High-Capacity Assault Weapons - Page 13 - Non-Sports

Posts: 13750 (0)

Hall of Famer

2 57 251 107

Prospect

Posted by tecwrg on 12/18/2012 10:45:00 PM (view original):
Posted by moy23 on 12/18/2012 10:27:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 12/18/2012 9:47:00 PM (view original):
He doesn't. Mike's argument is bullshit.
Mike is arguing that banning assault weapons would have little impact towards solving this issue, not that you shouldn't ban assault weapons. He's right. I just told you I can obtain illegal mercury tipped bullets and I have never even shot a gun in my life. Gun enthusiasts can obtain illegal firearms as easily as drug addicts can get illegal drugs. There is a ban on guns in school zones yet this lanza kid simply ignored the ban and shot up 26 'defenseless' people that abided by the ban. How well did that ban work? How well will an assault rifle ban work?

Arguing that the death toll would have been less with a lesser gun is moot. Its all speculation. I could speculate the lunatic in newtown might have thought a hand gun wasn't enough and he would seek out explosives like timothy mcveigh (sp?) did. Wait - bombs were banned back then, right?

Why does Joe Citizen need an assault weapon?

Mike is arguing that banning assault weapons would have little impact towards solving this issue, not that you shouldn't ban assault weapons.

12/18/2012 11:04 PM

sjstapleton

Posts: 6964 (2)

Hall of Famer

476 58 105 127 7 220

Veteran

the ban on guns in school zones is more designed as an aid in charging crimes than in preventing guns from being there-if somebody wants to bring a gun in a school zone, they probably will, but at least the ban provides more legal leverage (i.e. longer possible sentence) if some is caught in that situation

as for bombs, haw many mass killings have occurred in the US in the last 40 years from homemade bombs? there are always outliers, but look at the majority of multiple death killings (5 or more people, other than the perp) in the last 40 years, and by far, the majority are high powered gun related, esp. in last 10 years

12/18/2012 11:05 PM

The Taint

Posts: 12609 (0)

Hall of Famer

997 3

Hall of Famer

They don't.

Let's talk about concealed weapons and this arming everybody idea.

What happens when someone carrying a concealed weapon pulls it out and starts acting like Dirty Harry and kills the wrong person? The wrong people? Look at the Trayvon Martin case for instance and throw out the whole assault aspect...if Zimmerman hadn't of been playing cop, nothing happens.....but there's too many people out there who are looking to be the hero.. It's going to happen.

The person who killed the wrong person is in a **** load of trouble. There's just way too many things that can go wrong with having eveyrone carrying.

All this talk of arming everyone is the dumbest **** I've ever heard.

I'm not anti-gun either. I own two rifles(though they are at my fathers) and I grew up shooting in rock quarries and places like that. Handguns, rifles, shotguns, even black powder. They're fun to shoot targets with. I've never shot an "assault rifle" but I imagine it would be a blast....also very unneccesary.There's no real reason for them other than entertainment puposes or mass destruction. There's other weapons that are better suited for home protection. Gimme a good shotgun anyday.

If I was Mike, I would definitely have a weapon with sufficient firepower to bring down a wild boar on me at all times I was out with the dogs. When I was a teenager I often went into places where the threat of bear or cougar was very real, and we always packed when we went in. You were dumb not to.

12/18/2012 11:20 PM

The Taint

Posts: 12609 (0)

Hall of Famer

997 3

Hall of Famer

Does the Tucson, Ariz., massacre justify tighter gun control? Don't be silly. Second Amendment advocates never look at mass shootings that way. For every nut job wreaking mayhem with a semiautomatic weapon, there's a citizen with a firearm who could have stopped him. Look at the 1991 slaughter in Killeen, Texas, where 23 people died in a restaurant while a patron's handgun, thanks to a dumb law, was left outside in her car. Look at the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, where 32 people died because under the university's naïve policy, nobody in the invaded classrooms was allowed to carry a firearm. Guns save lives. So the argument goes.

Now comes the tragedy in Tucson. And what do gun advocates propose? More guns. Arizona already lets people carry concealed weapons without requiring permits. The legislature is considering two bills to expand this right, and as Slate's David Weigel reports, the Arizona Citizens Defense League is preparing legislation that would require the state to offer firearms training to politicians and their staff. The bill is tentatively titled the Giffords-Zimmerman Act in honor of the wounded congresswoman and her slain aide. "When everyone is carrying a firearm, nobody is going to be a victim," argues the state's top pro-gun legislator. Beyond Arizona, at least two members of Congress say they'll bring guns while traveling their districts.

But before we embrace Zamudio's brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let's hear the whole story. "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!' "

But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.

Zamudio agreed:

I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky.

When Zamudio was asked what kind of weapons training he'd had, he answered: "My father raised me around guns … so I'm really comfortable with them. But I've never been in the military or had any professional training. I just reacted."

The Arizona Daily Star, based on its interview with Zamudio, adds two details to the story. First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall" before realizing he wasn't the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."

This is a much more dangerous picture than has generally been reported. Zamudio had released his safety and was poised to fire when he saw what he thought was the killer still holding his weapon. Zamudio had a split second to decide whether to shoot. He was sufficiently convinced of the killer's identity to shove the man into a wall. But Zamudio didn't use his gun. That's how close he came to killing an innocent man. He was, as he acknowledges, "very lucky."

That's what happens when you run with a firearm to a scene of bloody havoc. In the chaos and pressure of the moment, you can shoot the wrong person. Or, by drawing your weapon, you can become the wrong person—a hero mistaken for a second gunman by another would-be hero with a gun. Bang, you're dead. Or worse, bang bang bang bang bang: a firefight among several armed, confused, and innocent people in a crowd. It happens even among trained soldiers. Among civilians, the risk is that much greater.

We're enormously lucky that Zamudio, without formal training, made the right split-second decisions. We can't count on that the next time some nut job starts shooting. I hope Arizona does train lawmakers and their aides in the proper use of firearms. I hope they remember this training if they bring guns to constituent meetings. But mostly, I hope they don't bring them.

A piece I agree with strongly. INcluding that he felt comfortable with the instruction he received from his father. My father would not give me my rifles until I had undergone a safety training course and was always very very adamant about safety first, at all times. Many lectures I sat through and they all started with the words, Jeffery, I can't stress to you enough, the imporance of gun safety.

12/18/2012 11:26 PM

The Taint

Posts: 12609 (0)

Hall of Famer

997 3

Hall of Famer

And wow, you can carry in Arizona without having a permit? Holy smokes. There's the first place to start any type of gun control conversation.

12/18/2012 11:28 PM

moy23

Posts: 13750 (0)

Hall of Famer

2 57 251 107

Prospect

Posted by The Taint on 12/18/2012 11:20:00 PM (view original):
They don't.

Let's talk about concealed weapons and this arming everybody idea.

What happens when someone carrying a concealed weapon pulls it out and starts acting like Dirty Harry and kills the wrong person? The wrong people? Look at the Trayvon Martin case for instance and throw out the whole assault aspect...if Zimmerman hadn't of been playing cop, nothing happens.....but there's too many people out there who are looking to be the hero.. It's going to happen.

The person who killed the wrong person is in a **** load of trouble. There's just way too many things that can go wrong with having eveyrone carrying.

All this talk of arming everyone is the dumbest **** I've ever heard.

I'm not anti-gun either. I own two rifles(though they are at my fathers) and I grew up shooting in rock quarries and places like that. Handguns, rifles, shotguns, even black powder. They're fun to shoot targets with. I've never shot an "assault rifle" but I imagine it would be a blast....also very unneccesary.There's no real reason for them other than entertainment puposes or mass destruction. There's other weapons that are better suited for home protection. Gimme a good shotgun anyday.

If I was Mike, I would definitely have a weapon with sufficient firepower to bring down a wild boar on me at all times I was out with the dogs. When I was a teenager I often went into places where the threat of bear or cougar was very real, and we always packed when we went in. You were dumb not to.

"When I was a teenager I often went into places where the threat of bear or cougar was very real, and we always packed when we went in. You were dumb not to."

I agree with everything you said in your entire post... but sadly this last part i quoted I'm beginning to think the threat of violent human beings in society is becoming a real threat that I'd be stupid to not defend against, I had a pregnant wife and was living downtown Chicago while flash mobs (some we witnessed and got the hell away from before they broke out) and shootings were on the rise all summer... what would I do if caught in the middle of that situation w/o a weapon? I think about the Doctors from Northwestern that were frequently jumped on their way to their cars to go home for the day...

12/18/2012 11:49 PM

The Taint

Posts: 12609 (0)

Hall of Famer

997 3

Hall of Famer

I was having lunch in this place that was in a pretty seedy part of Vegas today when, for the first time in my life, I looked around and wondered about my safety. It was a really odd feeling, one I'd never had before. I know what you are saying.

Personally, I'm not in that situation very often and even after that feeling today I don't think I could ever carry concealed, but I'm seriously thinking of getting something for the house and having the wife and I take safety classes at the local range.

12/19/2012 12:06 AM

moy23

Posts: 13750 (0)

Hall of Famer

2 57 251 107

Prospect

Posted by The Taint on 12/19/2012 12:06:00 AM (view original):
I was having lunch in this place that was in a pretty seedy part of Vegas today when, for the first time in my life, I looked around and wondered about my safety. It was a really odd feeling, one I'd never had before. I know what you are saying.

Personally, I'm not in that situation very often and even after that feeling today I don't think I could ever carry concealed, but I'm seriously thinking of getting something for the house and having the wife and I take safety classes at the local range.

I didn't mean to make it sound like chicago has gone to hell in a handbag, it hasn't, but there is more than enough violent activity that would warrant protection... and in this economy the violence seems to only be increasing.

fwiw - I just told my wife today I think we might get a gun for the house and some lessons. I keep thinking about how defenseless those kids and teachers were. Can't get that thought out of my mind. Ultimately I'll probably still hold off cause I have concerns with having a gun in the house... but the pros to gun ownership are catching up to the cons rather quickly imo.

12/19/2012 12:23 AM (edited)

dahsdebater

Posts: 10036 (0)

Hall of Famer

284 271 18

Pro

Opponents of mandatory or quasi-mandatory gun ownership ignore the fact that there is a precedent for this in the developed world. Switzerland effectively has a mandatory gun ownership law for young men in lieu of a professional military. And people wonder why they always remain neutral...

Seriously, though, in 2011 among nations large enough to have statistically meaningful crime rates, Switzerland's homicide rates are lower than anybody but Japan, Norway, and Austria. Depending on who you ask and what they include, the overall Swiss violent crime rate is arguably the lowest in the world. Clearly, then, the stance taken by a number of liberals - that the concept that widespread and enforced gun ownership results in lower crime rates is basically laughable - is hard to defend. There's not a lot of empirical evidence, but what there is suggests that the conservative position is more correct than silly.

I'm not saying I want the United States to force everyone to own a gun. I have no interest in owning a gun and would prefer not to have one in my home. But the number of people, not just on forums like these but on national news and opinion programs, who totally dismiss the concept of reducing crime rates by increasing gun ownership in spite of the evidence that it might in fact be a successful strategy has always irritated me.

12/19/2012 5:46 AM

dahsdebater

Posts: 10036 (0)

Hall of Famer

284 271 18

Pro

Also want to point out that I think a lot of people arguing with MikeT are ignoring the undertone of his argument that basically questions the existence of a bright line. IE, it's all well and good to say we're going to ban assault weapons, but how are we going to define an assault weapon? Some military grade weapons are of lower caliber than semi-automatic weapons available on the private market. I think a lot of people, even a number of conservatives and a decent number of NRA types, might be willing to concede that nobody needs a fully automatic weapon. So that's fine. But that still leaves some extremely deadly weapons on the market. How are you going to concretely define what is and isn't legal? Just listing illegal weapons is never going to work, somebody will just make a knockoff and sell that. So you need some meaningful criterion. And that's not easy to define, certainly not in a way that people will agree with in the way that they'll agree about automatic weapons. So I guess my point, and I think Mike's point as well, is that beyond banning automatic weapons it's hard to generate a bright line that everyone sees, which makes it hard to ban anything other than automatics. And then the question becomes how much safer the world really becomes with just that regulation. Certainly the Newtown murders could have been easily carried out with a semi-automatic weapon. So maybe you want to limit it by clip size? So what? Carry 3 handguns with a 10 or 12-round clip in each, or even just a couple of extra clips, and you've got plenty of rounds to kill 26 people.

At the end of the day, I'd like to see automatic weapons banned. We haven't yet seen a situation where somebody manages to get a fully automatic weapon into a truly crowded place - think Times Square in the middle of the afternoon - and opens fire. The police might bring that guy down in 20 seconds and he could already have killed 150 or 200 people easily, maybe many more. Or think how many big conventions for various corporations basically just let people walk in and have little or no security. Golden opportunity there for a psychotic homicidal maniac. So yes, I'd like to get rid of automatic weapons BEFORE the incident comes up to which I would say, "well, he couldn't have done that without an automatic weapon." But we also have to realize that if we're dealing with an adequately organized and rational homicidal maniac, he'll still get his automatic weapon if he really wants it. So really, there's no perfect solution. But you do what you can, and as I've stated several times already, I think there is more than enough support in Washington and among the general public for the banning of fully automatic weapons that it should be able to be done with minimal opposition. Might get filibustered for a while, but at the end of the day (or week, or month) when it comes to a vote I don't think the radical gun enthusiasts can win that fight.

12/19/2012 5:55 AM

MikeT23

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/16/2012 4:10:00 PM (view original):
FWIW, I don't think Joe Citizen needs HCAW. I'm just saying someone intent on killing people will find a way.

tec, I thought I answered your question 4 minutes after you asked it.

Maybe, in your hysteria, you missed my response. This is the quote.

12/19/2012 7:02 AM

MikeT23

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

I'll ask again. What is your objective?

If it's to ban "assault weapons" or "high capacity clips", I'm all for it. Other than the few "in the wild" scenarios I listed, I can't think of a real reason to allow them. Wyoming Will can fend off bears with a couple of shotguns, a 7 round .44 Magnum and a dog. Probably not as effectively as he could with a 50 round clip in an AK47-type gun but there are risks with working in the wild.

If it's to prevent the next Sandy Hook, shitcan your kneejerk reaction to ban AW and seek a real solution.

12/19/2012 8:04 AM

tecwrg

Posts: 18996 (0)

Hall of Famer

4 1 154 32 129

Prospect

I saw your initial response, and remembered it. Your subsequent posts seems to veer off into a number of tangents.

I already told you what my objective is. You're not going to prevent mass shootings. If somebody is intent on carrying out an attack like that, they'll find away to do it. But if the amount of carnage that can be achieved per unit of time can be reduced, whether it's by banning assault weapons and/or high capacity clips, or by some other course of action, then I'm all for it.

We shouldn't make it easier for deranged individuals to kill more people faster. I find it difficult to imagine that any rational person wouldn't agree with that.

12/19/2012 8:34 AM (edited)

MikeT23

Posts: 58012 (0)

Hall of Famer

87 1 47 1 189

Prospect

You aren't resolving a problem is you leave huge "loopholes"(see: shotguns, extra ammo, classroom example) with your suggestion(ban HCAW), you're simply responding in a hysterical, kneejerk way. Which is why these discussions so close to a tragedy make no sense.

I'll go back to my trained, armed security in schools. I'm not talking about arresting the individual with a gun on school grounds. I'm talking about shooting him on the spot. There's a reason we haven't had one of these mass killings at a sporting event, which would seem to be a fine killing ground, it's because of security. There are simply too many cops, too much security. Make it known that there is armed security on school grounds and make it known that they are instructed to shoot first, ask questions later. They will not be there to break up fights, they will be there to take down gunmen.

12/19/2012 8:50 AM

tecwrg

Posts: 18996 (0)

Hall of Famer

4 1 154 32 129

Prospect

I can't say "We shouldn't make it easier for deranged individuals to kill more people faster. I find it difficult to imagine that any rational person wouldn't agree with that." because it's hysterical?

I'd be fine with trained and armed security in schools, if that what it takes.

My entire outlook on sacrifices that need to be made in favor of better security for my family, and people in general, changed after 9/11. I don't fly that often, but I've never once complained about all the additional screening at airports that's been in place post 9/11, because I know and agree with why it's there.

If my children, and future generations of children, have to "be exposed" to armed security as part of their everyday life, then so be it.

12/19/2012 8:58 AM

Forums

High-Capacity Assault Weapons Topic

Search Criteria