Senate Gun Control

And of course the fact that it's far easier to get guns in our country than anywhere else doesn't contribute at all to the problem right?

Look, I agree, our culture needs to change and we need to take a look at an overhaul of our mental health system (make it easier for those who recognize they need help to get it, etc,), but you can't tell me that any rational person who's not in a war zone actually needs the main gun used in Sandy Hook for either defense or hunting.

 

Actually you CAN use an AR-15 for hunting and defense.

The problem here is that gun control activists want to ban it for no other reason than because it looks scary. The truth of the matter is that there is very little functional difference between an AR-15 and a 30-06 deer rifle.



Also, I heard it reported that the Bushmaster 223 was actually kept in the trunk of the car and he used the Sig and Glock for the actual shooting?

 

The lesson I take from Katrina is that when *htf we're on our own. And I can't help but wonder why certain Korean markets weren't destroyed during the L.A. Riots.

 

I understand.

But I also understand even when you have specialised training, misinterpitations, fog of conflict(not necessarily war), can cause unecessary deaths. doubly so for someone with no preceptual or threat assesment training.

Thats big scary fell messing with your lock could be a criminal, or a drunk fool with his key in the wrong house, Someone who was less a threat than a nusance.

Or the stupid kid fleeing the police from a house party trying to avoid an underage drinking bust, rather than some sinister home invader.

Even getting into a shootout with a criminal in your house can end up killing your neighbors, bullets go through walls with rediculious ease. hell the criminal may have back up who just starts pepering the house and kill one of yours by random chance.

"Do what you have to" can easily mean, retreat from the premisis and seek shelter with your neighbors. He who runs away from a fight is a winner, as he is alive and unharmed.

I was taught limiting ones self to 1 weapon, or one tactical ideal, limits tactical effectivness.

What I am trying to say, is an attack at one home the best self protection is probably not a direct attack. And that American gun owners seem to be stuck in a dangerious mentality, especialy thoes who had no uniform training. One should never be agressive against a unknown quanity especially if you have something to protect.

if an enemy can't find you he cant kill you. If he can't catch you, he will have a hard time killing you.

Barring Mutual withdrawl, engaging in combat end in 1 of 3 results.

You Die/are Defeated
Your opponent Dies/are defeated
you both die,

2 out of 3 are bad odds against. thats how i was trained.

 

I'm not talking about banning all guns. I've said early on that I doubt we could ever do that, even if I was for it. You want to own a handgun for your own defense, that's fine, more power to you.

However, I don't see any rational reason for anybody owning something that can put 3 to 11 bullets in 6 & 7 year olds in mere seconds.

And since somebody's brought up the 'well cars and other things can kill people too,' argument... If I have to go through tests and training to get a license to drive a car and have to renew it every few years or so, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to have gun owners be licensed and have to renew it every few years like you would a driver's license.

 

Separating emotion from reason here.... The semi-automatic rifle of any kind will only put 3-11 bullets in a target in mere seconds IF the shooter is pulling the trigger 3-11 times in those seconds.

And I agree with you on that point. My own license is up for renewal at the end of February.

 

So in other words, X = X?

 

Well, we agree on something. It's a start.

 

She said 6&7 year olds. I said "targets". Hence me saying I separated emotion from reason.

And with a semi-auto, it takes a definite act of will to send that many rounds at a target, regardless of what that target is.
The majority of folks are okay with a full-auto ban, in which the shooter holds the trigger down and the gun does all the work.

 

You are well prepared myfriend, and have given your tactical options and weapons choices deep thought.

Can you confidently say the same for most gun owners?

I have come across a few gun owners i wouldn't trust with a single shot derringer, let alone the equipment they have.

 

That is exactly why I want other gun owners fully trained and licensed. Juliet316 brought up car laws, and I agree with her on that. One does not simply turn a 16 year old loose with a brand new BMW and hope for the best. The same goes for firearms.

 

Yeah. except we do restrict certain types of cars because they are too dangerous. Similarly, a hydrogen blimp can be handled safely. But we recognize that the consequences on unsafe handling are so catastrophic that we don't use them. Or yet again, safety razors are now more prevalent than straight blades because while you can use either safely, common sense dictates that we use the tool that has less devastating consequences with mistakes or misuse. You aren't telling me why we shouldn't consider that a gun, like some of these other tools, should maybe fall out of use for posing risks that are too great.

 

Maybe that is the reason for its use by unstables, it looks scary.

Is it possible because looks military, it feeds deeper into their delusions. Thus the functionality is secondary to how it feeds into their delusions, but I have an aesthetic bias in a clear visual diffrence between military and civilian tech, it would also allow for easier visual assement by law enforcment.

Baning the AR-15, seems frivolus but having a faux military-esque hardware for no other reason than it looks "bad @#$" seems to me just as frivolus.

 

Because, of course, emotion has nothing to do with the paranoia and overall threatened nature of gun nuts, while reason has nothing to do with gun control, right?

 

**** gun culture, imho

 

The problem definitely involves tools being used. It's just that these tools wouldn't need guns if they weren't so scared of the 99%.

 

But at what point does the "excessive force" public relations nightmare (all going out on live tv) start to kick in for the Government/Military?

 

I saw what the main canon of an A10 Warthog can do to a building.

I am guessing if the governemnt wants you dead, a simple rifle won't stop it...or save you.

 

Didn't happen that way at Waco, though, did it? Everything under the eyes of the US (and World) press -- including at least one full-sized Tank deployed into the compound. Did that impress the rest of the Western World?

 

yes i too remember when the branch davidians successfully fought off the american government with the aid of bad PR and didnt all get blown the **** up

 

In addition to Merkurian's pretty obvious point, the answer would be long before one idiot (or even a group of them) with machine guns is able to cause a real problem.