U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-21-2012, 11:06 AM
 
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
6,930 posts, read 10,574,253 times
Reputation: 5581

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by freightshaker View Post
In the confined space of a classroom, either weapon could have the same result. In the field you are looking at longer range shooting which is more efficient with a rifle... With a speed loader, in a classroom confined space environment, a 6 round revolver would be just as efficient and could have netted the same result. I know what I'm talking about... Do you?? That would be NOPE!!
You seem to be missing the most obvious point. The easiness factor of an automatic weapon. Ever hear the old adage, "Work smarter, not harder." Seems to have escaped you.

Do soldiers entering confined spaces, such as buildings, prefer a 6 shot revolver over a fully automatic rifle? Even police officers know the advantage of an assault rifle over a "6 shot revolver". Why don't you?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-21-2012, 11:07 AM
 
Location: South Carolina
1,991 posts, read 3,701,912 times
Reputation: 902
Quote:
Originally Posted by freightshaker View Post
In the confined space of a classroom, either weapon could have the same result.
A school consists of more than one confined space of a classroom. Sometimes it consists of kids at the end of a hallway trying to run out of a door, or people at the opposite end of a movie theater trying to run out of the door or 5 stores down in a mall trying to run away from a shooter and out the door. Again, trying to make the two guns equivalent is a no sale. Just as much as trying to infer that school shootings are limited to one classroom. We can use what happens in one confined classroom as some sort of rational basis when all of America's schools consist of one confined classroom or malls consist of one confined small space store, etc. There is a HUGE difference between going into a school or mall with an AR-15 and high capacity clip versus going in with handguns with the intent to murder children or adults. Banning the AR-15 and high capacity clips will reduce the amount of "mass" in mass murder.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2012, 11:09 AM
 
Location: San Diego
42,281 posts, read 38,307,778 times
Reputation: 26619
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdAilment View Post
A very narrow minded view. I already posted this above, but I'll repost it for you since you seem to have missed it.

Cars were designed to get people from point A to point B.

Guns were designed to kill.

Assault weapons were designed to kill other people.

Yes, anything can be a weapon, but it'd be pretty hard to run into a school and kill 26 people with your car now wouldn't it?
Pretty easy to run over small kids on the playground though.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2012, 11:12 AM
 
Location: Lost in Texas
9,827 posts, read 6,441,935 times
Reputation: 3409
Quote:
Originally Posted by MantaRay View Post
A school consists of more than one confined space of a classroom. Sometimes it consists of kids at the end of a hallway trying to run out of a door, or people at the opposite end of a movie theater trying to run out of the door. Again, trying to make the two guns equivalent is a no sale. Just as much as trying to infer that school shootings are limited to one classroom. We can use what happens in one confined classroom as some sort of rational basis when all of America's schools consist of one confined classroom. There is a HUGE difference between going into a school with an AR-15 and high capacity clip versus going in with handguns with the intent to murder children. Banning the AR-15 and high capacity clips will reduce the amount of "mass" in mass murder.
What I am saying and you obviously do not understand is the fact that if you eliminate "the AR-15" you will not eliminate the problem... It may be a bit of a hinderance, but if a person is of the mindset to committ mass murder, they will do so, with or without a "assault rifle". You are eventually going to run out of things to ban.. The list is endless...Ban all firearms? OK,, let's use poison gas or a bomb. Result? Even more death. If you want to solve the problem, start with the underlying cause. It's not as easy or quick, but it will actually give you a positive result. Banning firearms won't give you that.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2012, 11:33 AM
 
Location: South Carolina
1,991 posts, read 3,701,912 times
Reputation: 902
Quote:
Originally Posted by freightshaker View Post
What I am saying and you obviously do not understand is the fact that if you eliminate "the AR-15" you will not eliminate the problem.
what you obviously do not understand is that it isn't "the problem" it's "the problemS." These incidents themselves is ONE problem, and the casualty rate in these incidents is ANOTHER problem. And these two problems have different solutions. I am saying that an assault weapons ban which addresses the casualty rate problem is valid and should not be discarded just because it does not address the problem of the incidents themselves. And arguing THAT a ban doesn't solve Problem B is not a convincing rebuttal to propsing they be instituted to stop Problem A.

Quote:
Originally Posted by freightshaker View Post
It may be a bit of a hinderance, but if a person is of the mindset to committ mass murder, they will do so, with or without a "assault rifle".
Yes, but doing so without an assault rifle and high capacity clip will reduce their kill quantity when they go into these public places with the intent to commit mass murder. And I am perfectly ok with quickly instituting a ban to address that problem while doing other things related to solving the problem of the incidents themselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by freightshaker View Post
Ban all firearms? OK,, let's use poison gas or a bomb.
No, not ban all fireams, ban high kill capacity firearms. Poison gas and bombs (high capacity kill devices) are already banned, and we rarely see people using them in these murder sprees. We DO see people using assault rifles, so ban them. Ban all high kill capacity firearms, not all firearms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by freightshaker View Post
If you want to solve the problem, start with the underlying cause.
Again, there is not "the problem," there are "the problemS." Banning assault rifles addresses one, the kill rate/kill capacity, and it is RIGHT TO address the kill rate for assault weapons just like it has been for poison gas and bombs and RPGs and automatic weapons for mass murder via regulation and via ATF/FBI enforcement, and other items separate from the assault weapons ban can address the incident rate itself of mass murder. It makes no sense to say don't ban RPGs because people will just find something else to kill with, or don't ban explosives because people will just use something else to kill with, and for the same reasons it makes no sense to say don't ban high kill capacity firearms because people will find some way to kill when they want to kill. If you want to solve the problemS, separate them, understand their differences, and go after each with solutions that apply to each, and don't act as if a solution to one problem should be discarded because it doesn't address the second problem, as if the second problem is all there is. Don't let a perfect solution be the enemy of good solutionS. And an assault weapons ban is a good solution to the kill rate problem, just as a ban on automatic weapons is a good solution to the kill rate problem, just as a ban on RPGs is a good solution to the kill rate problem.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2012, 11:36 AM
 
Location: NC
6,032 posts, read 8,470,486 times
Reputation: 6368
It is not that difficult to change magazines in a rifle. 3 10 round magazines versus 1 30 round magazine... only drops a few seconds off reload time. One armed citizen with a CCW and a clear shot, problem solved.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2012, 11:38 AM
 
Location: Lost in Texas
9,827 posts, read 6,441,935 times
Reputation: 3409
Quote:
Originally Posted by MantaRay View Post
what you obviously do not understand is that it isn't "the problem" it's "the problemS." These incidents themselves is ONE problem, and the casualty rate in these incidents is ANOTHER problem. And these two problems have different solutions. I am saying that an assault weapons ban which addresses the casualty rate problem is valid and should not be discarded just because it does not address the problem of the incidents themselves. And arguing THAT a ban doesn't solve Problem B is not a convincing rebuttal to propsing they be instituted to stop Problem A.



Yes, but doing so without an assault rifle and high capacity clip will reduce their kill quantity when they go into these public places with the intent to commit mass murder. And I am perfectly ok with quickly instituting a ban to address that problem while doing other things related to solving the problem of the incidents themselves.



No, not ban all fireams, ban high kill capacity firearms. Poison gas and bombs (high capacity kill devices) are already banned, and we rarely see people using them in these murder sprees. We DO see people using assault rifles, so ban them. Ban all high kill capacity firearms, not all firearms.



Again, there is not "the problem," there are "the problemS." Banning assault rifles addresses one, the kill rate/kill capacity, and it is RIGHT TO address the kill rate for assault weapons just like it has been for poison gas and bombs and RPGs and automatic weapons for mass murder via regulation and via ATF/FBI enforcement, and other items separate from the assault weapons ban can address the incident rate itself of mass murder. It makes no sense to say don't ban RPGs because people will just find something else to kill with, or don't ban explosives because people will just use something else to kill with, and for the same reasons it makes no sense to say don't ban high kill capacity firearms because people will find some way to kill when they want to kill. If you want to solve the problemS, separate them, understand their differences, and go after each with solutions that apply to each, and don't act as if a solution to one problem should be discarded because it doesn't address the second problem, as if the second problem is all there is. Don't let a perfect solution be the enemy of good solutionS. And an assault weapons ban is a good solution to the kill rate problem, just as a ban on automatic weapons is a good solution to the kill rate problem, just as a ban on RPGs is a good solution to the kill rate problem.
Oh yes.. Make something illegal and it won't be used... Isn't going into a school and shooting fish in a barrel illegal anyway? Hello?? The kill rate won't be changed.. Sorry.. We have been down this road once before and it had no impact.. Remember Columbine? The assault weapon ban was in place at that time.. The only thing that stopped it from being worse is that the bombs they set didn't detonate.. Address the real problem. You are tilting at windmills.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2012, 11:40 AM
 
Location: Lost in Texas
9,827 posts, read 6,441,935 times
Reputation: 3409
Here is a thought.... Let's ban Lunatics... It will be just as useful of a law...
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2012, 11:43 AM
 
41,410 posts, read 21,044,981 times
Reputation: 24668
Clearly, it's her own fault for not being armed. As the NRA so succinctly put it, "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." But without the protective field emanating from a firearm, she of course fell victim. Because the idea of making it hard for the bad guy to arm himself is unamerican.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2012, 11:45 AM
 
Location: Palo Alto
12,152 posts, read 7,798,496 times
Reputation: 4186
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmagoo View Post
Why do shooters` rights trump our unalienable right to life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness? 26 people in Conn. were denied their rights last week. Why don`t they count?
Of course they count.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:19 PM.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top