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.
It doesn't matter. Even if everyone at the night club was dancing around with holstered guns, someone could sneak in the back door with an AR15 and kill most of the people on the dance floor before a single one of them could pull out their weapon and figure out where the bullets were coming from.
Okay, so maybe everyone should be dancing around with their guns drawn? The rationality of the gun nuts is absurd. The answer to gun violence is fewer guns, not more. It seems that only American gun nuts have been conditioned to think the opposite is somehow logical.
This is the bottom line: Gun nuts are power fetishists, death fetishists, or live for government conspiracy fantasies. There is no rationale for a heavily armed population in densely populated areas. It's idiotic. But because they love their toys and so much of their identity is derived from the power they feel holding weapons, nothing else matters more than their guns. Nothing. Not kids dying, definitely not a bunch of gays getting gunned down or people getting gunned down in theaters. Yeah, that's ad, but don't blame my guns!! Their irrational response, driven by their own power fetish, is that more guns would have stopped all these incidents. Any sane person knows they wouldn't, and more people walking around with guns would lead to more violence as the result of disputes between hot heads. This is common sense. Look at what's going on in Chicago. That's what happens when too many people have guns. And no, illegal guns would not be that readily available if so many other states didn't sell them to anyone who wants them. M
I support a persons right to defend their home with a reasonable weapon and the rights of hunters. That's where legislation should be aimed, but obviously gun nuts will fight it tooth and nail, the NRA will continue to lobby congress, and shootings won't stop, and in 5 years we'll have these same threads repeated..
And this is why we can't have an adult discussion about guns.
And this is why we can't have an adult discussion about guns.
No, that is the adult gun discussion. You cannot explain the refusal of gun lovers to move an inch on limiting access to guns, until you explain the psychology. I don't support confiscation, I don't support stopping regular people from having a gun in their home for protection. That is a moderate, rational position, that is only considered radical by fetishists who seem any limits as radical government desire to tyrannically seize their weapons.
I've heard this cop out from too many people recently..."we won't agree limit access to semi auto high capacity guns because we think what you REALLY want to do is take all out guns away!!"
No, you won't agree because you are militant and don't care about anyone's life but your own.
Do you support the NRA in allowing people on the no fly list or terror watch list to be able to buy guns?
If either of those is No, why don't you and/or more 'gun nuts' contact the NRA as members to pressure them to reverse course on their policies? Is there a fear of gun owners of the NRA doing some retaliatory to members personally?
Do you support the NRA in allowing people on the no fly list or terror watch list to be able to buy guns?
If either of those is No, why don't you and/or more 'gun nuts' contact the NRA as members to pressure them to reverse course on their policies? Is there a fear of gun owners of the NRA doing some retaliatory to members personally?
Because most people that own guns don't belong to the NRA. FACT
I suppose I do mean 'magazine' if they're the things that allows someone to shoot dozens of rounds in seconds. My husband had over two dozen guns but only two were hand guns and they did have clips (at least that's what he called them) that held multi bullets. I'm not anti-gun. And yes, I am suggesting that we limit the sale of clips/magazines that hold over twenty or so bullets, with the sale of larger magazines being allowed and sold strictly on shooting ranges. If someone attacks others in public places when they pause to changed a clip/magazine there is time for the victims to rush the shooter. Back to my original question: Why to gun owners need high capacity magazines?
Let me give you a situation. You are out hunting and you get lost. To survive, you may need to shoot some small game. To send off distress signals, you might shoot 3 rounds, 5 seconds apart. Now, would you rather do that with a rifle that has preloaded magazines that you took with you or carry loose rounds in your pocket and try to survive like that?
Let's complicate it a little bit. You slip in a gully and you break your arm. Do you want to try to load those loose rounds in your pocket with one hand or insert a ready magazine into the rifle?
In the years past, I was doing an evaluation for a survival pistol and one of the requirements was the ability to use it one handed. It is not unreasonable to say that in a crash, one might break an arm. The basic thing is that loading a magazine with rounds one handed can be very difficult so my current recommendation is that whichever pistol is selected, it needs to be one that is carried with magazines loaded "back at the base".
Finally, I think you asked why not buy the rounds at the range. Because buying rounds at the range is atrociously expensive. (Using pistol here because I don't recall what the range charges for rifle) I can buy in bulk and get .45 rounds at 27 cents a round, $13.30 for a box of 50 (could get them lower by buying Russian, but that's against the protocol I operate under). At the range, I'd easily be paying ten dollars more, at least. That's rather considerable considering the amount of practice I must put in so be perfect where perfect means I don't miss.
What's minimal practice? 50 rounds of pistol and 10-30 rounds of rifle a week. No one pays for my practice, it comes out of my wallet but to be the professional I am, I need to be perfect......and quite frankly, anyone who might have to shoot for real, needs to be perfect. Missing one's target is simply unacceptable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yeahboy79
Since this is 'ask a gun nut',
...........
Do you support the NRA in allowing people on the no fly list or terror watch list to be able to buy guns?
If either of those is No, why don't you and/or more 'gun nuts' contact the NRA as members to pressure them to reverse course on their policies? Is there a fear of gun owners of the NRA doing some retaliatory to members personally?
Long story short, prohibiting people on no fly or terror watch list from buying guns is against the Constitution, the 14th amendment, the Due Process Clause. To remove a person's rights, they need to be charged and brought into court and convicted (nutshell). Plain and Simple. That is not a matter of NRA but rather what it is to be in the United States of America.
Now, I belong to and support the NRA because they seem to be the best PAC around for protecting my rights.
No, that is the adult gun discussion. You cannot explain the refusal of gunlovers to move an inch on limiting access to guns, until you explain the psychology. I don't support confiscation, I don't support stopping regular people from having a gun in their home for protection. That is a moderate, rational position, that is only considered radical by fetishists who seem any limits as radical government desire to tyrannically seize their weapons.
I've heard this cop out from too many people recently..."we won't agree limit access to semi auto high capacity guns because we think what you REALLY want to do is take all out guns away!!"
No, you won't agree because you are militant and don't care about anyone's life but your own.
It's very easy to explain if you look at the history of gun control (which if everyone would be honest is meant to lead to banning and eventual confiscation).
The history shows that every single control law which has been passed is trumpeted as common sense and all that's needed. Then, a few years later, another law is proposed which is also trumpeted as common sense and all that's needed.
In the case of the current outrage du jour, AR-15 styles, it's being touted as "the most dangerous gun ever made". So let's say they're illegalized. I can just about guarantee you that in a couple years you guys will find another "most dangerous gun ever made". What will it be? I don't know. A local legislator here has said that those would be semi-automatic and pump action shotguns, so he's already skipped a step.
Let me give you a situation. You are out hunting and you get lost. To survive, you may need to shoot some small game. To send off distress signals, you might shoot 3 rounds, 5 seconds apart. Now, would you rather do that with a rifle that has preloaded magazines that you took with you or carry loose rounds in your pocket and try to survive like that?
Let's complicate it a little bit. You slip in a gully and you break your arm. Do you want to try to load those loose rounds in your pocket with one hand or insert a ready magazine into the rifle?
In the years past, I was doing an evaluation for a survival pistol and one of the requirements was the ability to use it one handed. It is not unreasonable to say that in a crash, one might break an arm. The basic thing is that loading a magazine with rounds one handed can be very difficult so my current recommendation is that whichever pistol is selected, it needs to be one that is carried with magazines loaded "back at the base".
Finally, I think you asked why not buy the rounds at the range. Because buying rounds at the range is atrociously expensive. (Using pistol here because I don't recall what the range charges for rifle) I can buy in bulk and get .45 rounds at 27 cents a round, $13.30 for a box of 50 (could get them lower by buying Russian, but that's against the protocol I operate under). At the range, I'd easily be paying ten dollars more, at least. That's rather considerable considering the amount of practice I must put in so be perfect where perfect means I don't miss.
What's minimal practice? 50 rounds of pistol and 10-30 rounds of rifle a week. No one pays for my practice, it comes out of my wallet but to be the professional I am, I need to be perfect......and quite frankly, anyone who might have to shoot for real, needs to be perfect. Missing one's target is simply unacceptable.
And none of these concerns is more important than keeping a lunatic from being able to kill 25 kids in the span of a few minutes. Again, at least not to a rational person.
It's very easy to explain if you look at the history of gun control (which if everyone would be honest is meant to lead to banning and eventual confiscation).
The history shows that every single control law which has been passed is trumpeted as common sense and all that's needed. Then, a few years later, another law is proposed which is also trumpeted as common sense and all that's needed.
In the case of the current outrage du jour, AR-15 styles, it's being touted as "the most dangerous gun ever made". So let's say they're illegalized. I can just about guarantee you that in a couple years you guys will find another "most dangerous gun ever made". What will it be? I don't know. A local legislator here has said that those would be semi-automatic and pump action shotguns, so he's already skipped a step.
Right, one person has taken that step, so argumentation fallacy, all laws to restrict access to guns lead to confiscation.
That's not an "adult" discussion.
You don't oppose restrictive laws because they lead to confiscation, and everyone of you knows it.
You oppose them because you want to maintain the status quo, and mass shootings are a reasonable side effect, to you, of your desire to not have your rights limited in any way. Own your position, and admit what it really is:
Your right to have a military style weapon, that you have no legitimate need for, is more important than other peoples rights to expect reasonable levels of safety in everyday life, which IS a basic human right.
Own it and be proud of it, and hope that no one you care about is ever caught up in one of these incidents.
Why do people need high capacity clips outside of a gun ranges? Why can't we limit their sale to just gun ranges where you'd have to use them up there on the day of purchase and account for each clip when it's empty?
First, I'll avoid correcting you about the use of the term clips vs magazines.
I think that's kind of a petty response and analogous to attacking someone over their spelling. I'm well aware of the difference and even I say clip sometimes. I think a lot of people who know the correct terminology do the same thing just because it's become slang.
Having said that, the biggest reason for having a 20 or 30 round magazine is very simple.
People miss a lot.
Even trained shooters like the police miss a good percentage of their shots in high stress situations. There's a big difference between plinking at non moving targets at the range and actually engaging an active shooter or defending your home from intruders.
In those situations, adrenaline is pumping, fear and anxiety make people not take careful aim and many people fire off more rounds than they realize. It's not unusual for someone who's defending their life to empty a weapon in doing so even when it may not be necessary because they are literally running on instict and the brains overwhelming sense of self preservation.
This is why you hear reports of police firing dozens of times to bring down a suspect. And it's why low capacity weapons like a double barrel shotgun are a poor choice for home defense.
The reason for 20 or 30 round magazines is to be able to defend yourself as much as possible in a high stress situation.....not for a terrorist to be able to kill as many people as possible in an attack on innocent people.
Why do people need high capacity clips outside of a gun ranges?
The AR-15 would be really good gun for pest/predator control if for example you had a farm. Loading a few magazines up at the kitchen table is far more convenient.
The shooter in this case apparently made 16 phone calls while this was going on, even at an absurdly low number of 7 bullet limit such as they tried in NY that is 112 bullets if they were magazine changes.
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.
