Firearms in the home

[EMP]

I signed this : http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/ban-assault-weapons-now-4?source=s.fb&r_by=794182
I live 9 miles from where it happened, the city is in mourning.

Jesus titty-fucking Christ.

First off, the AR-15 is not a "military grade assault rifle".  Military grade weapons have a select-fire switch to fire automatically (ie, hold down the trigger, stream of bullets come out).  This rifle has a one-bullet-per-trigger-pull capability, it's NOT military grade.

Second off, remember how you gun control freaks keep telling us "you morons, no one is coming for your gun?"  Well, here you are, coming for my gun.

Remember how 103 people were just shot.  I am fine with guns, but time to may let a little bit go.  A rifle for hunting is one thing.  I live in Canada and allow rifles for hunting, with a 5 shot clip.  If you cannot hit the animal you intend to in 5 shots...

Ban the unrealistic weapons.

It's fun to watch the goal posts move. 


If the shooter had used the rifle I hunt for deer with, it would have been even more deadly.

I don't know if should be asking what the deer did to you or wondering about your apparent lack of hunting skills. 

ETA not trying to be shitty, just a little facetious. The skilled hunters on our place have gone to black powder or archery.

[Chris22]

I signed this : http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/ban-assault-weapons-now-4?source=s.fb&r_by=794182
I live 9 miles from where it happened, the city is in mourning.

Jesus titty-fucking Christ.

First off, the AR-15 is not a "military grade assault rifle".  Military grade weapons have a select-fire switch to fire automatically (ie, hold down the trigger, stream of bullets come out).  This rifle has a one-bullet-per-trigger-pull capability, it's NOT military grade.

Second off, remember how you gun control freaks keep telling us "you morons, no one is coming for your gun?"  Well, here you are, coming for my gun.

Remember how 103 people were just shot.  I am fine with guns, but time to may let a little bit go.  A rifle for hunting is one thing.  I live in Canada and allow rifles for hunting, with a 5 shot clip.  If you cannot hit the animal you intend to in 5 shots...

Ban the unrealistic weapons.

It's fun to watch the goal posts move. 


If the shooter had used the rifle I hunt for deer with, it would have been even more deadly.

I don't know if should be asking what the deer did to you or wondering about your apparent lack of hunting skills. 

ETA not trying to be shitty, just a little facetious. The skilled hunters on our place have gone to black powder or archery.

Very common to hunt with a .30-06 which is much more powerful than a wimpy AR.

[Northwestie]

...........but with no option for large ammo clip.

[GuitarStv]

I'd be surprised if you could fire 40 - 50 rounds from a 30-06 in quick succession without damaging your shoulder.  The one I used for hunting moose gave a hell of a kick.

[Northwestie]

I'd be surprised if you could fire 40 - 50 rounds from a 30-06 in quick succession without damaging your shoulder.  The one I used for hunting moose gave a hell of a kick.

Which is one of the many reasons the AR-15 is the choice for slaughter.  Really?  This guy was interviewed by the FBI several times and we still couldn't "infringe" upon his rights to get hold of this gun?  Crazy.

[Midwest]

I'd be surprised if you could fire 40 - 50 rounds from a 30-06 in quick succession without damaging your shoulder.  The one I used for hunting moose gave a hell of a kick.

Was the Moose hunting rifle semi-auto? 

My Garand kicks but not that bad, has an 8 shot en-block clip and a much bigger and more powerful round than an AR.  Looks a lot less scary than an AR, but very dangerous in the wrong hands (ask the Germans).  Per Wikipedia, the average soldier could fire 40-50 ACCURATE rounds at 300 yards in a minute.

[Midwest]

I'd be surprised if you could fire 40 - 50 rounds from a 30-06 in quick succession without damaging your shoulder.  The one I used for hunting moose gave a hell of a kick.

Which is one of the many reasons the AR-15 is the choice for slaughter.  Really?  This guy was interviewed by the FBI several times and we still couldn't "infringe" upon his rights to get hold of this gun?  Crazy.

Except Steve is wrong about the rate of fire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand

In addition, this TERRORIST used a glock pistol as well to the evil AR-15 rifle.

If you want to have a discussion about banning semi-automatic weapons and rounding up all the ones in circulation, that might make this type of thing harder (I disagree with the concept, but that's beside the point). 

If you are arguing that banning the AR-15 would have any impact on a situation like this, you don't know what you are talking about.

Lastly - Maybe the FBI should do follow up's with people on their secret lists when they buy guns?  No constitutional infringement by checking up on people.  We could free up some agents by legalizing marijuana and retasking the FBI/DEA wasting their time on that.

[GuitarStv]

I'd be surprised if you could fire 40 - 50 rounds from a 30-06 in quick succession without damaging your shoulder.  The one I used for hunting moose gave a hell of a kick.

Was the Moose hunting rifle semi-auto? 

My Garand kicks but not that bad, has an 8 shot en-block clip and a much bigger and more powerful round than an AR.  Looks a lot less scary than an AR, but very dangerous in the wrong hands (ask the Germans).  Per Wikipedia, the average soldier could fire 40-50 ACCURATE rounds at 300 yards in a minute.

The one I used was bolt action.  You don't need a semi-auto for hunting moose.

[deadlymonkey]

I'd be surprised if you could fire 40 - 50 rounds from a 30-06 in quick succession without damaging your shoulder.  The one I used for hunting moose gave a hell of a kick.

Was the Moose hunting rifle semi-auto? 

My Garand kicks but not that bad, has an 8 shot en-block clip and a much bigger and more powerful round than an AR.  Looks a lot less scary than an AR, but very dangerous in the wrong hands (ask the Germans).  Per Wikipedia, the average soldier could fire 40-50 ACCURATE rounds at 300 yards in a minute.

The one I used was bolt action.  You don't need a semi-auto for hunting moose.

You don't need semi-auto for ANY hunting.

[Midwest]

I'd be surprised if you could fire 40 - 50 rounds from a 30-06 in quick succession without damaging your shoulder.  The one I used for hunting moose gave a hell of a kick.

Was the Moose hunting rifle semi-auto? 

My Garand kicks but not that bad, has an 8 shot en-block clip and a much bigger and more powerful round than an AR.  Looks a lot less scary than an AR, but very dangerous in the wrong hands (ask the Germans).  Per Wikipedia, the average soldier could fire 40-50 ACCURATE rounds at 300 yards in a minute.

The one I used was bolt action.  You don't need a semi-auto for hunting moose.

I bought mine from the CMP.  They get theirs via donation from the US govt.  To promote marksmanship.  Mine's a 1944 used in the Greek civil war.

[Chris22]

I'd be surprised if you could fire 40 - 50 rounds from a 30-06 in quick succession without damaging your shoulder.  The one I used for hunting moose gave a hell of a kick.

Was the Moose hunting rifle semi-auto? 

My Garand kicks but not that bad, has an 8 shot en-block clip and a much bigger and more powerful round than an AR.  Looks a lot less scary than an AR, but very dangerous in the wrong hands (ask the Germans).  Per Wikipedia, the average soldier could fire 40-50 ACCURATE rounds at 300 yards in a minute.

The one I used was bolt action.  You don't need a semi-auto for hunting moose.

I hunt with a semi-auto (.308 Winchester).  It has a 4-round magazine, due to hunting regulations.  You can buy bigger magazines for it, just like you can for the .30-06.

[Northwestie]

I'd be surprised if you could fire 40 - 50 rounds from a 30-06 in quick succession without damaging your shoulder.  The one I used for hunting moose gave a hell of a kick.

Was the Moose hunting rifle semi-auto? 

My Garand kicks but not that bad, has an 8 shot en-block clip and a much bigger and more powerful round than an AR.  Looks a lot less scary than an AR, but very dangerous in the wrong hands (ask the Germans).  Per Wikipedia, the average soldier could fire 40-50 ACCURATE rounds at 300 yards in a minute.

The one I used was bolt action.  You don't need a semi-auto for hunting moose.

You don't need semi-auto for ANY hunting.

There will be some gun nut that claims that semi-auto is required for hunting in case you wound, blah, blah, blah.  Generally these are the fat guys who spend most of their time in the cabin telling stories and are poor shots.  Growing up hunters in my family made it clear - practice your craft so it takes one shot.

[JLee]

I signed this : http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/ban-assault-weapons-now-4?source=s.fb&r_by=794182
I live 9 miles from where it happened, the city is in mourning.

Jesus titty-fucking Christ.

First off, the AR-15 is not a "military grade assault rifle".  Military grade weapons have a select-fire switch to fire automatically (ie, hold down the trigger, stream of bullets come out).  This rifle has a one-bullet-per-trigger-pull capability, it's NOT military grade.

Second off, remember how you gun control freaks keep telling us "you morons, no one is coming for your gun?"  Well, here you are, coming for my gun.

Remember how 103 people were just shot.  I am fine with guns, but time to may let a little bit go.  A rifle for hunting is one thing.  I live in Canada and allow rifles for hunting, with a 5 shot clip.  If you cannot hit the animal you intend to in 5 shots...

Ban the unrealistic weapons.

It's fun to watch the goal posts move. 


If the shooter had used the rifle I hunt for deer with, it would have been even more deadly.

I don't know if should be asking what the deer did to you or wondering about your apparent lack of hunting skills. 

ETA not trying to be shitty, just a little facetious. The skilled hunters on our place have gone to black powder or archery.

You should be researching laws before you make silly statements.  In some areas (e.g. Alberta, Canada) it's illegal to hunt deer with a .223 because it is not powerful enough.

[Midwest]

I'd be surprised if you could fire 40 - 50 rounds from a 30-06 in quick succession without damaging your shoulder.  The one I used for hunting moose gave a hell of a kick.

Was the Moose hunting rifle semi-auto? 

My Garand kicks but not that bad, has an 8 shot en-block clip and a much bigger and more powerful round than an AR.  Looks a lot less scary than an AR, but very dangerous in the wrong hands (ask the Germans).  Per Wikipedia, the average soldier could fire 40-50 ACCURATE rounds at 300 yards in a minute.

The one I used was bolt action.  You don't need a semi-auto for hunting moose.

You don't need semi-auto for ANY hunting.

There will be some gun nut that claims that semi-auto is required for hunting in case you wound, blah, blah, blah.  Generally these are the fat guys who spend most of their time in the cabin telling stories and are poor shots.  Growing up hunters in my family made it clear - practice your craft so it takes one shot.

Northwestie - Are you in Canada?

Assuming so - In the US, the vast majority of guns sold are semi-auto.  I suspect the majority of guns in circulation are semi-auto.  If the argument is semi-auto's are vastly more dangerous than bolt actions, that genie is out of the bottle.  There are 300m+ guns in the US.  If 1/2 of them are semi-auto, banning the AR-15 won't impact this situation in a material way unless you intend to round up all the ones already out there (which isn't happening).

By the way, AR's are restricted in California.  That didn't stop the San Bernadino shooter from using one.

I'm about preventing this type of action in the future.  Banning the Ar-15 will cause the shooter to use a different mechanism (9mm pistol for example).    Banning/restricting AR-15's is a knee jerk/feel good reaction.

[Northwestie]

No, not in Canada.   But let's throw our arms up and say this kind of crap is the price of Freedum in America.  Priceless.

[Midwest]

No, not in Canada.   But let's throw our arms up and say this kind of crap is the price of Freedum in America.  Priceless.

Short of rounding up all the Semi-Auto's in circulation, do you seriously think banning scary looking rifles does anything?

He used a pistol too.  One of the Columbine shooters used a pump shotgun.  Against unarmed people at a close range, almost any semi-auto (or pump shotgun) would be equally devastating.

[Northwestie]

No, not in Canada.   But let's throw our arms up and say this kind of crap is the price of Freedum in America.  Priceless.

Short of rounding up all the Semi-Auto's in circulation, do you seriously think banning scary looking rifles does anything?

He used a pistol too.  One of the Columbine shooters used a pump shotgun.  Against unarmed people at a close range, almost any semi-auto (or pump shotgun) would be equally devastating.

I'd say an Australian solution would be quite the benefit.  Yea, time to start collecting.

[Chris22]

No, not in Canada.   But let's throw our arms up and say this kind of crap is the price of Freedum in America.  Priceless.

Short of rounding up all the Semi-Auto's in circulation, do you seriously think banning scary looking rifles does anything?

He used a pistol too.  One of the Columbine shooters used a pump shotgun.  Against unarmed people at a close range, almost any semi-auto (or pump shotgun) would be equally devastating.

I'd say an Australian solution would be quite the benefit.  Yea, time to start collecting.

And they say us gun enthusiasts are paranoid for thinking someone's coming to take them.  "If you like your gun, you can keep your gun."

[winkeyman]

No, not in Canada.   But let's throw our arms up and say this kind of crap is the price of Freedum in America.  Priceless.

Short of rounding up all the Semi-Auto's in circulation, do you seriously think banning scary looking rifles does anything?

He used a pistol too.  One of the Columbine shooters used a pump shotgun.  Against unarmed people at a close range, almost any semi-auto (or pump shotgun) would be equally devastating.

I'd say an Australian solution would be quite the benefit.  Yea, time to start collecting.

So, are you going to volunteer for that duty? Or are you going to send other people's sons, armed with guns, to do that dirty work for you?

Also, what does hunting have to do with anything? Can you use AR-15s for hunting? Yes. Do you "need" to? No. Are AR-15s very useful for some types of hunting? Yes, varmint hunting for coyotes and prairie dogs, etc.

But that is totally besides the point. The 2A doesn't have anything to do with hunting. None of my guns are for hunting. I don't hunt.

Also, can I quote you here next time someone says "nobody wants to take your guns, you are being paranoid!" ?

[Midwest]

No, not in Canada.   But let's throw our arms up and say this kind of crap is the price of Freedum in America.  Priceless.

Short of rounding up all the Semi-Auto's in circulation, do you seriously think banning scary looking rifles does anything?

He used a pistol too.  One of the Columbine shooters used a pump shotgun.  Against unarmed people at a close range, almost any semi-auto (or pump shotgun) would be equally devastating.

I'd say an Australian solution would be quite the benefit.  Yea, time to start collecting.

a) Won't happen b) Courts wouldn't permit even if politicians passed c) Good luck getting the criminals to give up their guns d) Bans have worked well in Mexico.

Or you could focus on improving background checks, keeping tabs on suspected terrorists, and actually admitting who the biggest threat is ) -  Boston bombing, San Bernadino, Orlando - See a common thread. 

There are dipshit anti-gov types/white supremacist types who kill, but over the last 20 years they haven't tended to be part of an more organized group or ideology.  Islamic terrorists are a real threat. 

That doesn't mean Muslims are bad, ISIS is kind of like the KKK to white protestant Christians.  99.9% of both groups are horrified by the acts of these lunatics.  The difference is that ISIS is growing more powerful worldwide while the KKK/white supremacists are a declining organization.

I read an article today blaming bullying/hate speech against gays for this act.  Did these poor people get shot because they were gay - yes.  Did bullying have anything to do with someone bringing up ISIS in a 911 call.  No.  Let's quit deluding ourselves about what the threat is.

[MoonShadow]

...........but with no option for large ammo clip.

This guy was well trained.  He could have done almost as much damage with a bolt action rifle and spare ammo in 'stripper clips'.  No one was going to be able to bum rush this guy between reloads. Google the "mad minute".

[GuitarStv]

When people mention that nobody's coming for your guns, what they mean are the many types of guns that would remain unregulated.  Your revolvers, shotguns, derringers, muskets, bolt action hunting rifles, etc would likely all remain unaffected.  This type of limited weapons ban would follow the same precedent where you can't buy a nuke because it's been determined that it's too dangerous.

It may well take fifty or a hundred years until a sales ban becomes effective in minimizing the availability of particular weapons, so it's not an ideal solution.  Better solutions would be to implement skill based licensing, mental health checks, background checks for every weapon sold, exclusions for people currently on terrorist watch-lists, databases of gun owners that can easily be cross-referenced by law enforcement, etc.  Many of those have been partially and half-assedly implemented already . . . it would just be a matter of improving what already exists.

[GuitarStv]

...........but with no option for large ammo clip.

This guy was well trained.  He could have done almost as much damage with a bolt action rifle and spare ammo in 'stripper clips'.  No one was going to be able to bum rush this guy between reloads. Google the "mad minute".

If you believe that there's no difference in deadliness between a semi-auto and bolt action rifle, then you should have no problem with a ban on semi-autos. . . after all, you're claiming that there's no real difference between the two.  Clearly there must be no benefit for hunting, self defense, or fighting off the king's men.

[MoonShadow]

It may well take fifty or a hundred years until a sales ban becomes effective in minimizing the availability of particular weapons, so it's not an ideal solution.  Better solutions would be to implement skill based licensing, mental health checks, background checks for every weapon sold, exclusions for people currently on terrorist watch-lists, databases of gun owners that can easily be cross-referenced by law enforcement, etc.  Many of those have been partially and half-assedly implemented already . . . it would just be a matter of improving what already exists.

Stick with that plan.  It's way better than your other one.

[MoonShadow]

...........but with no option for large ammo clip.

This guy was well trained.  He could have done almost as much damage with a bolt action rifle and spare ammo in 'stripper clips'.  No one was going to be able to bum rush this guy between reloads. Google the "mad minute".

If you believe that there's no difference in deadliness between a semi-auto and bolt action rifle, then you should have no problem with a ban on semi-autos. . . after all, you're claiming that there's no real difference between the two.  Clearly there must be no benefit for hunting, self defense, or fighting off the king's men.

For myself, there wouldn't be, I don't think.  I don't even own a semi-auto rifle, as mine are all bolties.  But that is still besides the point.  What I use is for me to decide.  Not GuitarStv, and not a million of his friends.

[GuitarStv]

...........but with no option for large ammo clip.

This guy was well trained.  He could have done almost as much damage with a bolt action rifle and spare ammo in 'stripper clips'.  No one was going to be able to bum rush this guy between reloads. Google the "mad minute".

If you believe that there's no difference in deadliness between a semi-auto and bolt action rifle, then you should have no problem with a ban on semi-autos. . . after all, you're claiming that there's no real difference between the two.  Clearly there must be no benefit for hunting, self defense, or fighting off the king's men.

For myself, there wouldn't be, I don't think.  I don't even own a semi-auto rifle, as mine are all bolties.  But that is still besides the point.  What I use is for me to decide.  Not GuitarStv, and not a million of his friends.

Are you unhappy that nukes cannot be purchased at your local arms dealer (whether or not you would be prone to using one)?  It wasn't GuitarStv or a million of his friends who decided on that.

[MoonShadow]

...........but with no option for large ammo clip.

This guy was well trained.  He could have done almost as much damage with a bolt action rifle and spare ammo in 'stripper clips'.  No one was going to be able to bum rush this guy between reloads. Google the "mad minute".

If you believe that there's no difference in deadliness between a semi-auto and bolt action rifle, then you should have no problem with a ban on semi-autos. . . after all, you're claiming that there's no real difference between the two.  Clearly there must be no benefit for hunting, self defense, or fighting off the king's men.

For myself, there wouldn't be, I don't think.  I don't even own a semi-auto rifle, as mine are all bolties.  But that is still besides the point.  What I use is for me to decide.  Not GuitarStv, and not a million of his friends.

Are you unhappy that nukes cannot be purchased at your local arms dealer (whether or not you would be prone to using one)? It wasn't GuitarStv or a million of his friends who decided on that.

We have been over this one already.  Try not to rehash bullshit.

And you're right, it wasn't GuitarStv's friends.

[Northwestie]

A bazooka can come in handing when hunting herd animals.

[MoonShadow]

A bazooka can come in handing when hunting herd animals.

I can actually get one of those.  So this isn't a good example.

[Northwestie]

A bazooka can come in handing when hunting herd animals.

I can actually get one of those.  So this isn't a good example.

Then I would say it's a perfect example of the Kafkaesque rules we have regarding weapon ownership.

[robartsd]

I think the distingtion between guns and bombs is a very important one. Claiming it's OK to ban (semi-)automatic guns because it's OK to ban bombs is a strawman argument. Most mass shootings happen at locations where the attacker has a low expectation of gun carrying targets. I would not like to see the entire country become such a zone.

Here's what I think the gun rules should look like:
Venues where guns are restricted should be required to: 1) search of all entering, 2) provide lockers for owners to store their guns at security checkpoint, 3) have armed guards protect the security checkpoint, and 4) assume civil liability for all violent attacks that occur within the secure area. License to own gun shall be issued based on: lack of past violent behavior, lack of current mental illness, and competancy being responsible for the weapon (safe use and storage). No application fee or cost for verifying critiera allowed; free training need not be provided, but applicants may not be required to pay for any training before submitting themselves for competancy testing. Competancy requirements may vary by type of firearm permitted. No gun registry (it's OK to track who may own guns, it's not OK to track who does own guns).

[Rightflyer]

...........but with no option for large ammo clip.

This guy was well trained.  He could have done almost as much damage with a bolt action rifle and spare ammo in 'stripper clips'.  No one was going to be able to bum rush this guy between reloads. Google the "mad minute".

If you believe that there's no difference in deadliness between a semi-auto and bolt action rifle, then you should have no problem with a ban on semi-autos. . . after all, you're claiming that there's no real difference between the two.  Clearly there must be no benefit for hunting, self defense, or fighting off the king's men.

For myself, there wouldn't be, I don't think.  I don't even own a semi-auto rifle, as mine are all bolties.  But that is still besides the point.  What I use is for me to decide.  Not GuitarStv, and not a million of his friends.

Point to GuitarStv!

[Cyaphas]

Are you unhappy that nukes cannot be purchased at your local arms dealer (whether or not you would be prone to using one)?  It wasn't GuitarStv or a million of his friends who decided on that.

I'm unhappy that people like you and many others on this thread have decided that restricting freedoms is some kind of solution. People like you, with your mentality, are the very reason that this target rich environment was created. You told these people how they were allowed to defend themselves. You created a gun free zone. You created this scenario and now that the wolf went into the chicken pen, here you are demanding the people who didn't want this to hand you more of our rights.

Once again the government gets a pass. Once again the club that created this very environment gets a pass. Even the man who did it apparently gets a pass. His parents who raised him in a religion taught to hate gays, get a pass.

The more I read the anti-gun arguments the more abundantly clear the ignorance becomes. He'd have been better off with another pistol in this scenario than the rifle/pistol combo.
The AR scary weapon he used, uses the same round that our military went to because it was LESS deadly than the .308 they were using. The rifle and the pistol he used were semi automatic.

We don't have the 2nd amendment for hunting. Unless you count hunting fascist, tyrants and criminals as hunting.
If you think that our government being the only armed populace in our country is a good thing, you're insane.
Things very similar to this have happened recently in places with extremely restrictive firearms laws and you know who finally stopped them after their rampages? Men with guns.

That's right, you're ignoring the millions of people with guns out there who, given the chance, would put their life on the line with their gun, that you want to take away, to stop this asshole. You're also ignoring the laws, nanny state cowards have been implementing to create these very situations. The gun free zones don't work. You know it. I know it. You don't get to for even a second come after my rights for the bull shit target rich environments YOUR group think have created.

TLDR: Take responsibility for the freedoms you've taken away from people. You don't get to take rights away and then when something bad happens, ask for more rights to be taken away. These people had to hide and die like scared prey because someone told them how they were allowed to defend themselves. That's on them. Not me and not my rights.

[Drifterrider]

I'd be surprised if you could fire 40 - 50 rounds from a 30-06 in quick succession without damaging your shoulder.  The one I used for hunting moose gave a hell of a kick.

Was the Moose hunting rifle semi-auto? 

My Garand kicks but not that bad, has an 8 shot en-block clip and a much bigger and more powerful round than an AR.  Looks a lot less scary than an AR, but very dangerous in the wrong hands (ask the Germans).  Per Wikipedia, the average soldier could fire 40-50 ACCURATE rounds at 300 yards in a minute.

The one I used was bolt action.  You don't need a semi-auto for hunting moose.

You don't need semi-auto for ANY hunting.

You don't NEED a large/fast car, large house, cell phones, TV, radios, etc.  people lived for a long time without.

What you also don't need, is for someone else to say what you NEED (and vice versa).

[GuitarStv]

Are you unhappy that nukes cannot be purchased at your local arms dealer (whether or not you would be prone to using one)?  It wasn't GuitarStv or a million of his friends who decided on that.

I'm unhappy that people like you and many others on this thread have decided that restricting freedoms is some kind of solution. People like you, with your mentality, are the very reason that this target rich environment was created. You told these people how they were allowed to defend themselves. You created a gun free zone. You created this scenario and now that the wolf went into the chicken pen, here you are demanding the people who didn't want this to hand you more of our rights.

Once again the government gets a pass. Once again the club that created this very environment gets a pass. Even the man who did it apparently gets a pass. His parents who raised him in a religion taught to hate gays, get a pass.

The more I read the anti-gun arguments the more abundantly clear the ignorance becomes. He'd have been better off with another pistol in this scenario than the rifle/pistol combo.
The AR scary weapon he used, uses the same round that our military went to because it was LESS deadly than the .308 they were using. The rifle and the pistol he used were semi automatic.

We don't have the 2nd amendment for hunting. Unless you count hunting fascist, tyrants and criminals as hunting.
If you think that our government being the only armed populace in our country is a good thing, you're insane.
Things very similar to this have happened recently in places with extremely restrictive firearms laws and you know who finally stopped them after their rampages? Men with guns.

That's right, you're ignoring the millions of people with guns out there who, given the chance, would put their life on the line with their gun, that you want to take away, to stop this asshole. You're also ignoring the laws, nanny state cowards have been implementing to create these very situations. The gun free zones don't work. You know it. I know it. You don't get to for even a second come after my rights for the bull shit target rich environments YOUR group think have created.

TLDR: Take responsibility for the freedoms you've taken away from people. You don't get to take rights away and then when something bad happens, ask for more rights to be taken away. These people had to hide and die like scared prey because someone told them how they were allowed to defend themselves. That's on them. Not me and not my rights.

If you go through my posts carefully, you'll see that I don't believe restricting guns is a great solution.  It's at best a small piece of a larger whole that should be examined.  I am however, living in a 'target rich environment' 24/7 up here in Canada . . . and it doesn't seem to be too bad honestly.  Certainly a lot fewer shootings than in the 'heavily protected' US you are daydreaming about.

[deadlymonkey]

I'd be surprised if you could fire 40 - 50 rounds from a 30-06 in quick succession without damaging your shoulder.  The one I used for hunting moose gave a hell of a kick.

Was the Moose hunting rifle semi-auto? 

My Garand kicks but not that bad, has an 8 shot en-block clip and a much bigger and more powerful round than an AR.  Looks a lot less scary than an AR, but very dangerous in the wrong hands (ask the Germans).  Per Wikipedia, the average soldier could fire 40-50 ACCURATE rounds at 300 yards in a minute.

The one I used was bolt action.  You don't need a semi-auto for hunting moose.

You don't need semi-auto for ANY hunting.

You don't NEED a large/fast car, large house, cell phones, TV, radios, etc.  people lived for a long time without.

What you also don't need, is for someone else to say what you NEED (and vice versa).

I was taking a somewhat sarcastic jab at hunters that need multiple shots to kill something.  Good hunters follow and one shot one kill philosophy.  Building on the moose hunting comment, I felt my comment had just enough zing to irritate some trophy "hunters"

[randymarsh]

Things very similar to this have happened recently in places with extremely restrictive firearms laws and you know who finally stopped them after their rampages? Men with guns.

TLDR: Take responsibility for the freedoms you've taken away from people. You don't get to take rights away and then when something bad happens, ask for more rights to be taken away. These people had to hide and die like scared prey because someone told them how they were allowed to defend themselves. That's on them. Not me and not my rights.

This shooting happened with an armed off-duty police officer standing by. The "good guy with a gun" wasn't too effective. The ship has pretty much sailed on gun control in the US at this point, but I find it kind of messed up that a suggested solution to these things is "we should all carry guns because we might need to defend ourselves from other people with guns!"

It's exhausting hearing gun proponents going on and on about "their rights" but the only one they ever seem to care about is the right to own a gun. The strongest 2nd amendment supporters/politicians seem to have no problem violating people's rights when it comes to due process, abortion, marriage equality, TSA nonsense. They scream "my rights" but I suspect the truth is that they just really like guns. They use the fact that they have the right to mean that they should have the right.

That weakens their argument for me because there are consequences to rights. Just like the 4th amendment means some criminals will go free, the 2nd amendment means we will have more shootings and more gun violence. That's clearly acceptable to many but I don't think it's outrageous for others to think that maybe the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

[robartsd]

It's exhausting hearing gun proponents going on and on about "their rights" but the only one they ever seem to care about is the right to own a gun. The strongest 2nd amendment supporters/politicians seem to have no problem violating people's rights when it comes to due process, abortion, marriage equality, TSA nonsense. They scream "my rights" but I suspect the truth is that they just really like guns. They use the fact that they have the right to mean that they should have the right.

That's a prety broad brush you're painting with. While I do expect many (not all) gun rights supporters would also be against abortion (arguing rights of the unborn) and against same-sex marriage (arguing based on religious rights); I would be surprised to see a strong corrolation between gun rights supporters and the police state mentality of abriging due process and subjecting people to the TSA's archane rules about what can be taken on airplanes. Among politicians, such a corrolation might be more based on comprimising within a party in a two-party political system than a tendancy to care only for their own rights and not for the rights of others.

[Cyaphas]

This shooting happened with an armed off-duty police officer standing by. The "good guy with a gun" wasn't too effective. The ship has pretty much sailed on gun control in the US at this point, but I find it kind of messed up that a suggested solution to these things is "we should all carry guns because we might need to defend ourselves from other people with guns!"

That officer's gun fire exchange may have saved a lot of lives. If the gunmen had made it into the club unchallenged there could've been a much higher number of fatalities. Not to mention, at least he got the chance to try to stop him. All of those dead and wounded people didn't get to try anything. If one person in 50 were to carrying that's 7 more guns in the crowd. But those 7 guns weren't there. If there were another gun at the door with the police officer the chance of success in a fire fight goes up exponentially in a 2 on 1 scenario. If the officer had just killed him at the door, this would've been a foot-note on the news, like Garland Texas.

It's exhausting hearing gun proponents going on and on about "their rights" but the only one they ever seem to care about is the right to own a gun. The strongest 2nd amendment supporters/politicians seem to have no problem violating people's rights when it comes to due process, abortion, marriage equality, TSA nonsense. They scream "my rights" but I suspect the truth is that they just really like guns. They use the fact that they have the right to mean that they should have the right.

I like freedom. If you want to talk about all of the other various freedom's our government has forcefully taken away from us, we can start another thread.

It's a lot more exhausting protecting people's freedoms than it is to advocate giving them away. History has proven that time and time again. Personal freedoms don't usually stand up to intellectually lazy populaces and time. Governments and the people that own them, always win.   

That weakens their argument for me because there are consequences to rights. Just like the 4th amendment means some criminals will go free, the 2nd amendment means we will have more shootings and more gun violence. That's clearly acceptable to many but I don't think it's outrageous for others to think that maybe the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

There aren't consequences to your rights. Get that shit out of your head. Free people are not responsible for when someone else commits murder or breaks any other law. They are responsible for when they force the person being murdered to submit to their murderer. That's what everyone seems to be missing here.

Not one person who is responsible for creating such a huge soft target has stepped forward to apologize. No one has stepped forward to apologize for forcing these people to give up their rights to self defense and then standing by while they're slaughtered.

It's disgusting that those very same people are now asking others to become more defenseless too.

[robartsd]

That weakens their argument for me because there are consequences to rights. Just like the 4th amendment means some criminals will go free, the 2nd amendment means we will have more shootings and more gun violence. That's clearly acceptable to many but I don't think it's outrageous for others to think that maybe the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

You may be right that there would be fewer shootings and less gun violence if the population were disarmed, but there is no evidence that there would be fewer murders and less violence overall. I personally do not believe that there would be any increase in safety within the United States by repealing or abriding the 2nd amendment in any way that is not already currently considered constitutional based on Supreme Court case law. My personal interpretation of the words "The right to keep or bear arms shall not be infringed" would further restrict the constitutionallity of many current gun and weapon laws (I may agree with a few current laws that I consider "infinging" on the right to keep or bear arms).

[randymarsh]

I like freedom. If you want to talk about all of the other various freedom's our government has forcefully taken away from us, we can start another thread.

It's a lot more exhausting protecting people's freedoms than it is to advocate giving them away. History has proven that time and time again. Personal freedoms don't usually stand up to intellectually lazy populaces and time. Governments and the people that own them, always win.   

This is sort of what I'm talking about. You view gun ownership as THE right and if you don't have it, then you aren't free.  It's supposed to be a check against a tyrannical government right? But like you mentioned, our government has taken away or reduced other freedoms so gun ownership doesn't seem to be very useful for that purpose.

Tens of millions of Europeans don't have the right to own a gun and I presume most of them still consider themselves free. I don't think we can definitively say they aren't. Rights aren't inherently fixed. Many European countries have stated healthcare is a right. We haven't...who's correct? Who is free?

There aren't consequences to your rights. Get that shit out of your head. Free people are not responsible for when someone else commits murder or breaks any other law. They are responsible for when they force the person being murdered to submit to their murderer. That's what everyone seems to be missing here.

Not one person who is responsible for creating such a huge soft target has stepped forward to apologize. No one has stepped forward to apologize for forcing these people to give up their rights to self defense and then standing by while they're slaughtered.

It's disgusting that those very same people are now asking others to become more defenseless too.

Huh? There are consequences to everything, yes including legal rights. Some are negative and some are positive. I don't see how that's controversial.

Who do you want to take responsibility? Lawmakers, elected by the people, for creating gun free zones? The club owner? I could argue that no one forced those people to give up to right to self defense. They willingly went to a gun free zone right?

Even if gun free zones didn't exist, I suspect most businesses still would prohibit weapons. Unless you think the right to possess a gun rises to the level of trumping private property ownership?

[randymarsh]

Things very similar to this have happened recently in places with extremely restrictive firearms laws and you know who finally stopped them after their rampages? Men with guns.

TLDR: Take responsibility for the freedoms you've taken away from people. You don't get to take rights away and then when something bad happens, ask for more rights to be taken away. These people had to hide and die like scared prey because someone told them how they were allowed to defend themselves. That's on them. Not me and not my rights.

This shooting happened with an armed off-duty police officer standing by. The "good guy with a gun" wasn't too effective. The ship has pretty much sailed on gun control in the US at this point, but I find it kind of messed up that a suggested solution to these things is "we should all carry guns because we might need to defend ourselves from other people with guns!"

It's exhausting hearing gun proponents going on and on about "their rights" but the only one they ever seem to care about is the right to own a gun. The strongest 2nd amendment supporters/politicians seem to have no problem violating people's rights when it comes to due process, abortion, marriage equality, TSA nonsense. They scream "my rights" but I suspect the truth is that they just really like guns. They use the fact that they have the right to mean that they should have the right.

That weakens their argument for me because there are consequences to rights. Just like the 4th amendment means some criminals will go free, the 2nd amendment means we will have more shootings and more gun violence. That's clearly acceptable to many but I don't think it's outrageous for others to think that maybe the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

I happen to be a socially liberal Democrat and a gun rights advocate. Lots of us out there. Not all of us agree with everything either Party supports, many have strong liberal leaning on some issues and strong conservative leanings on others. Don't pigeon hole everyone based on one issue.

I'm saying the loudest 2nd amendment supporters pigeon hole themselves on this issue. You hear this repeated argument that "I should have a gun because the Constitution says I can". I rarely hear "I should have freedom of speech because the Constitution says I can", but rather "I should have freedom of speech because it allows corruption to be exposed."

[Cyaphas]

This is sort of what I'm talking about. You view gun ownership as THE right and if you don't have it, then you aren't free.  It's supposed to be a check against a tyrannical government right? But like you mentioned, our government has taken away or reduced other freedoms so gun ownership doesn't seem to be very useful for that purpose.

Tens of millions of Europeans don't have the right to own a gun and I presume most of them still consider themselves free. I don't think we can definitively say they aren't. Rights aren't inherently fixed. Many European countries have stated healthcare is a right. We haven't...who's correct? Who is free?

Ukraine is part of Europe. Russia just walked in and took half of it away. Notice how it isn't in the news anymore? What did the other countries do about it again? Who went and saved all those little people? I bet they're glad they trusted their communities.

Huh? There are consequences to everything, yes including legal rights. Some are negative and some are positive. I don't see how that's controversial.

Who do you want to take responsibility? Lawmakers, elected by the people, for creating gun free zones? The club owner? I could argue that no one forced those people to give up to right to self defense. They willingly went to a gun free zone right?

Even if gun free zones didn't exist, I suspect most businesses still would prohibit weapons. Unless you think the right to possess a gun rises to the level of trumping private property ownership?

If someone uses a gun to commit murder, that's not a consequence of the 2nd amendment... that's murder.
If someone slanders someone else in public to effect harm on them, that's not a consequence of the 1st amendment... that's slander.


Who do you want to take responsibility? Lawmakers, elected by the people, for creating gun free zones? - YES, You don't?

The club owner? - YES, his negligence isn't without fault. Why was there one armed person for an event with 350+ people?

I could argue that no one forced those people to give up to right to self defense. They willingly went to a gun free zone right?

I would argue that if it's open to the public, it's a public place, the property owner has no right to infringe on your rights in a public place. Further, I would argue that if the property owner invites the public into their establishment but limits their rights while in that establishment, they should be responsible for what happens to that person account of the limiting of their rights. The 2nd amendment has become ridiculously restricted because of all of these gun free zones and the penalties that back them.

So, law abiding citizens abide by the law... terrorists and criminals do not. You know that. I know that. The government knows that. Lawmakers know that. Anti Gun advocates know that. Yet here we are, in a  gun free zone, 50 dead and everyone is arguing about taking away more rights. I think we should be arguing about restoring people's right to defend themselves in public.

[GuitarStv]

This is sort of what I'm talking about. You view gun ownership as THE right and if you don't have it, then you aren't free.  It's supposed to be a check against a tyrannical government right? But like you mentioned, our government has taken away or reduced other freedoms so gun ownership doesn't seem to be very useful for that purpose.

Tens of millions of Europeans don't have the right to own a gun and I presume most of them still consider themselves free. I don't think we can definitively say they aren't. Rights aren't inherently fixed. Many European countries have stated healthcare is a right. We haven't...who's correct? Who is free?

Ukraine is part of Europe. Russia just walked in and took half of it away. Notice how it isn't in the news anymore? What did the other countries do about it again? Who went and saved all those little people? I bet they're glad they trusted their communities.[/quote]

What the Ukraine proves is that small arms are pretty useless against a modern military.  The Ukrainians had plenty of small arms in private ownership.  Rifles, hand guns, shotguns.  They didn't stand a chance against armoured vehicles, tanks, mortar rounds blasting their homes.  The situation there really exposed the lie that small arms are useful when a real military rolls in.

Huh? There are consequences to everything, yes including legal rights. Some are negative and some are positive. I don't see how that's controversial.

Who do you want to take responsibility? Lawmakers, elected by the people, for creating gun free zones? The club owner? I could argue that no one forced those people to give up to right to self defense. They willingly went to a gun free zone right?

Even if gun free zones didn't exist, I suspect most businesses still would prohibit weapons. Unless you think the right to possess a gun rises to the level of trumping private property ownership?

If someone uses a gun to commit murder, that's not a consequence of the 2nd amendment... that's murder.
If someone slanders someone else in public to effect harm on them, that's not a consequence of the 1st amendment... that's slander.


Who do you want to take responsibility? Lawmakers, elected by the people, for creating gun free zones? - YES, You don't?

The club owner? - YES, his negligence isn't without fault. Why was there one armed person for an event with 350+ people?

I could argue that no one forced those people to give up to right to self defense. They willingly went to a gun free zone right?

I would argue that if it's open to the public, it's a public place, the property owner has no right to infringe on your rights in a public place. Further, I would argue that if the property owner invites the public into their establishment but limits their rights while in that establishment, they should be responsible for what happens to that person account of the limiting of their rights. The 2nd amendment has become ridiculously restricted because of all of these gun free zones and the penalties that back them.

So, law abiding citizens abide by the law... terrorists and criminals do not. You know that. I know that. The government knows that. Lawmakers know that. Anti Gun advocates know that. Yet here we are, in a  gun free zone, 50 dead and everyone is arguing about taking away more rights. I think we should be arguing about restoring people's right to defend themselves in public.

It is ironic that a campaigner for 'freedom' wants to take away freedom as a first course of action.  Under your rules, the bar owner is no longer free to keep weapons out of his bar . . . and is punished for trying.  Everyone has to carry a gun or else he/she is being negligent in the perpetual state of fear that you've created.

Doesn't really sound very free . . .

[Cyaphas]

What the Ukraine proves is that small arms are pretty useless against a modern military.  The Ukrainians had plenty of small arms in private ownership.  Rifles, hand guns, shotguns.  They didn't stand a chance against armoured vehicles, tanks, mortar rounds blasting their homes.  The situation there really exposed the lie that small arms are useful when a real military rolls in.

We've gone over this many times before in this thread, including the fact that the Ukranian population isn't armed. I know your memory isn't that short.

It is ironic that a campaigner for 'freedom' wants to take away freedom as a first course of action.  Under your rules, the bar owner is no longer free to keep weapons out of his bar . . . and is punished for trying.  Everyone has to carry a gun or else he/she is being negligent in the perpetual state of fear that you've created.

Doesn't really sound very free . . .

"Under your rules, the bar owner is no longer free to keep weapons out of his bar."

Yes, it's a public place. He wants to open his business to the public, he should abide by the rules of the public. The more difficult you make it for law abiding citizens to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, the more likely a terrorist or criminal is going to succeed.

Perpetual state of fear? From who? Terrorists and criminals care nothing for the law. Law abiding citizens? You fear them?

I didn't say everyone has to carry a gun... Surprise, surprise, you're putting words in my mouth. When you tell someone how they can or can't defend themselves you take responsibility for that persons safety. Period. I don't want to tell somoene how they can or can't defend themselves.

When they're bleeding out in the dark and the smell of piss and shit is overtaking their senses from their dead friends lying around them, I'm sure they're so glad that 350+ other people weren't armed and couldn't legally be.

[randymarsh]

Things very similar to this have happened recently in places with extremely restrictive firearms laws and you know who finally stopped them after their rampages? Men with guns.

TLDR: Take responsibility for the freedoms you've taken away from people. You don't get to take rights away and then when something bad happens, ask for more rights to be taken away. These people had to hide and die like scared prey because someone told them how they were allowed to defend themselves. That's on them. Not me and not my rights.

This shooting happened with an armed off-duty police officer standing by. The "good guy with a gun" wasn't too effective. The ship has pretty much sailed on gun control in the US at this point, but I find it kind of messed up that a suggested solution to these things is "we should all carry guns because we might need to defend ourselves from other people with guns!"

It's exhausting hearing gun proponents going on and on about "their rights" but the only one they ever seem to care about is the right to own a gun. The strongest 2nd amendment supporters/politicians seem to have no problem violating people's rights when it comes to due process, abortion, marriage equality, TSA nonsense. They scream "my rights" but I suspect the truth is that they just really like guns. They use the fact that they have the right to mean that they should have the right.

That weakens their argument for me because there are consequences to rights. Just like the 4th amendment means some criminals will go free, the 2nd amendment means we will have more shootings and more gun violence. That's clearly acceptable to many but I don't think it's outrageous for others to think that maybe the juice isn't worth the squeeze.

I happen to be a socially liberal Democrat and a gun rights advocate. Lots of us out there. Not all of us agree with everything either Party supports, many have strong liberal leaning on some issues and strong conservative leanings on others. Don't pigeon hole everyone based on one issue.

I'm saying the loudest 2nd amendment supporters pigeon hole themselves on this issue. You hear this repeated argument that "I should have a gun because the Constitution says I can". I rarely hear "I should have freedom of speech because the Constitution says I can", but rather "I should have freedom of speech because it allows corruption to be exposed."

Probably because there isn't a need. We recognize that when one lone person says something harmful it is "their" sole actions/words that cause harm and no one tries to take away or limit the right to free speech from everyone else because of that one person's actions.

Probably because one person's speech doesn't result in 50 murders.

[Cyaphas]

Probably because one person's speech doesn't result in 50 murders.

I'm sure his father's hatred of homo sexuals and those rosy quotes from the Quran had nothing to do with this.

[randymarsh]

Probably because one person's speech doesn't result in 50 murders.

Probably more. Hate speech, and the actions by people that often follow it, have had a massive destructive impact on human lives.
[/quote]

That's a big reach, IMO. The availability & access to guns Americans enjoy allow us to take those destructive actions with great speed and efficiency. I don't think it's a fair comparison.

[MoonShadow]

There is something that I've been wondering about this whole Pulse mass murder event.  Pulse was a huge public bar, in effect.  Something like 300 people were in there at the start of the shooting, and the only person who had a gun was the off-duty cop working as a bouncer?  Why?  First of all, a bar that size really needed more than one bouncer.  And Florida has a concealed carry license, have these people never heard of the Pink Pistols?  If only a couple people had handguns in this event, this could have ended much sooner than it did.  It took the cops 3 hours to raid the place.  This nutter was taking his sweet time killing gays.

[Curbside Prophet]

Please explain to me why your ability to have AR-type rifle is so much more important than these people's death?  Please.  More people died because he had access to this rifle than one that was slower on shooting AND reload. 
"The AR-15 was used by the couple in San Bernardino, California, who killed 14 people at a workplace holiday party in December. Similarly, the man who mowed down 12 people at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado in 2012 was armed with an AR-15.
And the man who killed 20 first-grade children and six school staff members at an elementary school in Newton, Connecticut, in 2012 used the same kind of weapon."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/orlando-gunman-kind-assault-rifle-popular-mass-shooters/story?id=39804742
Why not have guns that require more training, that are slower to reload and don't allow you to shoot your entire magazine in one shot?   Why is your rights to these types of guns more important than all the lives lost?

The tragic event that took place yesterday in Orlando a automatic assault rifle was used.  103 lives changes forever.... just the victims. Never mind the family of the victims and the countless other in the LGBT community that are now afraid.  If there were laws in place to limit these crazy assault rifles, and the shooter brought a different, hunting rifle.  Yes this would still be a tragedy, but we would be talk 10 people hurt maybe, not 103.

I hope this can start a conversation about realistic weapon control in the US.

None of the weapons used in any of the incidents named were automatic rifles.  Please educate yourself before jumping to conclusions.  Ignorance is half the reason why we had the ridiculous assault ban the first time.