Gun Control Thread- Should we?

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by mredskins

Don't forget they would need a gas mask ....<SNIP>

So you're anti-gun and can't understand how pro-gunners are generally less hysterical and less prone to freezing?

Ok, I see where you're coming from.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I'm not sure why anyone needs to buy assault weapons such as the AR-15 (which I believe was once federally banned), and I don't know anyone should be allowed to sell/buy ammunition over the Internet.

Why do we need weapons like that? To fight off a corrupt government.




I think many of you forget why the 2nd amendment was originally put in place. It was so that the armed people could keep it's government in check

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)

...and I could continue the list of quotes from our former countrymen on why we should and need to be armed. If you don't think our country is going to come to a point where it clashes with its people, then you haven't been paying much attention to history or the evolving situation.


Where is FD and Slinging Sammy at to proclaim what a liberal I am?...lol

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Or people may have still panicked and forgotten they even had a gun.

Or even worse yet, more people could have been hurt or killed in the cross fire.

I'm not sure why anyone needs to buy assault weapons such as the AR-15 (which I believe was once federally banned), and I don't know anyone should be allowed to sell/buy ammunition over the Internet.

Indulge me on the last paragraph please.
Without Googling, tell me what an "assault rifle is" and why should it be banned?
And since I can go buy all the .223 I want at Wal Mart, why should I not get it off the internet?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

Indulge me on the last paragraph please.
Without Googling, tell me what an "assault rifle is" and why should it be banned?
And since I can go buy all the .223 I want at Wal Mart, why should I not get it off the internet?

To your second question first, I don't think it should be so easy at a WalMart either but there's no screening at all on the Internet. You say you're a 40 some year old man from Michigan, you could be a 12 year girl in Budapest for all I know.

To your first question, I know where you're going with this. As you already did in the other thread. But I don't know what the need is to have a rapid fire weapon like that.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

To your second question first, I don't think it should be so easy at a WalMart either but there's no screening at all on the Internet. You say you're a 40 some year old man from Michigan, you could be a 12 year girl in Budapest for all I know.

To your first question, I know where you're going with this. As you already did in the other thread. But I don't know what the need is to have a rapid fire weapon like that.

I agree you should not be able to buy any guns or ammo over the internet. While I'm for the right to own guns I also think we could improve our laws. Here in Va I'd like to see a back ground checks done for even personal gun sales. As it is today any individual can sell a gun to another individual without a back ground check of any kind. Most people have heard of the Gun Show loophole and that's it because individuals also sell guns at these shows.

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I agree you should not be able to buy any guns or ammo over the internet. While I'm for the right to own guns I also think we could improve our laws. Here in Va I'd like to see a back ground checks done for even personal gun sales. As it is today any individual can sell a gun to another individual without a back ground check of any kind. Most people have heard of the Gun Show loophole and that's it because individuals also sell guns at these shows.

I buy all my guns this way whenever possible. While i think it would be ridiculous to require a background check for private sales i would be okay with a law that says you have to personally know someone or show an ID to buy a gun. Or maybe if no ID is avialable you have to write a reciept.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

To your second question first, I don't think it should be so easy at a WalMart either but there's no screening at all on the Internet. You say you're a 40 some year old man from Michigan, you could be a 12 year girl in Budapest for all I know.

To your first question, I know where you're going with this. As you already did in the other thread. But I don't know what the need is to have a rapid fire weapon like that.

I have bought ammo on the internet.
I had to register with the buyer first, and supply a fair amount of info.
Then I had to provide a copy of my scanned drivers license and have a matching shipping address for the delivery.
So your Budapest comments are way off.

And I still dont think you know what an "assault weapon" is because they fire as rapidly as a lot of deer rifles. And the large magazine debate is pretty stoopid since they are so easy to modify.

The "need " is - they are a freakin riot of fun to shoot on the range.
And since I'm harmless and practice gun safety like a lot of other guys, why deprive me.

And your I dont know comment that I have marked in red is because you know very little (at least thats the perception you give me) about firearms and the shooting community in general.
And if this is true I would prefer people like you not voting on gun issues.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

And since I'm harmless and practice gun safety like a lot of other guys, why deprive me.

Because society is now decided by the lowest, most inept common denominator.

Thin the fricken herd, already!

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

I have bought ammo on the internet.
I had to register with the buyer first, and supply a fair amount of info.
Then I had to provide a copy of my scanned drivers license and have a matching shipping address for the delivery.
So your Budapest comments are way off.

And I still dont think you know what an "assault weapon" is because they fire as rapidly as a lot of deer rifles. And the large magazine debate is pretty stoopid since they are so easy to modify.

The "need " is - they are a freakin riot of fun to shoot on the range.
And since I'm harmless and practice gun safety like a lot of other guys, why deprive me.

Well thanks for educating me on the Internet piece.

As for the "need"...we can't always have what we want.

But whatever, it's a culture I just don't understand.

[12thMan]

I've never understood the mindset that says if more people carried concealed weapons then this would have never happened. That's a huge hypothetical. Secondly, the average citizen has no desire to carry a gun on their person. In fact, most probably have a general discomfort of guns.

Yes, these things will happen. People will break the law and find a way to incite fear and violence no matter what laws are on the books. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't take a closer look at current laws and improve them. Why on earth would someone in suburbia need military grade assault weapons? At a minimum we should reinstate the AWB signed under Bill Clinton in the 90s.

I'm not some knee-jerk pro gun control liberal that wants to ban all guns. Statistics prove that most gun owners are responsible and law abiding. But the laws that govern, say, Montana or the Dakotas, for instance, should be different than those that govern our urban communities.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I've never understood the mindset that says if more people carried concealed weapons then this would have never happened. That's a huge hypothetical. Secondly, the average citizen has no desire to carry a gun on their person. In fact, most probably have a general discomfort of guns.

I will agree with this part. Because a crowd was armed, you possibly can't prove that the amount of people killed would have been reduced. Quite simply, that's something we don't know. My guess on the odds or percentages in favor of lesser deaths would be much higher though. Realistically, I imagine 20 trained people carrying firearms would have somehow dampened this guy's plans. If some old dude can carry one and act accordingly, not sure why a even much younger crowd wouldn't have been even more effective.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I've never understood the mindset that says if more people carried concealed weapons then this would have never happened. That's a huge hypothetical. Secondly, the average citizen has no desire to carry a gun on their person. In fact, most probably have a general discomfort of guns.

Yes, these things will happen. People will break the law and find a way to incite fear and violence no matter what laws are on the books. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't take a closer look at current laws and improve them. Why on earth would someone in suburbia need military grade assault weapons? At a minimum we should reinstate the AWB signed under Bill Clinton in the 90s.

I'm not some knee-jerk pro gun control liberal that wants to ban all guns. Statistics prove that most gun owners are responsible and law abiding. But the laws that govern, say, Montana or the Dakotas, for instance, should be different than those that govern our urban communities.

No one is saying it would never have happened. This deranged man would still try to kill people. However, he would have been stopped before shooting so many helpless people like fish in a barrel. Same with VA Tech and even Fort Hood, where "gun-free zones" multiplied the number of victims.

Why do anti-2nd Amendment people always sprint to the assault-weapon argument? It's the extreme, not the intentions of most gun owners who are being targeted.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

No one is saying it would never have happened. This deranged man would still try to kill people. However, he would have been stopped before shooting so many helpless people like fish in a barrel. Same with VA Tech and even Fort Hood, where "gun-free zones" multiplied the number of victims.

and others would have been killed when they went into his apartment. I mean, hindsight is 20-20 and saying filling the air with lead is the solution simply assumes all the variables break your way.

Trained shooter gets jostled by panicked crowd - misfires.
Trained shooter mistaken by panicked crowd member as a co-conspirator and then steps into someone else's line of fire.
etc., etc. There are a billion ways that your scenario breaks bad.

You may be right. It may have lessened the casualities. It may, however, created more given the panic that was occurring.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

You may be right. It may have lessened the casualities. It may, however, created more given the panic that was occurring.

More panic? Knowing he's the only one with a gun and can get a shot at everyone isn't scarier than knowing someone is on your side and is trying to stop him?

There's a madman with a gun. There's going to be mass panic regardless of the circumstances. Not really an argument.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Monkeydad

More panic? Knowing he's the only one with a gun and can get a shot at everyone isn't scarier than knowing someone is on your side and is trying to stop him?

There's a madman with a gun. There's going to be mass panic regardless of the circumstances. Not really an argument.

So neither of my scenarios could possibly happen? More unidentified shooters might not create more panic? In the confusion, no one could possibly mistake a friendly shooter for a second gunman? In the midst of the screaming, smoke and rushing people, multiple friendly shooters might not mistake each other for other gunmen?

I mean, if you want to play the hypothetical game (hypothetically, trained shooters would not have made this worse), we can do it all day. As for no argument, you haven't stated any argument except "It wouldn't have been as bad b/c I said so."