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.
Thanks for the feeback. Maybe 154 rounds in 5 minutes is not so spectacular after all as I am seeing. But a 30 round clip that be upgraded to more capacity is just different than a handgun that comes with 10 and can go up to 15, that I know as well. I'm also aware of the spray that a shotgun projects but again most require a lot of reloads and that could give victims time to either run or get the gun.
And just to clarify yes there are some stupid (IMO) liberals who want to ban all guns. But please understand that claiming everyone liberal feels this way is no different than liberals claiming every gun owner allows his kid access. I think it's idiotic to want all guns taken, again only the bad guys will have guns then. And although I'm not a gun owner I strongly support the 2nd Amendment
The talk all week has to do with this gun and others like it. Weill a ban prevent every bad guy from getting one? Of course not, didn't stop the idiots in France. But I think the feeling is if it they were not legal this guy would not have been able to simply walk into a store days before the shooting and walk out with a gun with 30 round capacity and there is no guarantee he could find one illegally.
There are speed loaders for shotguns, but you can also learn how to speed load shotguns "manually." Taking in to consideration the scatter shot pattern of shotguns and the ability to speed reload a shotgun, should those be banned as well?
If you don't want to call the AR-15 an assault weapon fine, You can call it anything you want but it shouldn't be in the hands of a civilians and that type of weapon is not the only problem...
What, precisely, is it about the AR-15 (which wasn't even USED in this shooting) that "shouldn't be in the hands of civilians"?
You're a smart guy and we usually agree on most things, so I'm hoping there is a good answer lurking behind your post.
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,351 posts, read 8,572,211 times
Reputation: 16698
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinMtAiry
I have been in an ongoing debate about this gun and I am certainly willing to discuss with an open mind. I'll be the first to admit I am not knowledgeable about guns and would like to make an informed opinion. The problem I have is finding an unbiased poster who can give me info without the slant of pro right or pro left links. I want to make it clear that banning this guy would not have stopped this idiot, he would have simply used other guns.
I think it is clear now that an AR 15 is being misrepresented as an "assault rifle" when it is clearly not. But I too looked at the link 1AngryTaxPayer supplied and have a problem when it was compared to standard rifles, shot guns and hand guns. Correct me if I'm wrong but I read where Lanza had several 30 round clips which enabled him to fire at least 154 rounds in 5 minutes. You simply can not do that with the handguns, a shot gun or standard rifle this gun was being compared to in the article right? All these other guns, the shot gun in particular, would have taken multiple reloads and that could have made a huge difference in the outcome. I also had read where Orlando (I believe this was the one) had the type of bullets that explode on impact or whatever. Is this true and are these bullets legal? Again please excuse my ignorance.
Any chance I can get fair feedback?
Kudos to you for looking at this rationally.
If it hasn't been answered, with a glock handgun you can use 33 round mags. I think the guy that shot gabby Gifford in Arizona had those.
I had to search but I did find it. It just looked like a different situation, a guy obviously experience with guns in a field is different than Robert Lanza or this guy who is rushing through a crowded area. I still think a lot more rounds get fired in this scenario with the AR than the handgun.
The Orlando shooter was not inexperienced, based on all the info we know so far. He also wasn't "rushing" through the nightclub, based on the amount of time he spent in there.
What you "think" might happen is not terribly compelling, sorry. That Glock in the video I posted could easily carry 30 rd magazines - they make them. Glocks are also made in handgun calibers that are equally lethal compared to .223/5.56NATO rounds. The dude in the video is just a normal guy, not some highly-trained super soldier. Robert Lanza or the Orlando shooter could easily have been just as proficient.
There are speed loaders for shotguns, but you can also learn how to speed load shotguns "manually." Taking in to consideration the scatter shot pattern of shotguns and the ability to speed reload a shotgun, should those be banned as well?
Come on now. You are showing a women with literally a room full of shooting awards who can fire 4 times, then needed 4 seconds to reload 4 rounds, then she would need another 4 seconds to load all of 4 more. Next we have a nut job without anywhere close to her experience who would clearly take loinger than this award winner to reload. Now compare that with the nut job with the AR 15 where he can squeeze off 30 rounds in 30 seconds.
With that said I do think you are making compelling arguments. I never thought banning this gun was the answer, just felt it could be a start. Now I'm not so sure it would make that much of a difference.
the problem with confiscation schemes from the liberal left is they are not enough in their minds.
the point I am making is that today they want Armalite-15's and all other so called military lookalike black rifles.
tomorrow it will be all detachable magazine fed firearms including all detachable magazine fed shotguns, pistols and rifles. next week it will be all items that are considered military equipment to include rifle scopes and other devices.
the week after that they will want all bolt action and lever action rifles and shotguns.
next month they will want all single shot rifles, pistols and shotguns.
liberals say all they want to do is register some firearms or just ban those firearms that look bad, when their ultimate goal is to ban all firearms from civilian ownership.
people will call me paranoid or a conspiracy nut, but in the end this kind of legislation is exactly what they seek to happen.
when it does happen, the federal and state governments will act to do anything that they want to, to the people of the USA, including ban certain rights including free speech, your right of due process and even your right to remain silent.
liberals will never tell you their end goal, because if they did, they would never make it to 1st base.
banning any civilian firearms from ownership is just a losing game and a goal that government currently will never be able to achieve. not without going house to house and murdering the people owning those firearms.
when that happens, and it shall happen sooner or later. a war shall happen, one that shall destroy the very fabric of the USA.
Location: Formerly Pleasanton Ca, now in Marietta Ga
10,351 posts, read 8,572,211 times
Reputation: 16698
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinMtAiry
The point remains there are other guns that could be substituted.
But they want to ban other guns too.
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.
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.
