AW has dramatically
>increased, as has the number
>of victims in those events.
> I also stated that
>the majority of those weapons
>were obtained legally, which may
>justify the position that during
>the AWB, the weapons were
>harder to get, which may
>mean the AWB was effective.
> I've told you already
>that I don't get into
>all these numbers. You
>used them in a previous
>post, so I responded with
>numbers of my own.
>You can now choose some
>other numbers which will no
>doubt justify your position, and
>you will be right.
>That is how it goes
>when you use data.
>You find the information that
>best suits your position.
>I'm surprised I have to
>explain this to you.
>Your theory about one person
>had their life saved by
>an automatic weapon is totally
>justified.
>
>You mentioned that I'm "losing" an
>argument. I'm not trying
>to win. This isn't
>a contest. It is
>sharing an opinion on a
>position in which there is
>no right and no wrong.
> You can't win or
>lose an argument on a
>situation like that. You
>can share your thoughts, hope
>that they are considered, and
>either retain or modify your
>position.
>
>If you are in this to
>"win", you can debate with
>yourself and you'll always come
>out a winner. You
>are welcome to respond if
>you would like, but it
>is probably best that we
>call it quits. I
>didn't share my opinion in
>hopes of waging a war
>and making an enemy.
A sure sign of surrender is name calling. Oh well.
One huge difference between your.. ahem. ..data and mine is that mine is unbiased and come s directly from the FBI Uniform Crime report. Furthermore factual data indicates that your assumption about the rise in AW related crime simply did not happen. If you disagree perhaps you should contact the source and offer to correct them.
Your suppositions about how to mine data...facts... is simply and purposely erroneous on your part. Instead the righteous person would seek information based on available info THEN make a decision not vice versa.
>an opinion based on a
>blog. It is based
>on events that happened from
>the early 80's to present
>day. The blog, or
>whatever, just happened to have
>the raw data I was
>looking for. If you
>only clicked on a couple
>of events, then you used
>sampling. I didn't.
>I clicked on every single
>one, marked the number of
>victims and whether or not
>an assault weapon was used.
> If you can't see
>that, then you're an idiot.
> Why I am debating
>with someone who says that
>guns are not designed to
>kill is beyond me.
>That might be the stupidest
>thing Ive ever heard.
>
>My response to your AWB was
>pretty simple. I used
>data, not opinions, to justify
>a position that since the
>ban was released, the number
>of spree killings and mass
>murders using AW has dramatically
>increased, as has the number
>of victims in those events.
> I also stated that
>the majority of those weapons
>were obtained legally, which may
>justify the position that during
>the AWB, the weapons were
>harder to get, which may
>mean the AWB was effective.
> I've told you already
>that I don't get into
>all these numbers. You
>used them in a previous
>post, so I responded with
>numbers of my own.
>You can now choose some
>other numbers which will no
>doubt justify your position, and
>you will be right.
>That is how it goes
>when you use data.
>You find the information that
>best suits your position.
>I'm surprised I have to
>explain this to you.
>Your theory about one person
>had their life saved by
>an automatic weapon is totally
>justified.
>
>You mentioned that I'm "losing" an
>argument. I'm not trying
>to win. This isn't
>a contest. It is
>sharing an opinion on a
>position in which there is
>no right and no wrong.
> You can't win or
>lose an argument on a
>situation like that. You
>can share your thoughts, hope
>that they are considered, and
>either retain or modify your
>position.
>
>If you are in this to
>"win", you can debate with
>yourself and you'll always come
>out a winner. You
>are welcome to respond if
>you would like, but it
>is probably best that we
>call it quits. I
>didn't share my opinion in
>hopes of waging a war
>and making an enemy.
A sure sign of surrender is name calling. Oh well.
One huge difference between your.. ahem. ..data and mine is that mine is unbiased and come s directly from the FBI Uniform Crime report. Furthermore factual data indicates that your assumption about the rise in AW related crime simply did not happen. If you disagree perhaps you should contact the source and offer to correct them.
Your suppositions about how to mine data...facts... is simply and purposely erroneous on your part. Instead the righteous person would seek information based on available info THEN make a decision not vice versa.
1FastGambler
Active Member
- Messages
- 983
>Slick,
>What do You think the Second
>Amendment is for...hunting, target shooting,
>gun collecting? None of
>the above! It was put
>in place by our Founding
>Fathers so that We The
>People can defend ourselves, defend
>our country from invaders (which
>our government will not allow
>us to do) and first
>and foremost, to defend OUR
>constitution from our government, period.
>
>Those who state that "when the
>Constitution was drafted all the
>citizens had were muzzle loaders"
>are morons! How fricken
>stupid! Yes, that statement
>is true. However the muzzle
>loaders the "civilians" had were
>in fact in many cases
>better than the muskets the
>military had. Using that logic,
>I guess it is ok
>for our government to take
>all firearms that are not
>muzzleloaders away from us because
>that's what the Founding Fathers
>had intended.
>Modern weapons exist throughout the world.
> No BS law is
>going to keep them out
>of the hands of criminals.
> The only folks affected
>by "gun control" laws is
>the law abiding citizen.
>Yes, You are in fact naive.
>
>
>Norkal
>
>
>"INVEST IN LEAD FOR THE TIMES
>AHEAD!"
_________________________________________
Norkal, you may be a nimrod...
, but this is an excellent post and perfectly factual and undisputable.
>What do You think the Second
>Amendment is for...hunting, target shooting,
>gun collecting? None of
>the above! It was put
>in place by our Founding
>Fathers so that We The
>People can defend ourselves, defend
>our country from invaders (which
>our government will not allow
>us to do) and first
>and foremost, to defend OUR
>constitution from our government, period.
>
>Those who state that "when the
>Constitution was drafted all the
>citizens had were muzzle loaders"
>are morons! How fricken
>stupid! Yes, that statement
>is true. However the muzzle
>loaders the "civilians" had were
>in fact in many cases
>better than the muskets the
>military had. Using that logic,
>I guess it is ok
>for our government to take
>all firearms that are not
>muzzleloaders away from us because
>that's what the Founding Fathers
>had intended.
>Modern weapons exist throughout the world.
> No BS law is
>going to keep them out
>of the hands of criminals.
> The only folks affected
>by "gun control" laws is
>the law abiding citizen.
>Yes, You are in fact naive.
>
>
>Norkal
>
>
>"INVEST IN LEAD FOR THE TIMES
>AHEAD!"
_________________________________________
Norkal, you may be a nimrod...
, but this is an excellent post and perfectly factual and undisputable.1FastGambler
Active Member
- Messages
- 983
LAST EDITED ON Dec-22-12 AT 11:04PM (MST)[p]Griz, is the Outdoor Edge Swing Blade knife designed to kill people???????
Of course it is NOT designed to kill people. It is designed to speed the process of field dressing big game.
Now how about this knife? Yes, it is a combat knife that is designed to stop the enemy. i.e.- kill people.
The reason I am asking you this and making this comparison to your beleiving that guns are designed to kill people is because they are the same in this comparison.
Let me explain...
Guns, just like knives are ALL tools designed for different jobs. Some can do multiple jobs fairly well, and yet others are very good at a specific job and poor at other jobs. That's why the Leatherman Multi-tool became so popular. Many people gave up their pocket knives for the Leatherman because it was better suited to multiple jobs/tasks. Right?
When the first knives were made out of flint type rocks in the stoneage, they were the tool of choice for many types of jobs. Some knives were designed to skin animals, some were designed to kill game. They did not always use the same knive for both tasks. Example: the commonly know spear is just a knife attached to a stick, right? They are all just tools, right?
Now back to the gun side of this comparison; The military M16 rifle is a select fire rifle. In case you didn't know that means that it has a lever on the side that allows the soldier to switch between semi-auto, 3 shot burst per trigger pull, and full auto.
The M16 is designed to stop the enemy in combat. Yes, it is designed to kill.
The civillian AR15 rifle is nothing more than a gas operated semi-auto rifle. It is not capable of select fire, or full auto.
The AR15 is just a rifle, nothing more. It was in no way shape or form designed specifically to kill people.
I, like many other conservationists enjoy predator hunting. I hunted coyotes for years with either a shotgun or a bolt action 22-250 and have had good success when the coyotes were either really close & I had my shotgun at the ready, or if they were standing still at a few hundred yards or less. Today my usual weapon of choice is an AR15 because coyotes are a small target that rarely stand still and I miss them on a regular basis. The semi auto of the AR15 allows me the opportunity for quick follow up shots at a running coyote if I happen to miss the first shot.
You claiming that all guns are designed to kill people is equal to claiming that all knives are designed to kill people.
AR15's are just rifles that happen to resemble a M16 in appearance.
Do you have any idea how many people have been hunting deer with a semi auto rifle like the Remington model 742 or the Browning BAR? 10's of thousands!!!
The AR15 is seriously no different than the rifles mentioned above other than the ar15 is more commonly seen with 20 or 30 round magazines. Big friggin deal.
The ar15's are almost ALL chambered in 5.56 nato or .233. These are very small, low power cartriges compared to the Remington and the Browning which are most commonly chambered in 30-06 and 7MM Remington Mag.
Cheers.
Of course it is NOT designed to kill people. It is designed to speed the process of field dressing big game.
Now how about this knife? Yes, it is a combat knife that is designed to stop the enemy. i.e.- kill people.
The reason I am asking you this and making this comparison to your beleiving that guns are designed to kill people is because they are the same in this comparison.
Let me explain...
Guns, just like knives are ALL tools designed for different jobs. Some can do multiple jobs fairly well, and yet others are very good at a specific job and poor at other jobs. That's why the Leatherman Multi-tool became so popular. Many people gave up their pocket knives for the Leatherman because it was better suited to multiple jobs/tasks. Right?
When the first knives were made out of flint type rocks in the stoneage, they were the tool of choice for many types of jobs. Some knives were designed to skin animals, some were designed to kill game. They did not always use the same knive for both tasks. Example: the commonly know spear is just a knife attached to a stick, right? They are all just tools, right?
Now back to the gun side of this comparison; The military M16 rifle is a select fire rifle. In case you didn't know that means that it has a lever on the side that allows the soldier to switch between semi-auto, 3 shot burst per trigger pull, and full auto.
The M16 is designed to stop the enemy in combat. Yes, it is designed to kill.
The civillian AR15 rifle is nothing more than a gas operated semi-auto rifle. It is not capable of select fire, or full auto.
The AR15 is just a rifle, nothing more. It was in no way shape or form designed specifically to kill people.
I, like many other conservationists enjoy predator hunting. I hunted coyotes for years with either a shotgun or a bolt action 22-250 and have had good success when the coyotes were either really close & I had my shotgun at the ready, or if they were standing still at a few hundred yards or less. Today my usual weapon of choice is an AR15 because coyotes are a small target that rarely stand still and I miss them on a regular basis. The semi auto of the AR15 allows me the opportunity for quick follow up shots at a running coyote if I happen to miss the first shot.
You claiming that all guns are designed to kill people is equal to claiming that all knives are designed to kill people.
AR15's are just rifles that happen to resemble a M16 in appearance.
Do you have any idea how many people have been hunting deer with a semi auto rifle like the Remington model 742 or the Browning BAR? 10's of thousands!!!
The AR15 is seriously no different than the rifles mentioned above other than the ar15 is more commonly seen with 20 or 30 round magazines. Big friggin deal.
The ar15's are almost ALL chambered in 5.56 nato or .233. These are very small, low power cartriges compared to the Remington and the Browning which are most commonly chambered in 30-06 and 7MM Remington Mag.
Cheers.
grizzmoose
Very Active Member
- Messages
- 1,023
I'm on an iPad right ow so my response will be short. I appreciate your thoughts and the civility of your post. I can understand your logic. I don't totally agree with it but I get your point. Thanks!
