Proud of our Youth !

[packs]

Some of the biggest obstacles I've noticed in the debate between sides is this POV from the gun rights advocates that if you use a term they don't agree with or think is technically wrong in some minute aspect re: firearms there is this tendency to then dismiss anything else that is said.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Some of the biggest obstacles I've noticed in the debate between sides is this POV from the gun control advocates that if you use Fox News as a source of information there is this tendency to then dismiss anything else that is said.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by packs

Some of the biggest obstacles I've noticed in the debate between sides is this POV from the gun rights advocates that if you use a term they don't agree with or think is technically wrong in some minute aspect re: firearms there is this tendency to then dismiss anything else that is said.

So are you saying that term definitions and technical accuracy are not relevant for a discussion on laws? That seems odd to me. Just curious for an example of "a term they don't agree with"?

[packs]

Originally Posted by tschock

So are you saying that term definitions and technical accuracy are not relevant for a discussion on laws? That seems odd to me. Just curious for an example of "a term they don't agree with"?

Assault Rifle for example. The term seems to matter to gun advocates but in my opinion its semantics. I think people are really saying they have an issue with a type of weapon, let's say AR-15 since it has a history of being used in these types of situations, and it doesn't truly matter if Assault Rifle is the definitive term. They're saying they see a pattern of abuse of a certain weapon, that is the true point. But that is sometimes lost in an endless loop of definition.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by packs

Assault Rifle for example. The term seems to matter to gun advocates but in my opinion its semantics. I think people are really saying they have an issue with a type of weapon, let's say AR-15 since it has a history of being used in these types of situations, and it doesn't truly matter if Assault Rifle is the definitive term. They're saying they see a pattern of abuse of a certain weapon, that is the true point. But that is sometimes lost in an endless loop of definition.

Well, it's very important if the facts either don't support the claim or your intention for banning/restriction is unclear. So let's use your definition for sake of argument. Assault Rifle = AR-15. Why do you or others want assault rifles (AR-15s) banned (or restricted)? Is it because of the amount of damage they can do based on the magazine capacity? That would be my guess, but facts and technical details don't back up the claim.

"One of the Columbine shooters used 10-round magazines, and the Virginia Tech shooter used mostly 10-round magazines. The shooter from the recent Florida school shooting, although he had an AR-15-style rifle, used 10-round magazines to commit the crime. And Maryland, where the most recent school shooting occurred, already has laws banning the purchase of “high-capacity” magazines." - http://thefederalist.com/2018/03/21/...trol-debunked/

Many other weapons have this capacity (or more) including handguns. If your real reason for wanted these types of weapons banned (or restricted) is something other than capacity, then please correct me.

Hopefully with the above you can understand it's not just semantics.

[packs]

People talk about semi-automatic rifles because that type of weapon is most commonly used to carry out large scale mass shootings. You rarely see one of these individuals choose to carry out a shooting with a handgun or shotgun or .22 caliber rifle. But when someone calls the weapon an "Assault Rifle" the conversation devolves into what is what rather than discussing the propensity for a certain type of weapon to be used in carrying out these shootings.

We outlawed automatic weapons in the 30s because they posed a danger to society and law enforcement. Why was that acceptable but a ban on semi-automatic rifles is met with such opposition?

I'd love to hear a gun advocate answer that question.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by packs

We outlawed automatic weapons in the 30s because they posed a danger to society and law enforcement. Why was that acceptable but a ban on semi-automatic rifles is met with such opposition?

I'd love to hear a gun advocate answer that question.

Most handguns are semi-automatic. A lot of hunting rifles are semi-automatic. Do you even understand the difference in the action of a gun - automatic, semi-automatic, pump, lever action, bolt action, etc.?

So you want to ban handguns and hunting rifles?

[packs]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Most handguns are semi-automatic. A lot of hunting rifles are semi-automatic. Do you even understand the difference in the action of a gun - automatic, semi-automatic, pump, lever action, bolt action, etc.?

So you want to ban handguns and hunting rifles?

I didn't say anything about handguns and hunting rifles have not been semi-automatic since their inception so I see no logical reason why you couldn't hunt with one that wasn't semi-automatic.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by packs

People talk about semi-automatic rifles because that type of weapon is most commonly used to carry out large scale mass shootings. You rarely see one of these individuals choose to carry out a shooting with a handgun or shotgun or .22 caliber rifle. But when someone calls the weapon an "Assault Rifle" the conversation devolves into what is what rather than discussing the propensity for a certain type of weapon to be used in carrying out these shootings.

And what's even more rare? That these people tend to carry out these type of shootings in zones that aren't "gun free" zones. So banning all "assault rifles", what's next in the gun free zones? I mean, since most shootings occur with handguns. Care to venture a guess?

The conversation likely devolves because "people" are reacting more with 'feelz' rather than facts and logic. I'm not imply you are, and I appreciate the discussion.

And I'm not proposing the silly argument that handguns kill more people so mass shootings aren't 'important' (bad choice of words, but at times seems suggestive on the gun rights side). Both are a problem, but the solution isn't further restriction.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by packs

People talk about semi-automatic rifles because that type of weapon is most commonly used to carry out large scale mass shootings. You rarely see one of these individuals choose to carry out a shooting with a handgun or shotgun or .22 caliber rifle. But when someone calls the weapon an "Assault Rifle" the conversation devolves into what is what rather than discussing the propensity for a certain type of weapon to be used in carrying out these shootings.

We outlawed automatic weapons in the 30s because they posed a danger to society and law enforcement. Why was that acceptable but a ban on semi-automatic rifles is met with such opposition?

I'd love to hear a gun advocate answer that question.

they banned them because of ignorant, panicky politicians not because of any threat to society.

and you can still possess an automatic weapon, it just costs more and requires giving more $$$ to the govt.

semi-automatic rifles are not the most often used weapon in a mass shooting, handguns are

you don't get to take my rights away because you want safety. anyone who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserves neither.

any individual who thinks that gun laws stop violence must also think that prohibition stopped drinking

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by tschock

Many other weapons have this capacity (or more) including handguns. If your real reason for wanted these types of weapons banned (or restricted) is something other than capacity, then please correct me.

I've already explained this to Packs in the past. He either doesn't get it, or just doesn't want to get it.

If I wanted to shoot up a place, my weapon of choice would be my Glock. It has the same magazine capacity as an AR-I5, the clips are lighter and less bulky and the weapon itself is lighter and less bulky. I can fire off just as many rounds, drop the clip, reload it and continue firing just as quickly as someone with an AR-15.

The AR-15 is the weapon of choice for the sick-minded individuals simply because of its cosmetics - it looks scary and it makes the sickos feel empowered. Its nothing more than a handgun with a longer barrel.

[packs]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I've already explained this to Packs in the past. He either doesn't get it, or just doesn't want to get it.

If I wanted to shoot up a place, my weapon of choice would be my Glock. It has the same magazine capacity as an AR-I5, the clips are lighter and less bulky and the weapon itself is lighter and less bulky. I can fire off just as many rounds, drop the clip, reload it and continue firing just as quickly as someone with an AR-15.

The AR-15 is the weapon of choice for the sick-minded individuals simply because of its cosmetics - it looks scary and it makes the sickos feel empowered. Its nothing more than a handgun with a longer barrel.

That's not totally true though. In some states handguns are met with stricter restrictions than rifles. In Colorado for example, you need to have a concealed carry permit to carry a handgun but you don't need one for a long gun. You could conceal your rifle lawfully but not your glock.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

I've already explained this to Packs in the past. He either doesn't get it, or just doesn't want to get it.

If I wanted to shoot up a place, my weapon of choice would be my Glock. It has the same magazine capacity as an AR-I5, the clips are lighter and less bulky and the weapon itself is lighter and less bulky. I can fire off just as many rounds, drop the clip, reload it and continue firing just as quickly as someone with an AR-15.

The AR-15 is the weapon of choice for the sick-minded individuals simply because of its cosmetics - it looks scary and it makes the sickos feel empowered. Its nothing more than a handgun with a longer barrel.

I live in NC now, but yelled out Holy Sh*t so loud the other day when I saw something on the news, that my wife thought something happened to me. I am now the proud alumni of the school district in PA that wants to put buckets of rocks in the schools to throw at someone with a gun. I hope they decide to issue fake beards so that the girls can throw them as well.

[barrysloate]

A question for David, Taylor, and pretty much anyone else, and I ask this without any cynicism at all:

What do you want to see done to make America safer from these terrible assaults? Do you suggest any changes at all with any gun laws, or do you think the status quo is just fine? You guys know a whole lot more than I do, so I take your words seriously. Again, this is a sincere question. Your encyclopedic knowledge on guns is duly respected.

The floor is yours.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by tschock

I live in NC now, but yelled out Holy Sh*t so loud the other day when I saw something on the news, that my wife thought something happened to me. I am now the proud alumni of the school district in PA that wants to put buckets of rocks in the schools to throw at someone with a gun. I hope they decide to issue fake beards so that the girls can throw them as well.

I heard that as well. I thought it was a joke at first.