High-Capacity Assault Weapons Topic

No kidding, especially when you see stuff like this:

NRA Lobby most feared
12/17/2012 2:41 PM (edited)
Posted by bad_luck on 12/17/2012 2:25:00 PM (view original):
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.
Again, if I'm in Wyoming fighting bears or standing in my backyard staring at an angry boar, I think I actually NEED a semi-automatic weapon.
12/17/2012 2:45 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 12/17/2012 10:57:00 AM (view original):
And taking this off on a slight tangent, there was a post that was attributed to Morgan Freeman that was going viral around the internet over the weekend that blasted the media's role in incidents like this.

To summarize: the media sensationalizes these incidents.  It makes for compelling television.  He mentioned that almost everybody recognizes the names of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, but nobody will remember the names of any of the 13 people they killed at Columbine.  Now, when somebody snaps, they feel compelled to go out in a "big" way, so that they too will have their names long-remembered.

There's a lot of blame to go around.  No easy answers.

It's now being reported that the post in question was not written by Morgan Freeman, and he had no knowledge of it.

Which doesn't really make the message any less meaningful or thought provoking.

For those who had not seen the message, click here.

12/17/2012 3:00 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/17/2012 2:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 12/17/2012 2:25:00 PM (view original):
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.
Again, if I'm in Wyoming fighting bears or standing in my backyard staring at an angry boar, I think I actually NEED a semi-automatic weapon.
OK. Your line and his differ. 
12/17/2012 3:02 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 12/17/2012 3:02:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/17/2012 2:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 12/17/2012 2:25:00 PM (view original):
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.
Again, if I'm in Wyoming fighting bears or standing in my backyard staring at an angry boar, I think I actually NEED a semi-automatic weapon.
OK. Your line and his differ. 

I'll assume we live different lives.   Thus we have different gun requirements.   I think I mentioned something along those lines already.

12/17/2012 3:16 PM
And, with everyone leading their different lives, we'll have to figure out the best place to draw the line.
12/17/2012 3:24 PM
People who could run across wild animals capable of injuring them can have semi-automatic weapons.  No one else can.  

That would work, right?
12/17/2012 3:43 PM
How often does that happen?  Really?
12/17/2012 3:45 PM
Depends on where you live.  I see alligators every day during the spring, summer and even in the fall.  I've only seen one wild boar since I've lived here but, from what I'm told, they're being hunted now because there are so many.   I guess, if I lived in North Dakota that I'd be aware of the presence of mountains lions and bears.   
12/17/2012 3:51 PM
There really are legit, non-murderous reasons to own a semi-automatic weapon. 

You wouldn't think a hunter would have a need for one but they do and it's for the PROTECTION of wildlife.    If you shoot a deer, he seldom goes down instantly.   If you had to re-pack your musket before firing again, you have a dying animal running away from you.   Being shot a 2nd time and dying is a lot less painful than wandering in the woods for 3 days and dying slowly. 
12/17/2012 3:57 PM
Here's where I see the problem:

Gun control advocates seem to believe they know what everyone else NEEDS.   I've listed several non-murderous reasons why one might feel he needs a semi-automatic weapon.   The world isn't a shopping mall or an elementary school.  There are animals in the US that can kill people.   If you feel like you need to fire off 10 shots in matter of seconds to be safe from these creatures, who's to tell you that you don't?

Gun enthusiasts see each banning as one more step in taking away their guns.  As I've repeated time and again, if the goal is to prevent mass killings, all semi-automatic, multi-round weapons have to be examined.   If those are banned, we are back to the 1800s. 

I tend to lean toward pro-gun.   I'm not a collector or even a shooter or a hunter(it's probably been 20 years since I fired a weapon) but I'm not real fond of anything I have becoming illegal.   I have a Browning .22 rifle that my grandfather gave me.   I believe it holds 11 rounds.   It is a semi-automatic rifle.  For all I know, it is illegal now.  It is also 50+ years old.  Should it be banned?
12/17/2012 4:29 PM
The point is that there is a line that gets drawn somewhere.

In some states it's illegal to own an automatic weapon. I'm sure you could come up with a scenario where someone is better off having a fully automatic machine gun. But we've decided to draw a line there.

Some states make it very difficult to get a permit to carry a concealed gun. Again, I'm sure you could come up with scenarios where people could need a concealed gun. And again, we've still drawn a line there.

It doesn't hurt to at least consider further regulation of guns.
12/17/2012 4:38 PM
I've generally stayed away from political conversations on these forums, for various reasons.  But wanted to bring this up - I definitely lean towards wanting more gun control, and I've felt that way before this tragedy.  A friend asked me today if I thought it would help if principals had guns in school, and were trained how to use them, etc.  I said no, and gave my reasoning, and then he brought up the Pearl, Mississippi shootings back in the 90s.  Link is below if you don't know the story. (I didn't) Made me think.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting


12/17/2012 4:45 PM
This is going back a few pages, but I think the argument that the founding fathers couldn't conceive of assault weapons is a weak one.  Context is important.  The founding fathers had just undergone a war, as citizens, against a professional military in order to achieve independence.  Many, many Constitutional scholars argue that the 2nd amendment wasn't just about national defense - it was a safeguard against the new government becoming tyrannical itself.  I would guess that the founding fathers would not have wanted to see any weapons banned.  Their stance would have been that citizens should have access to weapons of similar capabilities to what the military has in order to assure the freedom of the citizens and the potential for another revolution if it became necessary.  I'm not arguing that this is necessarily a justification for keeping assault weapons legal.  The world has changed, and what the founding fathers envisioned doesn't always apply anymore.  Women vote.  There is a large and expensive standing military.  Britain is our closest ally.  But please don't try to tell me that assault weapons aren't covered by the 2nd amendment because the Founding Fathers didn't know they would exist - if they had, they almost certainly would have allowed them.

The real reason I'm not entirely certain banning assault weapons would save many lives is that the vast majority of gun-related deaths in this country are perpetrated with handguns.  The assault weapons make the biggest headlines, but the recent incident accounted for about 1 normal day's worth of gun deaths.  Realistically it isn't assault weapons that are really the big problem.  Of course, the point remains that high-powered assault weapons have no meaningful practical application.  Other guns that many gun-control advocates want to see banned arguably do.  Nobody needs an AKanything or an Manything for hunting or self-defense.  The truth is, though, that if somebody wants one badly enough they'll still be able to get their hands on them.  I know of 2 people who had access to banned weapons during the previous ban, and my guess is that many of you knew people like this as well.  You think one couldn't find its way into an underground sale and wind up in the hands of someone who wanted to use it to kill a few dozen people?  With the guns already in circulation, and certainly more than a few unregistered or no longer with the registered owners, banning them isn't going to totally remove them, and people who want them badly enough will find a way to get them.  The vast majority of these mass killings involve a suicide.  In that case cost isn't really an issue up to the level of one's full net worth, including house, vehicle, etc.

12/17/2012 4:52 PM
So no matter if it works or not there is a growing swell of support for some kind of limits.

Where is the middle ground.

Banning all weapons isnt acceptable. Leaving things the way they are isnt acceptable.

So what is the middle ground.

1 Ban all mags over 15 rounds.
2 Ban the sale of kits to convert semiautos to autos.
3 tighten the conditions for gun permits to limit people with mental issues and convicted felons.
4 Limit the amount of weapons and ammo you can buy in a single month. 3 weapons and 1200 rounds.
5 Elminate all federal bans on state CCW permits.
6 If there is ever an attempt to add to this law it has to start over from scratch, you cannot just add till all guns are banned.

As an NRA member i consider this dangerous but would allow it. Will this make your side happy?
12/17/2012 5:12 PM
◂ Prev 1...4|5|6|7|8...54 Next ▸
High-Capacity Assault Weapons Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 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.