194 replies to this topic

[SacKen]

I guess there are differences in perspectives. One can look to the past and decide what is necessary. Or one could consider the future and decide what is necessary.

In either case, it doesn't matter. This doesn't change the fact that we as a people have certain rights. We have people who would take away or limit those rights. We have people who would give up those rights. And we have people that believe in those rights. Statistics and normal distributions. I'll not debate your points. We just fall into different parts of the curve.

Again, I fully agree if we were in a pre-gun control era discussing the idea before it happens. Except that those rights are already being diminished. I'm not arguing hypothetical "what should be's". I'm trying to figure out how we get back some of the rights that have already been taken in a manner that can satisfy the reasons why those rights have been taken. I'm just wondering if there is some middle ground where both sides are fairly content. Otherwise, I hate to admit, the gun control side is going to win more often than not. Maybe not completely, but your rights as a gun owner will continue to diminish. Whether you believe they should be able to or not.

[tsukiji]

It occurs to me that it's an odd topic where there's a lot of back and forth between people who generally agree.

[Carl G]

I think this option is a last resort. It's not a matter of people choosing to do this now. It is a matter of the options being a compromise like this or even more restriction being put into place that remove the options you have now. I don't think it is too far-fetched to see things shift to have the type of restrictions I mentioned in the second group and the first group is gone entirely. People already forget about the 2nd Amendment intent. Most public gun rights arguments already focus on the second group I mentioned, with total disregard for the first group. So you could see greater restriction since the focus is on what you need for recreation and personal protection without any consideration of the "militia" aspect.

As for who controls the arsenal, that's why it would have to be a civilian group, like a gun club. It would essentially be your "buddies" and even yourself, as a group, controlling the arsenal. There are obviously issues with this, such as blocking access, but at least it is there. The other option may be that there is no access to anything because they don't exist.

With centralized weapon storage comes easy control. The news reported at different times that the military had contingent plans on going into Pakistan to secure nuclear weapons and into Syria to secure chemical weapons. They could easily do the same thing with local armoury.

[tsukiji]

I disagree, a .45 will stop just about anything, and the impact will too knock a person down.

I think this thread is only being read and responded to by fellow gun owners.

Are you being serious here? Or playing (sometimes I can't tell in a post).

Oh, then maybe I shouldn't be responding to this thread.

[tsukiji]

BTW, slightly tangential to the OP but still related. There was an article in the Bee today (front page, no less, which really, really surprised me) with perspectives on this topic from select residents of Newtown. I just did a quick skim so I won't attempt to summarize. But it didn't seem that they felt more gun control, including for AR's, is neither a desired nor needed response from the government. I'll read it more tonight.

[The Average Joe]

I think the back and forth has been very thoughtful. Certainly far more effort was put into analyzing different aspects than the one sentence conclusion, "ban assault weapons and magazines" that some propose. I suppose that is because it is YOUR rights that are being threatened, so you are more focused.
It's hard to argue for the loss of those rights using statistics or logic, but a very emotional appeal can (and does) persuade many. It's always easiest to take the rights of someone else away.

As an aside, a friend of mine that had been sitting on the fence debating buying an AR finally pulled the trigger (pun intended) and purchased one. He said the store was insanely busy, and that while he was there, two cops walked in and laughingly said, "Get em while they're hot boys."

[Chris]

The problem with gun control and "reasonable gun laws" is that guys like me won't be able to buy guns and do what we want............... And we are the last guys you want to worry about.......... I am so such a safety nerd and compliance guy that the guys and gals at work diss me so when it comes to on the job safety and compliance.............. I wanted a Sig P220 a few years ago, rooster tail, wood grips, just the .45 auto I wanted after two years of research........ Not on the CA approved list.....? Had to get the generic Sig P220, no rooster tail with drab plastic grips, sad, very sad, plain plastic grips. Does the same, functions the same as the one I wanted but does not look as cool and pretty to me........... Can't have it in CA....? This is our no gun knowledge politicians at their finest........ This is why I am so much against the liberal, the national press, "reasonable gun laws"........... The idiots have not a clue............ Chris

[old soldier]

ever wonder why we have the best military in the world. it might be because folks who are patriotic (or as a liberal would say drand the cookade) and want to serve, have grown up in a country where they learned to shoot a gun at an early age. I like old Chris's idea that if you shoot well, you don't need a 30 round magazine. wanta be folks get their ideas of macho from the movies and tv. I can remember as a kid watching Roy Rogers and Gene Autry and Hopalong Cassiday that they never had to reload their guns. if you are a soldier or a policeman you know an empty gun can be a problem

I see folks at the range than seem to enjoy shooting a lot of rounds rather than hitting the center of the bullseye most of the time. these folks like the big guns like the 44 magnum cause they are macho, although after the third round your hand hurts so much you don't want to shoot again. To me those bushmaster guns look kinda wierd but they do look macho.

If you are a NRA member the magazine they put out had editorials written before the Connecticut tragedy and they both worried about how now old Obama is back for four years they are concerned about his attempts to take guns away from the good folks. They will use the Connecticut situation as an opportunity to speed up their goals.

As an old shooter than can hit the bullseye most of the time, I can live with 10 round clips, and having my background checked when I buy a gun, even at a gun show. I woould like to see the govment focus on mental health folks finding guns and I would like to see the media use the term "looser" or someother bad word when they refer to the latest shooter. I would like the media to realize the more ink they give, the quicker the next whack job looser is going to strike. I would give a teacher who can shoot the same bonus that one gets with a masters degree, and I would get the word out that schools like airplanes have "school mafrshalls" floating around just like we have "sky marshalls" Calling a school a gun free zone attracts nuts the way honey attracts bears. and thats how the old soldier sees the problem

[tsukiji]

As an old shooter than can hit the bullseye most of the time, I can live with 10 round clips,

With all due respect, taking your time and hitting a bullseye doesn't take much proficiency, unless your talking about 200+ meter distances in the windy rain. But try running (and not just slowly walking) to cover while your those (why limit it artificially to one?) that would do you harm are also running around, perhaps laterally, perhaps toward you. And perhaps, all the while, they are shooting at you as well.

Perhaps the only place of cover you have is already occupied by someone who is shooting at you?

Because you can 'live' with a 10 round 'clip' (might I suggest magazines), does't make it right. We can allow for standard capacity magazines and you can continue to self limit yourself to 10 rounds. Then everyone is happy. In an encounter, I'm happy to carry more than I need. I'd rather have 1 extra than 1 less.

[supermom]

With all due respect, taking your time and hitting a bullseye doesn't take much proficiency, unless your talking about 200+ meter distances in the windy rain. But try running (and not just slowly walking) to cover while your those (why limit it artificially to one?) that would do you harm are also running around, perhaps laterally, perhaps toward you. And perhaps, all the while, they are shooting at you as well.

Perhaps the only place of cover you have is already occupied by someone who is shooting at you?

Because you can 'live' with a 10 round 'clip' (might I suggest magazines), does't make it right. We can allow for standard capacity magazines and you can continue to self limit yourself to 10 rounds. Then everyone is happy. In an encounter, I'm happy to carry more than I need. I'd rather have 1 extra than 1 less.

lol on the range the other day I was required to jump off elevated platform run behind barrels and hit static targets. First time around I hit 2 of 10. second time hit 8 of 10.
And that was little 9mm the company owns. hate that little thing. prefer the 40

prolly should also say that had someone beside me the whole time sreaming in my ear....hes got a knife hes got a knife! call it call it...what are you gonna do... hes got a knife////

combination of firearm im not used to, with not shooting for a few months, and a tactic havent used in non war scenario and my aim was crud the first time out the gate

[supermom]

anyway, my point... no matter how you train for events, something is gonna throw your aim your concentration your breathing etc....

the best you can do is learn to focus and fire.

[old soldier]

With all due respect, taking your time and hitting a bullseye doesn't take much proficiency, unless your talking about 200+ meter distances in the windy rain. But try running (and not just slowly walking) to cover while your those (why limit it artificially to one?) that would do you harm are also running around, perhaps laterally, perhaps toward you. And perhaps, all the while, they are shooting at you as well.

Perhaps the only place of cover you have is already occupied by someone who is shooting at you?

Because you can 'live' with a 10 round 'clip' (might I suggest magazines), does't make it right. We can allow for standard capacity magazines and you can continue to self limit yourself to 10 rounds. Then everyone is happy. In an encounter, I'm happy to carry more than I need. I'd rather have 1 extra than 1 less.

old soldier might have been more clear, hitting the bullseye is important while running around with other folks shooting at you is what soldiers have been doing forever.

other than soldiers and law enforcement how many times does the gun owning civilian need 30 rounds to protect his life and home. also the old soldier is on a budget and shooting bursts of .223 to feel macho at the range is outside his budget

[tsukiji]

old soldier might have been more clear, hitting the bullseye is important while running around with other folks shooting at you is what soldiers have been doing forever.

other than soldiers and law enforcement how many times does the gun owning civilian need 30 rounds to protect his life and home. also the old soldier is on a budget and shooting bursts of .223 to feel macho at the range is outside his budget

So you assume that all people with guns are so proficient in all situations that 10 rounds is enough? Do you remember recently an encounter in NYC between LEOs and a criminal -- http://www.huffingto..._n_1830007.html? And just yesterday -- 3 assailants in a home invasion robbery in Sac. The point is -- misses happen, multiple assailants happen, single handgun GSW may not be enough to stop a threat. Or, in your experience, is it always one shot per threat? If so, perhaps you have much to teach to the rest of us.

And you think your budget is a good reason for limiting capacity to 10 rounds? And how many civilians who need 30 rounds is enough to reconfirm basic rights? Isn't one civilian enough? Is the life of a law enforcement officer more important than a civilian?

And finally, it's disappointing to hear from someone, who commands respect by having fought for and defended our constitution, is now voicing that it's acceptable to limit the rights afforded by the Second Amendment -- why is the focus on crime alone; why not ALL of the benefits afforded by the SA?