219 replies to this topic

[Priscilla]

Ugh. Do people honestly believe eliminating guns will solve this problem? Maybe that is part of the problem. People in denial, short-sighted, and looking to blame an inanimate object for someone's behavior. I wish this problem could be solved as simply as gun control. Sigh.

Whats your solution then? maybe you are in denial

A kid in EDH was killed by a pellet gun last year, do we outlaw those too? It's just funny to me because you have no idea what you are talking about yet you want to ban assault rifles. Fool.

In reality, assault rifle is a misnomer as it connects an action with a weapon. Any assault involving a rifle by definition means one is using an assault rifle. The M-1 Garrand rifle was a semi-automatic rifle used by American infantry throuought World War II for example. They certainly made assaults with this rifle. The same is true for the British Lee-Enfield 303 and Mauser bolt action rifles of the Commonwealth and German armies, respectively.One needs to understand that the term assault rifle has different meanings depending on the context, particularly in the US. The term "assault rifle" likely originated with the German Army which fielded a fully automatic rifle in World War II named the Sturmgewehr. Translated, this means literally "storm gun" or "storm rifle"; storm here being used as in storming the enemy. However, no other army has ever used the term "assault rifle" to describe weapons used by soldiers. The US Army and Marine Corps for example have always referred to rifles, including the fully-automatic M-16 and M4, as simply "rifles" or "weapons". Size of bullet doesn't define "assault rifle" either. The M-16 and M4 indeed fire a relatively small bullet, the 5.56 mmX45mm NATO round which weighs just 62 grains, although the cartridge is fairly large. On the other hand, the most widely produced fully automatic rifle in the world, the Kalashnikov AK-47, fires a bullet weighing 123 grains. Really, "assault rifle" is a term used principally in the US and outside the military to define just about any type of rifle that is semi- or fully-automatic. Those new to the US should understand that the term is generally used by the media and anti-gun advocates. And, again, beyond this there is no weapon or ballistically defined "assault rifle."

whos really the fool. THIS NEEDS TO END-SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE....But you go have "fun" playing with your rifle...im out! FOOL

[4thgenFolsomite]

I believe people should be able to own guns and to have conceal carry too. I also don't think there is any reason for guns that can fire large quantities of bullets with little effort. banana clips, machine guns, semi-automatic rifles. people are going to kill people no matter what, but there is no sense in making it so damn easy for them to kill so many people. it may be fun to shoot lots of rounds quickly, but I bet blowing up dynamite could be fun too. I don't think that's legal to possess either. As for being invaded by a foreign army, that seems a bit far-fetched. Again, I do believe in the right to own guns, they just don't need to be so lethal.

[Priscilla]

I believe people should be able to own guns and to have conceal carry too. I also don't think there is any reason for guns that can fire large quantities of bullets with little effort. banana clips, machine guns, semi-automatic rifles. people are going to kill people no matter what, but there is no sense in making it so damn easy for them to kill so many people. it may be fun to shoot lots of rounds quickly, but I bet blowing up dynamite could be fun too. I don't think that's legal to possess either. As for being invaded by a foreign army, that seems a bit far-fetched. Again, I do believe in the right to own guns, they just don't need to be so lethal.

WELL SAID!

[tsukiji]

I believe people should be able to own guns and to have conceal carry too. I also don't think there is any reason for guns that can fire large quantities of bullets with little effort. banana clips, machine guns, semi-automatic rifles. people are going to kill people no matter what, but there is no sense in making it so damn easy for them to kill so many people. it may be fun to shoot lots of rounds quickly, but I bet blowing up dynamite could be fun too. I don't think that's legal to possess either. As for being invaded by a foreign army, that seems a bit far-fetched. Again, I do believe in the right to own guns, they just don't need to be so lethal.

I agree with some of this. But with all due respect, I don't think that you, Obama, Feinstein or anybody with an opinion of banning guns from law abiding, responsible citizens because of some imagined lack of need should be empowered to tell me how I can and can not prepare myself. I'm doing my duty as a citizen, friend and husband to prepare to defend my country, my community and my family to the best of my ability. Obama doesn't live in my shoes. He doesn't get to tell me, while sitting behind an army of secret service agents that we as tax payers pay for, how I can and cannot defend myself.

Defenses are established in layers. Rifle, shotgun, handgun, knife, martial arts. Layers. Tell store owners during the Rodney King riots that handguns are sufficient. Shoot a handgun, become familiar with its effective range and its deficiencies then let's talk about whether or not rifles are necessary. Ask a cop whether a handgun is sufficient in the course of their duties - are there times when a rifle is appropriate? If so, do we expect a cop with a rifle to be available when we need them? And even then, this is still ignoring a large part of the intent and checks/balances afforded by the SA.

Enforce existing policies that prevent violent felons and the mentally unstable from creating these tragedies. I'm all for it.

But if something happens this country, my community, my family which could have been prevented or minimized by being properly armed but wasn't because me and millions like me were banned from proper arms, blame should be placed on proponents of a ban just as much as the instigators. But for the ban, tragedies could have been prevented or minimized so blame would be due and just.

If a gang comes out to my ranch to exact retribution for my prosecution and conviction of one of their members, I'm not going to let them come within the effective range of a handgun, especially if they have long guns. No, I'm going to defend a perimeter as far out as I can.

Some of these events turn out more tragic because they take place where guns are banned -- schools/universities, shopping malls, movie theaters, places of work. Do we ever hear of the stories where an armed citizen actually prevented or minimized the extent of a tragedy? No. Just like the recent Clackamas Mall shooting -- we only hear about the evil of guns. Not the evil of the shooter. And not of the people that prevented further tragedy.

Feel free to defend or not that which you love in any manner you see fit. Don't tell me how to defend mine.

[2kids4me]

Whats your solution then? maybe you are in denial

I think the problem is much too big to say one thing caused this. IMO, it is a combination of factors - mental illness, kids being disconnected, poor social skills of teens, violent video games and movies, crappy parents, mainstreaming special needs kids that maybe shouldn't be mainstreamed, lack of faith in God, easy access to weapons, the list goes on. Our society is jacked up right now. We have so many problems and it will take generations to fix them, if ever. No matter what, something as simple as getting rid of guns will not fix it.

[The Average Joe]

Whats your solution then? maybe you are in denial



whos really the fool. THIS NEEDS TO END-SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE....But you go have "fun" playing with your rifle...im out! FOOL

You are a piece of work. Up your meds, cause the current dose isn't working. Chris V has a reasoned explanation for you, and all you can do is rant and call him a fool? YOU are the one that refuses to face the facts logically and look for a reasonable solution to the root of the problem.

Banning "assault rifles" (still waiting for how you define that) will not end events like this. Are you aware that the largest mass killing at a school was done with dynamite and not an assault rifle? And interestingly, the perpetrator was also showing obvious signs of being mentally ill... as anyone who would commit such an act obviously is.

Where is your outrage at the 400+ people killed in Chicago this year alone. Chicago is the poster child for how VERY strict gun laws don't work. Criminals and insane people don't follow laws (in case you hadn't noticed). Those killings were not done with assault rifles, they were done with handguns. But hey, that isn't as sexy for the news.

If you want to have a reasoned conversation about how to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals and psychos without infringing on the Constitutional rights of law abiding citizens, let's do it.

As for needing to own an AR or AK.... No one NEEDS to own one. Just like no one needs a car with 300 horsepower. No one needs cigarettes..or 151 proof alcohol. The vast majority of people act responsibly with all of the above. Should we ban everything? Didn't we try prohibition already?

AR15s are the best selling rifle in the country, with almost 2 million unique owners. So that means 1,999,998 people DID NOT use the power they have irresponsibly. That is certainly better percentage wise than users of the biggest killer of people (drivers). Around 90 people die everyday from driving automobiles...disproportionally higher for teens. Where is your outrage on that? How many murders have we had in Folsom this year alone due to intoxicated driving?

And finally, it is quite obvious that many of those screaming the loudest for a ban base their position on lack of any real world knowledge or experience with firearms. Experience which I have kindly offered so that they would know of what they speak (no takers).
But hey, keep driving the "something must be done" bandwagon all the while ignoring the facts and thoughtful constructive ideas in favor of shrill promotion of knee jerk policies.

[mando]

As for needing to own an AR or AK.... No one NEEDS to own one. Just like no one needs a car with 300 horsepower. No one needs cigarettes..or 151 proof alcohol. The vast majority of people act responsibly with all of the above. Should we ban everything? Didn't we try prohibition already?

So where does one draw the line for weapon lethality for self defense? Why not let citizens own rocket launchers or tactical nukes to defend against improbable invasions or infringements of freedom? My point is that there needs to be a sensible line somewhere to balance gun rights against reasonable safety, right?

[The Average Joe]

Sure, but self-defense isn't the only reason to have a firearm, just like racing isn't the only reason to have a musclecar.
For self defense, the lethality should be as certain as possible. Period. Whatever accomplishes that goal for whatever situation you are confronted with is appropriate. The problem is that where one person might draw the line, another would be far further. neither one is right, per se, but the more stringent one will be trying to impose their belief as to what is appropriate onto someone else (as tsukigi so aptly stated) who would rather determine for themselves what is appropriate.
Again, it just seems to me that those most adamant about controlling MY access to guns, tend to have very little knowledge or experience with firearms.

Certainly, where to draw the line is a valid conversation to have.

I just had a thought. Perhaps to obtain a "gun permit" you had to get three letters of recommendation as well as background checks. Seems that would weed out a lot of irresponsible gun owners. I know that there are friends and family that I would NOT write a recommendation for. Just like motorcycles, some people should not own guns.

For a thoughtful look at gun control "facts", Thomas Sowell has a pretty good piece here: http://townhall.com/...orance-n1468784

[mando]

Sure, but self-defense isn't the only reason to have a firearm, just like racing isn't the only reason to have a musclecar.
For self defense, the lethality should be as certain as possible. Period. Whatever accomplishes that goal for whatever situation you are confronted with is appropriate. The problem is that where one person might draw the line, another would be far further. neither one is right, per se, but the more stringent one will be trying to impose their belief as to what is appropriate onto someone else (as tsukigi so aptly stated) who would rather determine for themselves what is appropriate.
Again, it just seems to me that those most adamant about controlling MY access to guns, tend to have very little knowledge or experience with firearms.

Certainly, where to draw the line is a valid conversation to have.

I just had a thought. Perhaps to obtain a "gun permit" you had to get three letters of recommendation as well as background checks. Seems that would weed out a lot of irresponsible gun owners. I know that there are friends and family that I would NOT write a recommendation for. Just like motorcycles, some people should not own guns.

For a thoughtful look at gun control "facts", Thomas Sowell has a pretty good piece here: http://townhall.com/...orance-n1468784

But muscle cars also provide transportation - and there are probably more laws that effectively regulate the practical power/size a roadworthy vehicle can have.

What other reasons are there to have a firearm? Outside of target shooting and hunting (which don't require automatic capabilities), I can't think of a proper use for a firearm other than to kill or injure someone else. Collecting and tree trimming don't really count.

I agree that stronger background checks may be part of what needs to be done.

[tsukiji]

So where does one draw the line for weapon lethality for self defense? Why not let citizens own rocket launchers or tactical nukes to defend against improbable invasions or infringements of freedom? My point is that there needs to be a sensible line somewhere to balance gun rights against reasonable safety, right?

I don't have a well considered answer. There probably is a practical line - obviously, people should not have nukes. But where the line is requires careful consideration of situations and aggressors, today and in the future, that would require people to be armed. I posit that it's first a question of what types of encounters in which we could/should engage, then a question of the tools appropriate for those engagements.

But a rifle is not where the line should be drawn. Any tool that a LEO, SWAT or military team would carry and use should be within the line (maybe w/ some exception? Dunno...).

[mando]

I don't have a well considered answer. There probably is a practical line - obviously, people should not have nukes. But where the line is requires careful consideration of situations and aggressors, today and in the future, that would require people to be armed. I posit that it's first a question of what types of encounters in which we could/should engage, then a question of the tools appropriate for those engagements.

Fair enough. But people need to really be honest and reasonable when they answer these questions.

[cw68]

You are a piece of work. Up your meds, cause the current dose isn't working. Chris V has a reasoned explanation for you, and all you can do is rant and call him a fool? YOU are the one that refuses to face the facts logically and look for a reasonable solution to the root of the problem.

Chris V called her a fool in his post she was replying to.

I think *everyone* should step back on the attacks and consider all suggestions and points of view. That doesn't mean you have to agree with all points of view, but everyone's point of view should be welcome. Logic and emotion is what makes the world go round; there's a place for both. We are all reeling from what happened, let's cut each other some slack and not continue in the spirit of attack/defend. That's kinda what led us to this discussion.

[The Average Joe]

Fair enough.

I thought that many had been offering thoughtful commentary and one was 'ranting." My bad.

As for the where is the line question and who needs a semi automatic weapon... I want a weapon as powerful as those that would intend to do bad things. Like it or not, AR 15s and AKs are here to stay. There are millions and millions of them worldwide We live in such a thin veneer of society, that when it shatters, I don't want to be outgunned by knuckleheads/bangers/ etc.
Perhaps they never should have been made legal. that is a valid discussion. But let's be pragmatic. They are here. Do you only want the bad guys to have them?

[tsukiji]

I agree with CW68. There are tremendous emotions involved here and solutions are being tendered, which could have long lasting and severe implications, without understanding the problem.

Let's not be rash in jumping to solutions before understanding the true nature of the issues at hand. FUD is not our friend here. Here are some existing peculiar things on CA 'safe' gun control lists:
1) did you know that CA has a gun roster which determines which handguns can be purchased by the general public.
2) On this roster, there are handguns not approved for sale because of cosmetic reasons like color (while the same model in different colors are okay)
3) On this roster, some new model handguns with some minor changes, like an ability to change grip size, are not approved even though it's functionally the same as the prior model
4) On this roster, features are required like a "loaded chamber indicator" or "magazine interlock" for new additions which no responsible handgun owner needs (because EVERY gun is treated as if loaded) but limits what handguns are approved for sale. These are features that 'politicians in their infinite wisdom' determined made handguns significantly safer (irresponsible owners are a hazard regardless of these features; they do not make responsible owners any safer).
5) Because of competitive business reasons between some large gun companies, we ended up with a 10 round (the limit that one gun company could design in at the time) magazine capacity instead being able to purchase standard capacity magazines like the rest of the world is now able. There is nothing inherently safer about 10 round magazines. It just puts regular CA citizens at a disadvantage from a cost and convenience perspective. It's like requiring car makers use 20 lugnuts per wheel instead of the 4-5 that are sufficient.

Back to CW68's point: let's exercise logic. Let's allow for emotion. But let's not allow emotion and illogical responses dictate our actions.

[mando]

Are there any stats on how many times the extra firepower afforded by automatic weapons and large magazines actually made a difference for self defense vs. making unlawful killers so much more efficient at the task?

I know these weapons are out there, but if there is a will to put the genie back in the bottle (maybe not the hopeful analogy ), there will be a way to do it even if it takes a long time. But you gotta start some time. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to grandfathering qualified individuals (would need checks on eventual transfers; e.g., at death). No, a ban wouldn't stop a sophisticated and determined terrorist or criminal, but it would make it more difficult for average criminals and psychos to get their hands on the weapons. Who are you more likely to be up against?