Here Is the Place, if any on this forum, for Gun Discussion
 

First question:

Why does anyone need to own an assault rifle?

I am admittedly ignorant when it comes to guns. For this reason I avoid them and don't really want them around. YES MY FEAR STEMS FROM IGNORANCE!

That said, I would think the answer would come down to the same reason people own pieces of cardboard with pictures of men playing games on them. People just want it for fun. Those guns have no use in a daily living any more than our collectibles have, but they may enjoy having in a collection or shooting them.

My question is why would you need to carry it around in daily living with kids around?
http://www.motherjones.com/files/tar...arry-1-630.jpg




I don't even trust my children near my wife's open purse because of fear of the mess they would make with the chap stick, lotions, and hand sanitizer. So it is beyond me to think of them being around loaded guns like the mother in this story (not associated with the above picture):
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...-gun/21062089/

I will admit that I don't really understand why you would need to take a gun to a baseball game. There are police everywhere and besides that, I can't imagine a situation where you deciding to use your weapon in a crowded stadium would not put the people around you in danger. The police are there for a reason.

Well, there you go again, trying to be rational. :rolleyes:

I understand the argument that it's your right or whatever, but from a logical perspective, what do you expect to do with that gun? And how do you expect to shoot your weapon in a crowd and not hurt someone else? It just seems to me that a baseball game is not the place for your weapon. There are police everywhere to maintain order and make those types of decisions.

The police are not always around to respond in the parking lots (see Bryan Stow), in the streets surrounding the stadium, on the subway (Bernie Goetz), or in a whole host of other places.

Like I said, in other life situations, sure. But in the crowd at the baseball game? How can you shoot your weapon inside the stadium and not put people at risk? Plus if someone sees you with that weapon, they don't know who you are. If they tell a cop and that cop approaches you and your gun, that could spark a pretty serious confrontation and create a lot of fear for people around you.

In the examples I listed, leaving the weapon in the car wouldn't make it available for the situations where it is needed. Leaving it would probably be worse, because of the risk of theft. And you don't give firearm owners enough credit; the ones I know when questioned by police, calmly explain that they have the required license, produce said license if necessary, and that's the end of it.

I don't know what to say to that other than you can't live your life thinking about how you might have to shoot someone at any moment all the time. At least I wouldn't want to live my life that way. But I do support the right to own guns all the same.

The problem with enforcing rights is that little thought is given to enforcing responsibility with those rights. You should NEVER have one without the other!

Was just reading this story about a Lightning fan being charged with a misdemeanor for carrying his firearm into the stadium, even though he had a concealed carry permit.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-pu...132938146.html

Conceaed weapons are not allowed at events that have a capacity of 5000 or more(I believe that is the number).
Personally, I am not a fan of concealed weapons, because once a thug has the drop on you, by the time you get your gun out, you will be dead. If they pat you down to get you wallet and find your gun, now there is another gun on the street. In addition, citizens do not get the training the police officers get, when understanding "when to shoot", and understanding what is in the background behind the person you are trying to shoot at.
Yes there have been some good things that have happened when someone had there gun on them, believe me, they were lucky.
There are some that the CCW permit is warranted. If a business owner has to take large sums of money to the bank, he could be a target, and he needs that weapon to protect himself, as many times the thug is a known person, and will actually kill the owner to prevent recognition.
Assault weapons, they are not needed. You can protect yourself much better with a shotgun then an assault rifle. And you can use the shotgun for multiple type of game birds or animals. Assault weapons, you do not need that kind of firepower to kill a deer.
But I truly believe in the right to own firearms. But assault weapons are not needed.

Concealed weapons permits do not allow a person to carry at most of the following venues:

- federal government facilities
- state government facilities
- political events
- educational institutions
- public, interscholastic, and sporting events
- amusement parks, fairs
- businesses that sell alcohol
- hospitals
- churches
- municipal mass transit
- aboard aircraft, or on ships
- any place, while under the influence of drugs or alcohol

Some states, of course, are more liberal than others. I could not imagine under any circumstances carrying a weapon to a public event. I live in the country, and we have had cougars, and bears encroach on our property. Unless it's a .45, a hand gun is going to tickle a black bear, so I have an AR-15, and Winchester XLR shotgun for these purposes. I consider them practical for protection and security. They are kept in a gun safe. Have a nice day.

Well, it is because it is called the Bill of Rights and not the Bill of Needs.

This is my first post here as a 67 year old newbie and I hope it does not get
me kicked off.

I notice that each has an opinion and some are diametrically opposed to other posts. That's the way it is supposed to be instead of one person or group dictating to the rest of the folks.

Thanks for having me.

Larry

no, you wont get kicked off larry. your opinion is as valid as anyone else's. why would someone start a discussion if all they could expect is EVERYONE to agree with them. That wouldn't make sense. There would be nothing to discuss.

Thanks, Travis, it is nice to meet you.

Larry

Here,here!

I think the better question to ask is why you want an assault rifle.

They're pretty freaking cool to shoot :cool:

+1

Why do you collect baseball cards?

That's the beauty of this country so far, anyway. The "assault rifles", a name tagged dreamed up by the media, is a piece of equipment like any other piece of equipment. An assault rifle, by definition, is an automatic weapon. The AR15 is semi-automatic. Fully automatic weapons are regulated by a whole different group of laws.

Any firearm is not dangerous by itself. Every time a drunk driver hits a pedestrian there is never a call for General Motors or Budweiser to be boycotted.

My dad told me that one should not ever fool around with stuff that one does not understand: rattlesnakes, hand grenades, red headed bartenders (I think there was a story there), etc.

If you don't want one, then good for you. No one is making you buy one. I never did understand why that whenever someone shoots up a church or school the push is one to take away weapons from the people that did not do it.

And I learned how to shoot real "assault" weapons in my two tour senior trip to SE Asia in 1967-1969.

Well I was asking why you want an assault rifle specifically as opposed to other guns. You've more or less said: because I can have one. That's fine if that's your position. I'm just curious why people need them in their houses.

For the record I collect baseball cards because I enjoy the history behind them and players they depict. I don't collect baseball cards because it's not illegal to collect them.

Most people that own assualt rifles DO own other types of guns as well. I have pistols (revolvers and semi-automatic) and I have rifles (lever action, bolt action, pump and semi-automatic).

:confused: As opposed to keeping them where else??

Most people that own 'assault rifles' don't own them just because it's not illegal to own them.

I was interested in why people want assault rifles. These weren't accusations. I asked the question and he said in response, why do you collect baseball cards? And then he started talking about America and free enterprise. So I made the point that I don't collect something just because I can.

So, please, why do you want an assault rifle other than because it's legal to own one? I am honestly curious because every time I have the debate I get the same answer: because I can.

As I already pointed out, most people that own assault rifles own other types of guns as well. So why are you limiting the question to assault rifles??? Why aren't you asking, "Why do you want a 9mm?" or "Why do you want a .30-06?"

Well because assault rifles are different in many ways from a hand gun or a .22 rifle. I consider hand guns and rifles and shotguns to be adequate protection. So I am wondering why people want to own assault rifles too.

It's like if you were saying you wanted to buy a grenade because you own a hand gun. I'd still ask why you felt like you needed to have a grenade and if you said: because I have this other gun, that wouldn't make a lot of sense to me.

I don't understand why you're asking to justify it though. As was pointed out in a couple posts back, if you don't want one then don't buy one. So why are you questioning other's desires to own one?

It would be like me asking you, "You have a Warren Spahn card, why do you want a Walter Johnson too?"

Sometimes the answer is, "Just because I want to and it's none of anybody elses business."

Well actually there are large numbers of people in this country who want to ban assault rifles. So I'm asking the people who want to continue to buy them why they need them. And that is because there is a national debate on the issue and you fall on the side I don't understand. I don't think it's super complicated. You want to continue to buy assault rifles. I'm asking why you want to continue to buy assault rifles specifically, when, as you've pointed out, there are plenty of other types of firearms you can buy.

Kill tyrants
Home defense
Business defense (looters)
Fun to shoot
Hunting (quick extra shots)
Investment
Conversation piece
Collecting
Economic growth (keep the arms/ammo industry strong)
Competition target shooting

How many reasons do you want?

Those are valid reason and I appreciate your perspective. All I got before were things like "why not?" and "it's legal".

Those are all great reasons with #4 being my favorite. They are really fun to shoot.

There's historical reasons. One of the first things, historically, tyrants have done is to disarm the populace (See Hitler, Adolf, and Stalin, Josef). For many, it's the "slippery slope" argument. Ban one type of gun and it makes it easier to ban all of them.

The second amendment clearly allows the right of citizens to bear arms. Again, the "slippery slope". Take away even a portion of that right and many believe it will lead to government taking away other rights, such as free speech.

Agree or not, but that's what many people, even those who don't own an assault rifle, believe. It's what I believe and I do not own an assault rifle.

The United States is a very unique country in the history of the world. I would respectfully recommend you do some reading on the founding of the nation and why the Bill of Rights was included in the Constitution. The Founders feared that government would become too powerful and did everything they could to limit the powers of government in hopes that we would not turn into the same monarchy they fought to separate from.

If they were around today, do you think they would agree they succeeded? I wonder!

Great post! Thank you!

Ok, you seem like a nice guy so I'll go on here.

I have several AR-15s. I also have several AK-47s. I shoot all of these on a
regular basis as well as many more rifles and handguns. My collection is that of USGI M1 carbines as well as M1 Girands. (I like history, as well).

There are many, many other rifles that shoot the 5.56 mm round as well as the civilian .223. What has happened is that there is a hysteria over the black rifles. Scary, I know. The detriments to the rifle, as seen by the liberal gun grabbers, is a pistol grip. Another is a magazine that holds a lot of rounds. Yet another is that they look scary. Oh, yeah, they have flash suppressors. And the finale' reason is that some have a bayonet lug.

So, if you were to buy a Ruger mini 14 it would be fine with the gun goofies. It has a wood stock instead of plastic, it has no bayonet lug, and it does not look scary. This rifle has the capability to use large capacity magazines.

The kicker? This rifle uses the same 5.56 or .223 ammo but it is perfectly fine with the goofies. It just doesn't look scary. Make sense to you?

You mentioned the folks that want to ban "assault rifles" a name dreamed up by the media. They live and breathe shootings that involve an AR-15. The AR does not stand for assault rifle, by the way. They were made by the ArmaLite Corp originally so you might be able to figure out why their rifle is named AR.

Do you remember the episode in DC when a black guy shot up the place and killed 14 people. He used a shotgun and was black. That did not fit the agenda so it was only in the news a couple of days. It would have been better if he were a long haired white kid that was a loner with an AR-15.

The recent episode in South Carolina came closer to fitting. He was a long haired kid but did not use an AR. He used a .45 and reloaded several times.

The point is that these things are not any more dangerous than the person behind the rear sight.

So my question to you, sir, is why you point out AR-15s and no other weapon? You don't want an AR in your home? Your choice and i respect that. How about the aforementioned Ruger mini 14? It has a wood stock and does not look scary but shoots the same ammo and large capacity magazines are readily available.

See why I don't understand the mania about AR-15s?

I support the right to own guns. I asked about assault rifles, or weapons, because it's a hot topic these days. Personally, while I feel that gun ownership is fine, I don't think the general public should have access to assault rifles or assault weapons or semi-automatic handguns. More than half of all mass shootings were carried out by assault weapons or semi-automatic handguns. Those were some of the deadliest of all the shootings. And the guns were for the most part purchased legally. That's just my opinion though and I was looking for some insight from the other side, which I appreciate you guys sharing.

This is the slippery slope. Who are you to decide? What do you know about guns, technically, to determine what type should be outlawed? Yet, if it were put to a vote, you'd vote to outlaw these weapons. There are many who believe people like you are a genuine threat to freedom in this country. You espouse your beliefs based on feelings and what "seems" right without having a clue what you're talking about or any sense of historical perspective.

And to continue down the slope, what will you feel we need to outlaw in a few years when another murder takes place with a different type of weapon? Shotguns? Because, sadly, it will happen again. You can't legislate away evil and you can't legislate away insanity no matter how much freedom you take away from people.

Some guns but not all guns? Whom would you put in charge of deciding?


Hot to whom? The topic is hot to me as people are trying to violate my constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Why is is hot to you?

I don't think you do. You seem to believe that gun ownership is fine except for most of the weapons out there. Actually there are comparatively very few handguns sold that are not semi-automatic. The same with single shot rifles.

There are 40,000+ people killed in motor vehicle accidents every year and no one seems inclined to ban cars. Actually, there are more people killed every year with shovels and baseball bats than with "assault rifles".

Where is the outrage?

Once again, great post Scott! There are some of us who get exactly what you're saying. For others, it goes right over their heads. No, you can not legislate away evil or insanity, just like legislature to remove the Confederate flag won't eradicate racism.

Let's take this even a bit further. About 30% of motor vehicle fatalities are alcohol related. In other words, EVERY ONE OF THEM could have been prevented.

Where is the outrage to ban alcohol?

Packs, since I answered your question, please oblige me and answer mine. Thank you!

This is a thread about gun rights so I'm talking about gun rights. I also never inferred I would be the arbiter of who gets a gun or who doesn't. I simply stated that I think powerful guns like assault rifles, assault weapons, and semi-automatic handguns should not be available to the mass public. I laid out my reasons why, which include the propensity for the guns to be used in some of the deadliest mass shootings in this country, as well as in half of all mass shootings in this country. These guns were purchased legally in almost every case.

I think you should have your guns, just not these guns.

What is a "powerful gun"? In actuality, most AR-15s shoot the 5.56 NATO (.223) round, which by any measure, is an intermediate round. It shoots a small round that is about the same diameter as a .22. It goes faster yes but the bullet weighs about 56 grains where a .22 is about 30 grains. It's really not much of a bullet especially compared to the 30-06 which has been the deer hunters favorite for 50+ years. The bullet weight runs from about 150 grains to 220 grains and has a diameter of about .308, Now THAT is a powerful weapon!

Packs, you have been indoctrinated by the liberal media and agenda. You really have no rational reason to dislike the AR platform. If you were opposed to anyone possessing any firearm, then it would make some sense. You cannot tell us why you don't like them other than you simply do not like them.

Are you saying then that deer hunters should be allowed to use a 30-06 but I should not be able to possess a 5.56 mm weapon?

One more time--where do you draw the line? And hand grenades are a whole different deal. We weren't talking about hand grenades, were we?

Assault weapons and definitions for them are laid out in the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. You can look it up. It expired in 2004. Since 2004, 48 weapons which would have previously been banned have been used in mass shootings. Most of these weapons, with the exception of very few of them, were purchased legally. I am in favor of keeping them out people's hands because of their propensity to be used in mass shootings.

And how many people have been killed in auto accidents? How many people have been killed falling off ladders? How many people have been killed in fires? How many people have been killed in industrial accidents? No, sir, none of the above figures in with the liberal agenda.

And, most importantly, how many people were killed with "assault weapons" during the ban? Somehow, they banned the sale but could not ban the killings.

I will end my contribution to this thread with this quote from Ronald Reagan:

"The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

I didn't think you would (or even could) answer my question.

Thanks for proving me right.

Proving you right about what? We're talking about specific weapons under a broad umbrella of firearms. So where does drinking or ladders or automobiles fit in? I've expressed numerous times why I think specific firearms should be banned and not available for public sale. It has to do with them being legally available for purchase and the rate in which those weapons are then used to murder large numbers of people in a single event. If the federal ban were still in place, you would still be free to buy any other gun you wanted.

I can't think of a single mass car murder or mass ladder murder. Please point one out to me so I can make an informed decision. For the last time, my opinion is driven by mass murder events. Not the number of total gun deaths. Not figures that have to do with gun violence. My opinion is driven by mass shootings. That's very specific.

Ok, I'm pointing it out to you so you can make an infomred decision.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/driver-p...tremist-fears/

This is ONLY ONE example How many do you want?

Any while you could argue that nobody was killed, that's irrelevant. It was his intentions that matter. Several could have been killed.

So I repeat the same question. Why are you not as passionate about motor vehicles since they can obviously be used as weapons to cause mass casualties too?

I am of course against mass car murder, although as I said it never happened. If there is one particular model of car that mass car murderers prefer, please take it off the streets. There are countless other cars I can drive.

You're uninformed!

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/dr...eports-n378976

I think you're misconstruing violence and mass murder my man. If you're comparing these events to Sandy Hook, maybe you should chill out before calling me names.

No, mass murder "is the act of murdering many people, typically simultaneously or over a relatively short period of time."

If ones intentions are to murder as many people as possible, what difference does it matter what they use - a car, a knife, a gun or anything else? In both stories I linked, the intentions of the driver was to kill several people at once - the difinition of a mass murderer. I'm still trying to undertand why you are not as passionate about banning other instruments of mass murder? Why only assault rifles?

This is a thread about gun rights so I am talking about gun rights and specific guns that I feel are better off not for sale to the public, for specific reasons. If you want to talk about car accidents start your own thread. It has no place here and is only a strawman tactic to divert attention away from a meaningful discussion we were having before you resorted to name calling.

Yes this thread is about gun rights and, according to the 2nd Amendment, we have a RIGHT to do so. So if it is our RIGHT, why the discussion to begin with?

As I've said in nearly all of my posts, I agree with the right to own guns. As I've pointed out in nearly all of my posts, you can still own guns while not being able to purchase other guns. So your right is protected under the current laws and when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was in place.

Also I have not called you one single name or insulted your intelligence. That really pissed me off.

Childish is asking someone a question, them giving you an answer and then diverting a question when it is asked in return.

Yes, your ridiculous questions insult my intelligence.

You also want to spew your opinion when you don't even know facts. That, too, insults my intelligence. Do you even know the definition or characteristics of an assualt rifle? Name them!

Yeah ok. I asked you why you wanted something because I wanted to understand your perspective. You could just apologize for getting heated up and insulting a stranger during a discussion. But something tells me you're a going down the with ship kind of a guy.

Would it make you feel better if they was all pushed outta windows?
-Archie Bunker

Seriously though, do you not remember the Boston Marathon bombing? They had guns and instead chose to use a bomb! Oklahoma City - bomb! 9/11 - airplanes.

I don't mean to be rude but you're really demonstrating some extremely narrow-minded thinking. You have your opinion and no form of persuasive argument will change your mind. Your opinion is based on only those selected mass murder events that fit your apparently ingrained indoctrination. Frankly, people like you scare me way more than anyone who owns an assault rifle.

Look, think about it logically: If you want to kill a bunch of people and you can't get one type of gun, wouldn't you just use a different kind or come up with a different method? You don't honestly believe outlawing one type of deadly weapon will prevent anyone seriously bent on mass murder from using another method do you? That's just insane. Your only real logical argument is to ban all guns. At least admit that that's what you really favor. Because I'd bet if you could vote to ban all guns, you'd do it.

Here's a novel idea: Instead of banning these weapons so only the bad guys have them, how about giving one volunteer at each public high school access to one along with extensive training. That, my friend, would do more to end mass murders at schools than anything anyone like you could ever come up with.

Well in response all I can say is that we don't really have a bombing problem in this country. Bombings like the Boston bombing and Oklahoma City are very rare. And a 9/11 event even rarer. What we do have in this country is a higher than usual rate of mass shootings.

Yes, and we also have a high rate of DWI related deaths. You said you asked your question to understand my persepctive. I'm trying to understand yours, and those that think like you. Given the high rate of DWI deaths (something that could absolutely be avoided), where is your outrage over that? And don't give me your chicken chit answer that this thread is about gun control and blah, blah, blah...

You are someone I will never engage with again, either in conversation or otherwise. You insulted me twice now for no reason and I won't tolerate your antics.

You asked me a fair question because you wanted to understand my thought proces. I asked you a fair question because I wanted to understand yours. You couldn't answer my question.

A Poll
 

It's unfortunate that topics like this have to(usually)end in accusations
and name calling. Perhaps a "poll" would be a better way to express
our opinions on important topics of the day ? At least , we could
see which way the wind blows ........... here at net54 .
Ken

Well, lets give this a try for packs.

I'm not a gun owner.
I have ADD and even before being diagnosed I knew I had a tendency towards being a bit disorganized. That to my mind is something that doesn't combine well with any sort of firearms.

But I do occasionally shoot, since friends have some.

It's challenging and yes, it's fun. I've tried pistol, maybe 4-5 different? small and medium rifles and skeet shooting. All different , all fun and challenging. I'm an ok shot, not what I'd call "good" but I can get all the shots on the target, and hit about half the birds. I figure that's pretty good for someone who might get to a range once every couple years or maybe a bit less often.
(Feel free to laugh gun guys:) )


I think the entire definition of "assault rifle" is a silly fiction made up by politicians as a typical knee jerk reaction to something they couldn't legislate.
It's basically banning things based on how they look. As someone else pointed out there are a number of non-"Assault rifles" that are essentially identical in function, and some that are far more powerful. One of the most popular larger rifles for hunting and target shooting was actually a military weapon when it was new. It's not banned. With the right ammunition there's not a lot of stuff that would make good cover.

If I ever do own a firearm, one of the things that would be part of my choice would be that many of them are fantastic bits of very well made machinery. Taking one apart and seeing how stuff was done mechanically is really amazing. (Yes, I've done that. I'm guessing the group of no gun owners who have taken one apart is pretty small. )

Now, you might wonder why the bad stuff always seems to be done with the same piece of hardware. The answer is to me a simple one. It has nothing to do with whether it was the best choice. It's about image. To use the car analogy - there are stereotypes about different cars and their drivers. Like some cars are more often bought by people who are more prone to speeding or acting superior for some reason. Show a movie scene where the guy in a sleeveless shirt says "Hey, don't lean on the Camaro!" And everyone just smiles and laughs because we've all seen that guy. Not all Camaro owners are, but enough that it's a common image. Same as the BMW driver who thinks he's better than everyone because his car is nice or the Prius driver who looks down on the people wrecking the planet with normal cars. In the same way, something like an AR-15 is more attractive to the nuts than many other bits of hardware. Only a small number of owners are nuts, many are very serious responsible people. But the nuts get the attention.

Some stuff does need to change, firstly a return to reasonableness on both sides. (Some controls do work, full auto has been tightly regulated since I think 1938 and last time I checked there had been exactly 0 crimes committed with a legally owned machine gun) Those rules are probably too strict to be practical for anything else.

Personally I feel that if a person can show they're responsible, safe and respect other people enough in general to not shoot them without a very good reason (Like "he was raving and running at me with a big knife") There shouldn't be any restriction.

If someone demonstrates a lack of those traits then they should get nothing.

If they are going through something that might make them temporarily irresponsible or untrustworthy maybe there should be a system that lets them store the stuff away until they get their stuff back together. currently the only options are " nearly everything is ok" or " you cant have that stuff anymore so we're taking it"

Yes, the middle ground is full of gray area and pitfalls and trying to get that right is much harder than a simple yes/no set of rules. But it would be worth doing.
The current societal "me first and sometimes only" attitude extends to so much and is so hard to change I don't think we'll make much progress if any.

Steve B

As an aside, does the term "gun control" remind anyone else of the 'this is my rifle and this is my gun' scene from Full Metal Jacket? (won't post it here in case it violates forum rules; just do a YouTube search for it and you'll see what I mean) That's always the first thing that comes to my mind when I hear someone talk about the need for "gun" control.

Here is my take on the CHL's. I own and carry a hand gun 90% of the time. I have a Texas CHL and it is honored in 37 states. I understand that certain venues do not allow CHL's. But I will state this. If one person had a CHL in Colorado in the theater, less lives would have been lost. If one person had a CHL in the church, less lives would have been lost. If one of our Service men would have had a gun in the recruiting office..well you get the picture. These scumbags pick out easy targets. Not so easy when others have guns, are trained with them and not afraid to use them. Concealed Handgun is just that "concealed". I'd rather have one when I need it and suffer the fine if I use it than watch as a criminal who could care less about the law uses it against unarmed people.

It makes sense what you are saying...and I agree with it. But let me ask you this: how many accidental injuries/deaths have occurred since people have been allowed to carry firearms? I don't know statistics, but I'm willing to bet it's a decent amount...more to offset the good reasons to carry one? Who knows, but I also feel like I hear of more people shooting people over non issues too. In theory, carrying one for protection sounds fabulous, just not sure it works out that way half of the time.

I'm not totally against guns, I just don't see where guns are a positive outside of the military. Sure, they make for a great sport and practice, but outside of that, they just seem dangerous for the most part. We have to admit, even though most of the time it's the people that are the issue, they always get into the wrong hands and people always die when they shouldn't have. In reality, this will never end and people will always have guns, but that doesn't mean I have to say guns are cool and the Constitution gives me enough backing to say they are ok (we have evolved)...yes, guns are a necessary evil in some areas, but are too risky for any random joe to be walking around with one. Just my opinion...

One more thing...the cars/guns comparison doesn't carry any weight. Anyone could pick up a butter knife and go on a killing spree...anyone could ram their car into another car. A car's purpose isn't to kill, but to travel. A gun's purpose is to destroy something...anything if one desires

You'll never need a gun twice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In the hands of an untrained person guns are as dangerous as an unskilled driver. I'm 59, have carried for 28 years and have never once pulled it or shot it besides at the range. My girls were all trained on the dangers of guns. They knew and respected the power both inside my house and at their friends house. Trained to know that they are not toys and are not to be fooled with. But I'd rather have one and not need it than not have one and need it. And as a side, I am not a gun enthusaist.

It definitely makes sense! One big reason we own guns is to defend ourselves from people that have ill intent...protect from people with guns. In the end, owning a gun is a huge responsibility and now that any ol joe can carry one, we are asking for more issues IMO.

I know what you're insinuating: that if someone had a gun they would have shot him. But that is assuming a lot out of a person who has never been in that situation. And besides, if you arm people like security guards at high schools, you're going to be at the mercy of that person's sanity.

If we took every senerio with a car, baseball bat or gun we'd live under rocks. Name a security guard, armored car guard or a bank guard that has gone insane and shot people dead. Ok name a terrorist, robber, car jacker that has shot innocent people. Which list do you think is longer and who do you want with you when crime happens? Would you put your hands in front of your face and say "don't shoot" or would you pull your gun and defend your family?

Every time I make a post I feel like your instinct is: he thinks we shouldn't have any guns! But that is so far from what I'm saying that I don't understand the reaction. Because of the propensity of weapons from the Federal Assault Weapon Ban being used in mass shootings, all I've said was that the type of guns available for sale to the public should be amended. And that's because in most cases, the weapons I'm talking about taking off the market are bought legally.

Here are some security guard articles I think you should read that demonstrate the dangers of arming security people that I discussed in the post you quoted:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-children.html

http://www.wsbtv.com/videos/news/sec...stomer/vDPdpG/

http://consumerist.com/2010/10/14/ho...e-parking-lot/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/0...hood-security#

http://www.cbs12.com/news/top-storie...id_27193.shtml

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...blow-up-school

In case anyone overlooked it, Steve made a great point in post #63. I'm only copying part of it, but you can go back and read it in its entirety if you like.

"Now, you might wonder why the bad stuff always seems to be done with the same piece of hardware. The answer is to me a simple one. It has nothing to do with whether it was the best choice. It's about image. To use the car analogy - there are stereotypes about different cars and their drivers. Like some cars are more often bought by people who are more prone to speeding or acting superior for some reason. Show a movie scene where the guy in a sleeveless shirt says "Hey, don't lean on the Camaro!" And everyone just smiles and laughs because we've all seen that guy. Not all Camaro owners are, but enough that it's a common image. Same as the BMW driver who thinks he's better than everyone because his car is nice or the Prius driver who looks down on the people wrecking the planet with normal cars. In the same way, something like an AR-15 is more attractive to the nuts than many other bits of hardware. Only a small number of owners are nuts, many are very serious responsible people. But the nuts get the attention."

I've never considered the "image" aspect of it, but it makes a lot of sense. A lot of these people are "society's rejects" - they never fit in, they were picked on in school, bullied, etc. Mass shootings are their way "get back" at society.

I honestly think that if you gave one of these nuts the choice between a slingshot and an AR-15 and told them that each would kill the same number of people, they would choose the AR-15 because, just as Steve said, the image that it projects. They fill empowered with an assault rifle over other weapons of choice. They want to go out in a blaze of glory. After all, there are certainly other ways to kill a large number of people besides an assault rifle. The assault rifle give them the power or respect (or so they think) that they never had before.

I think it's great that we can have an adult conversation that states our views in a civil way. I don't get the assault rifle fixation but then again I don't get paying 20k for a PSA 10 when you can buy a 9 for $200 and cannot see the difference. I agree with your statements and I've seen those headlines. Problem is the crazies don't need a license to get a gun, just a few hundred bucks. And as I type this someone is shooting up a theater in Louisiana. Geez

I do not normally involve myself with this type discussion, but recent events have made it more important for me to do so...in the hopes that it will help someone else sort things out.

For years, I was my own worst enemy, loosing jobs, friends, and lovers along the way. Thank goodness, I realized my limitations, if not a solution at the time, and never sought to purchase a weapon.

About fifteen years ago, when I had just lost another job and was well on the way to loosing the true love of my life, a friend gave me some good advice...I wound up going to a psychologist who diagnosed me as suffering from depression. He put me on a prescription and my life has never been the same. Almost overnight, my family notice the difference and reached out to get closer than we had ever been before.

Now. I have bored you with my story to send a clear message that someone will get something out of:

I strongly urge everyone who may even consider the possibility that they are depressed, to get help immediately.

One person I knew growing up never got the right assistance when he should have...and the results showed up on Thursday night in a movie theatre in Lafayette, LA.

He never should have been able to arm himself, but he did.

Do not be ashamed or afraid to speak up for yourself or someone you know and get the help before it is too late.

I sincerely hope that this helps someone because the price has already been paid for this free advise.

-Raymond

Another mass shooting today in San Bernadino. Pretty telling quote from Obama:

The one thing we do know is that we have a pattern now of mass shootings in this country that has no parallel anywhere else in the world, and there’s some steps we could take, not to eliminate every one of these mass shootings, but to improve the odds that they don’t happen as frequently, common-sense gun safety laws, stronger background checks and, you know, for those who are concerned about terrorism of, you know, some may be aware of the fact that we have a no-fly list where people can’t get on planes but those same people who we don’t allow to fly could go into a store right now in the United States and buy a firearm and there’s nothing that we can do to stop them.

this is wrong, guns don't deter crimes and shootings with all the studies having been done. all i know is there's a weekly mass shooting across the country, and i read about how some dude just killed a waitress because he couldn't smoke inside the waffle house??? now another mass shooting in san berdune which hits a little too close to home.

this country is effed with no cure in sight. i don't feel safe going to the mall, i don't feel safe going to the theater, i don't feel safe sending my kids to school, and i certainly don't feel safe at work as some mentally disturbed individual can just go off on the rest of us because HR looked at them wrong. i'm actively looking for a transfer to my home country or might even consider canada at this point...y'all have fun with the assault rifles and open carries.

p.s.oh yea and i'm not white so i gotta watch my back for the po-po also....

Guns used in this attack were AR-15s, the same AR-15s that would have been banned and illegal to sell under the previously held Federal Assault Weapons Ban.

So an assault weapon ban would would eliminate these type shootings? Is that what you're saying? If that's not what you're saying, please explain your comment.

Assault weapons are banned in France too. That didn't stop the terrorists. 129 people dead.

They're banned in Norway as well. That didn't stop Breivik. 69 people dead.

I guess we should sell them to whoever wants them and just wait around to see what they do with them. That's a better idea than taking them off the market and allowing people to possess other weapons not on the ban.

Also your mention of France and Norway is actually counter intuitive to your point, seeing as France and Norway do not have mass shootings in their countries that out number the days of the year like we do. So I would say not selling them in France and Norway does indeed impact the number of mass shootings in the country in which assault weapons are used.

Lastly, if your argument is that making something illegal doesn't mean you can't get it, that's obvious to everyone. But I don't see why you don't think there's a difference between something being legal to buy and illegal to buy.