All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > High-Capacity Assault Weapons
12/17/2012 1:27 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 12/17/2012 1:23:00 PM (view original):
If your concern is self defense while walking your dog, I can't imagine that you'd rather carry a small caliber assault rifle instead of a large caliber revolver. You aren't hunting the boar and the boar isn't hunting you. The likelihood of an encounter is small, and the likelihood that you will need to fire on a charging boar even less.
As I said earlier, everyone tries to apply gun usage to their personal situation.   I don't know what a cattleman in Wyoming needs to defend himself, and his livelihood, from bears/wolves.    I'd like to fire about 900 rounds if a bear was charging me.
12/17/2012 1:28 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/17/2012 1:22:00 PM (view original):
Not so much.   I don't particularly care to talk about gun control now because I think it's a bit disrespectul to the victims.    IMO, the loss of their lives is a tragedy not a talking point for a polarizing topic.   As I said earlier, I would expect a punch in the face if I told a victim's father that I needed a HC, powerful handgun to protect my dogs from wild boar.   Understandably, he might want all guns thrown in the ocean.   I think that's a ridiculous viewpoint but I would also understand his sentiment.

I'll ask again.   If the goal is to prevent mass killings like this one, where do you stop with gun restrictions?   No HCAW?  I'm on board.   No multi-shot guns?  Not on board.  
I don't think it's disrespectful to say, "we don't want something like this to happen again so we are going to try to get reasonable restrictions put into place."

Sure, it doesn't solve all the world's problems or guarantee that there will be no more shootings in the future but incremental change is valuable.

I see you drew a line after HCAW.
12/17/2012 1:31 PM
I think you're going too far when you restrict guns other than HCAWs. It'd be like saying we can't drive cars since some people drink and drive.
12/17/2012 1:38 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 12/17/2012 1:28:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/17/2012 1:22:00 PM (view original):
Not so much.   I don't particularly care to talk about gun control now because I think it's a bit disrespectul to the victims.    IMO, the loss of their lives is a tragedy not a talking point for a polarizing topic.   As I said earlier, I would expect a punch in the face if I told a victim's father that I needed a HC, powerful handgun to protect my dogs from wild boar.   Understandably, he might want all guns thrown in the ocean.   I think that's a ridiculous viewpoint but I would also understand his sentiment.

I'll ask again.   If the goal is to prevent mass killings like this one, where do you stop with gun restrictions?   No HCAW?  I'm on board.   No multi-shot guns?  Not on board.  
I don't think it's disrespectful to say, "we don't want something like this to happen again so we are going to try to get reasonable restrictions put into place."

Sure, it doesn't solve all the world's problems or guarantee that there will be no more shootings in the future but incremental change is valuable.

I see you drew a line after HCAW.
I don't think people need guns capable of 10+ rounds before reloading.   But I've also said I don't know what people working a ranch in Wyoming need.  Nor do I think I should be telling them what they need.

I've also said I'd need a multi-round gun if I was being charged by a wild boar.  I'm not so delusional that I think all shots fired would hit their mark. 

12/17/2012 1:39 PM
As for it "happening again", we've had it "happen again", several times, since the original shooter in the tower in Texas.    I think it will "happen again" regardles of what laws are in place.    You can't fix crazy.
12/17/2012 1:43 PM
Of course not. But that doesn't mean you give up on trying to minimize the destruction that crazy can cause.
12/17/2012 1:45 PM
Hence my suggestion for armed security.   A bullet in a crazy's brain minimizes destruction really quickly. 
12/17/2012 1:49 PM
That's a suggestion. I don't know how realistic it is considering the cost and likelihood that it will be necessary. But it certainly isn't disrespectful to suggest improved security.
12/17/2012 1:52 PM
I guess I'm not willing to put a price tag on twenty 6 year old's lives.    Actually a gov't cost increase I'd be in favor of.   Ex-military would be nice.  Two birds with one stone.  Take people who are struggling to find work off the market, and who have been trained by our gov't, while improving security at our schools. 
12/17/2012 1:54 PM
How very keynesian of you.
12/17/2012 1:56 PM
Meh.   Just trying to solve a problem that is on everyone's mind without screaming "NO GUNS!!!!!"
12/17/2012 2:01 PM
I don't think anyone is screaming "NO GUNS!!!!!!!" here. tec made a suggestion that you seem to agree with. Not sure why this is on page 5.
12/17/2012 2:09 PM
I believe seamar suggested it.   I also believe I've asked, repeatedly, what the endgame is to banning HCAW.    If it's to prevent mass killings, all multi-round guns have to be on the table. 

Two .38s + a dozen 7 round clips = lots of carnage
12/17/2012 2:25 PM
I think he said no semi-auto guns. Which would address your .38's and 7 clips problem. Again, not the most likely solution, but a suggestion.
12/17/2012 2:34 PM

I don't think that anybody believes that the problem of mass killings can be solved.  There have always been crazy, homicidal maniacs throughout human history, and there always will be in the future.

What we, as a society, should strive for would be to mitigate such incidents.  If we can make the weapons of choice by the people who commit these crimes less destructive, then we've taken a step in the right direction.  As I mentioned earlier, a mass killing of "only" 13 people, as horrible as that is, is still better than a mass killing of 26 people.

It's a complex issue that needs to be addressed from different sides.  Being able to identify and treat/stop potential mass killers before they snap and carry out their plans is another approach.  When you look at all these incidents over the past dozen years, from Columbine to Virginia Tech to Newtown, there's a somewhat common theme in the profile of the killers.  That's a starting point.

And I also addressed the media's role in all of this, how the killers are sensationalized and long remembered after the fact.  The media needs to understand and acknowledge their indirect role in fueling these incidents.

Finally, we need leaders who are interested in doing the right thing (whatever that may turn out to be), and not just the popular thing that panders to the wishes of their electorate or the lobbyists for the purpose of securing future votes or campaign contributions.  Sadly, I have little to no hope for this last item..

of 54
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > High-Capacity Assault Weapons

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.