Discussion: The Second Amendment III

[dnno1]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-chicago-shootings-20121204,0,1910956.story

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...26_1_gun-ordinance-gun-laws-firearm-ordinance

Chicago has some the strictest gun laws in the country and yet shootings run rampant in the city.

I don't know about that. My house and my place of work have stricter gun laws than the city of Chicago.

 

[justinlancaster]

That's the point. No matter how many anti gun laws are made bad people will still find a way to get guns and do harm. If there were no guns people would find others ways to cause harm. All the laws do is hurt people who enjoy the sport of shooting from buying the rifles we enjoy to shoot.

It's illegal to buy crack, sell, crack and smoke crack, but people still do it. 9 times out of 10 a person committing a crime with a gun is a felon or obtained the gun illegally.

Unfortunately, the morons writing these laws have no clue what they are talking about when it comes to guns. Just look at Dianne Feinstein and people like Carolyn McCarthy.

http://youtu.be/ospNRk2uM3U

These are the elected idiots making up things as they go.

And people blindly follow them without doing they're own research. Just look through this thread. Massive amounts of misinformation. I think I read that a pistol grip makes the rifle more accurate?!! News to me but what do I know I'm just a gun owner. Telescoping stock makes the rifle easier to conceal? How much do those stocks collapse? 3 or 4 inches? Not enough to make a difference.

We wouldn't let a 40 year old virgin male shut-in draft abortion legislation but letting somebody that is totally ignorant of how firearms function draft legislation banning certain types of rifles and firearm accessories is cool? Um, uh ah.

 

[Kable24]

And people blindly follow them without doing they're own research. Just look through this thread. Massive amounts of misinformation. I think I read that a pistol grip makes the rifle more accurate?!! News to me but what do I know I'm just a gun owner. Telescoping stock makes the rifle easier to conceal? How much do those stocks collapse? 3 or 4 inches? Not enough to make a difference.

We wouldn't let a 40 year old virgin male shut-in draft abortion legislation but letting somebody that is totally ignorant of how firearms function draft legislation banning certain types of rifles and firearm accessories is cool? Um, uh ah.

Preaching to the choir my friend. I'd like to know why a barrel shroud makes the gun more dangerous. If anything it makes it less dangerous. Why does a rifle with a bayonet luge make it deadlier? If anything you'd ban the bayonet.

10, 20 or 30 round magazines doesn't matter when people can reload a rifle in less that 2 seconds, but what do I know. I've only been shooting and around guns since most people on here were crapping in their diapers.

 

[Thundercrack85]

If that's the case then how can you prove that 50% ownership is accurate. I seriously doubt that it is since that would mean that every other house in my neighborhood would have a gun and that's not true.

Self-reported ownership?

I don't know where you live, but the places where I have lived (ranging from the South, to the West to Upstate New York everyone and their brother had a gun.

I actually don't know anyone living outside a major metropolitan area who doesn't own at least one firearm. You may be surprised to find out who all has one. People you might never suspect.

Even that controversial map they published of that county in New York only shows handguns. Not rifles.

A lot of states don't even keep track of rifles.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Here's a question and I am very curious on anyones answer.

So, let's look back at earlier times...like the old west for instance. Guns were plentiful...they were all over the place, people openly packed them wherever they went. But aside from the random gang raid, you never saw a lone person walk into a busy area and just start shooting. Let's go forward in time now to the 50's and 60's...this sort of thing didn't happen then. Shootings in public like this just didn't happen and if they did they were incredibly rare.

Why?

Why now and not in the past? Why did we have 3 or 4 public shootings in one year when in the past this sort of thing just didn't happen?

What changed that now makes this a more common situation?

Population for one thing (more nuts). Semiautomatics for another.

You can go on a killing spree with a bolt-action rifle, but it does require skill.

 

[Phallic]

First off, it doesn't have to be accurate if you are firing into a crowd. The probability of a hit is a lot higher that way. I don't think anyone has to be knowledgeable about firearms to know that since it is common sense. Secondly the point here is to prevent mass shootings, not self defense. Thirdly, that is not a gimmick, since it vindicates the fact that you can take a semi-automatic weapon with a large capacity magazine and cause a lot of mayhem and is why that was not allowed in the AWB. Finally, how dare you try to insult my intelligence by trying to imply that because I seem to not know about guns I am not qualified to debate about the banning or restriction of assault weapons. I don't think that anyone needs to have such experience to participate here.

Bump-firing is 100% a gimmick. I've done it before - have you? You'd barely be able to hit the broad side of a barn with that method. Automatic weapons themselves are already horrendously innacurate in full-auto - bump firing is significantly less accurate than that. The way bump-firing requires you to hold the gun allows very little control over the firearm. If bump-firing were such a deadly method, why hasn't it been used in a mass shooting as of yet? It's not exactly a new thing.

And I hate to break it to you, but that is exactly what it means. You wish to severely limit the tools available to people to defend themselves, but you yourself aren't even aware of the ins and outs of the tools themselves.

That's like me telling a doctor what procedure he can and cannot do, despite not having a solid foundation in medicine.

People ignorant of firearms passing knee-jerk legislation is exactly what brought us the abysmal failure of a law that the 1994 AWB was. It's the very same people who are trying to ram another one down our throats. Your only attempt to point me to a source that claimed that the AWB was an effective law was a study that in itself stated that the AWB was ineffective. Stop trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist - it only gets good people killed.

There is nothing wrong with being ignorant of firearms, it's not for everyone. But don't try to tell people what they can and can't have if you yourself aren't familiar with the firearms in question.

 

[dnno1]

Bump-firing is 100% a gimmick. I've done it before - have you? You'd barely be able to hit the broad side of a barn with that method. Automatic weapons themselves are already horrendously innacurate in full-auto - bump firing is significantly less accurate than that. The way bump-firing requires you to hold the gun allows very little control over the firearm. If bump-firing were such a deadly method, why hasn't it been used in a mass shooting as of yet? It's not exactly a new thing.

And I hate to break it to you, but that is exactly what it means. You wish to severely limit the tools available to people to defend themselves, but you yourself aren't even aware of the ins and outs of the tools themselves.

That's like me telling a doctor what procedure he can and cannot do, despite not having a solid foundation in medicine.

People ignorant of firearms passing knee-jerk legislation is exactly what brought us the abysmal failure of a law that the 1994 AWB was. It's the very same people who are trying to ram another one down our throats. Your only attempt to point me to a source that claimed that the AWB was an effective law was a study that in itself stated that the AWB was ineffective. Stop trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist - it only gets good people killed.

There is nothing wrong with being ignorant of firearms, it's not for everyone. But don't try to tell people what they can and can't have if you yourself aren't familiar with the firearms in question.

[YT]_U6tORrODJE[/YT]

Sorry, guy. That's machine gun style firing (with the aid of a telescopic stock no less). You are not going to convince me one many others that this is just a gimmick, especially when you and others have said you have done it before. The bullets come out of the gun and hit a target. It doesn't even have to be aimed, just spray it and it will his something in a crowded room.

 

[Phallic]

I don't know about that. My house and my place of work have stricter gun laws than the city of Chicago.

I'll respond to this with an equally snarky retort.

Columbine / Aurora / Sandy Hook / Luby's / Virginia Tech / Port Arthur / Stockton etc. all had stricter gun laws than the city of Chicago as well.

 

[dnno1]

I'll respond to this with an equally snarky retort.

Columbine / Aurora / Sandy Hook / Luby's / Virginia Tech / Port Arthur / Stockton etc. all had stricter gun laws than the city of Chicago as well.

My house and my place of work are stricter than that. Neither allow guns on the premises (unless your are law enforcement). Chicago only requires owners to get a license, a background check, training and to register. There are no assault weapons bans nor other fire arms restrictions outside of the city so it should be easy to get an assault weapon and drive in to do your damage.

 

[wiegeabo]

Well, it's a good thing those strict rules are in place so if a criminal ever breaks into your house, they won't bring a gun with them.

Oh, wait...


Seriously, you're actually making this argument?
Premise 1: No gun crime has occurred in my house
Premise 2: Guns are banned from my house
Conclusion: My gun ban will prevent all gun crime in my house.

Besides being an obviously unusable sample size for any meaningful statistic, it's just an obvious fallacy.

 

[Thundercrack85]

The city-wide gun ban is extremely stupid for several reasons. Since the gun ban only affects people legally buying guns, and almost all guns used in crimes are illegally acquired, you're only really making it difficult for lawful residents to own them.

And then there's the part where they can be circumvented by driving outside the city.

The end result? The murder capitals of the world.

 

[Phallic]

[YT]_U6tORrODJE[/YT]

Sorry, guy. That's machine gun style firing (with the aid of a telescopic stock no less). You are not going to convince me one many others that this is just a gimmick, especially when you and others have said you have done it before. The bullets come out of the gun and hit a target. It doesn't even have to be aimed, just spray it and it will his something in a crowded room.

You do realize that's not a telescopic stock, right? That's a slide-fire stock - a very specific product to replicate automatic fire. I can't think of a single violent crime committed with that. In addition, it uses a technique similar to bump firing to work, but bump firing in itself is different. It is entirely a gimmick, and I don't really care if I can persuade you or not. You're already set in your hatred of guns, and despite having limited knowledge of firearms, refuse to listen to those who have experience. My hope is to help educate people who have been victim of the tremendous amount of misinformation out there and are willing to listen to the other side with an open mind. I've used the bump-fire technique only for fun, not because it's a super effective way of shooting the gun. Even if you handed me a select-fire assault rifle to fight against a group of attackers, I would still use primarily the semi-automatic setting. It's simply the more accurate and more effective way of shooting the rifle. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to grasp.

If you have a problem with that specific slide-fire stock, then fine. But don't use that as a reason to ban AR-15 rifles or high-capacity magazines. You still fail to point to a study showing that a restriction on high-capacity magazines has reduced crime. There are plenty of places in the US with this policy already in effect.

I love the argument "my home is a gun free zone and we haven't had any crimes happen here." Well, good. Converse to your argument, my home has plenty of guns. I, too, haven't had any violent crimes.

You'd better put up a sign saying that there are no guns allowed in there, just in case a potential home invader doesn't know. It's common sense that someone (or people) who intend on breaking and entering your home are going to make sure follow your no-gun rule. Right? Similar to how a potential school shooter is going to think, "I was going to shoot this place up, but because of the no-gun policy, I guess I'll just go home." History has clearly shown that to be true...

 

[Destructus86]

That's the point. No matter how many anti gun laws are made bad people will still find a way to get guns and do harm. If there were no guns people would find others ways to cause harm. All the laws do is hurt people who enjoy the sport of shooting from buying the rifles we enjoy to shoot.

It's illegal to buy crack, sell, crack and smoke crack, but people still do it. 9 times out of 10 a person committing a crime with a gun is a felon or obtained the gun illegally.

Unfortunately, the morons writing these laws have no clue what they are talking about when it comes to guns. Just look at Dianne Feinstein and people like Carolyn McCarthy.

http://youtu.be/ospNRk2uM3U

These are the elected idiots making up things as they go.

Heck, in Seattle you don't even have to look for a place to buy crack. I've had people offer to sell it to me on the street!

 

[dnno1]

Well, it's a good thing those strict rules are in place so if a criminal ever breaks into your house, they won't bring a gun with them.

Oh, wait...


Seriously, you're actually making this argument?
Premise 1: No gun crime has occurred in my house
Premise 2: Guns are banned from my house
Conclusion: My gun ban will prevent all gun crime in my house.

Besides being an obviously unusable sample size for any meaningful statistic, it's just an obvious fallacy.

No criminal has ever broken into my place with a gun... in 51 years. There was one time when a person went postal at my job and one of the hostages talked the shooter out of it (yes, a bad guy with a gun was stopped by a good guy without a gun). So I guess your conclusion is correct.

 

[Hotwire]

While the argument that the person is the cause of the problem, you cannot deny that the gun's make it easier for them to commit the crimes they do. You have to admit that holding a gun gives you a sense of power. For those who've been shooting for a longer time, it may not be as strong but, it's there. I know I felt it, especially when firing an M-60 and an M-203. That sense of power would easily embolden a person who is desperate enough to commit a crime. I often wonder, if the gun didn't exist, would the criminal be so bold?

 

[dnno1]

You do realize that's not a telescopic stock, right? That's a slide-fire stock - a very specific product to replicate automatic fire. I can't think of a single violent crime committed with that. In addition, it uses a technique similar to bump firing to work, but bump firing in itself is different. It is entirely a gimmick, and I don't really care if I can persuade you or not. You're already set in your hatred of guns, and despite having limited knowledge of firearms, refuse to listen to those who have experience. My hope is to help educate people who have been victim of the tremendous amount of misinformation out there and are willing to listen to the other side with an open mind. I've used the bump-fire technique only for fun, not because it's a super effective way of shooting the gun. Even if you handed me a select-fire assault rifle to fight against a group of attackers, I would still use primarily the semi-automatic setting. It's simply the more accurate and more effective way of shooting the rifle. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to grasp.

If you have a problem with that specific slide-fire stock, then fine. But don't use that as a reason to ban AR-15 rifles or high-capacity magazines. You still fail to point to a study showing that a restriction on high-capacity magazines has reduced crime. There are plenty of places in the US with this policy already in effect.

I love the argument "my home is a gun free zone and we haven't had any crimes happen here." Well, good. Converse to your argument, my home has plenty of guns. I, too, haven't had any violent crimes.

You'd better put up a sign saying that there are no guns allowed in there, just in case a potential home invader doesn't know. It's common sense that someone (or people) who intend on breaking and entering your home are going to make sure follow your no-gun rule. Right? Similar to how a potential school shooter is going to think, "I was going to shoot this place up, but because of the no-gun policy, I guess I'll just go home." History has clearly shown that to be true...

That stock is moving in and out along the shaft of the barrel end. That by definition is telescopic. I don't care what technique you use the person in the video demonstrated that you can make a semi-automatic weapon act like a fully automatic machine gun. That's dangerous and should be banned.

 

[Kable24]

The shaft of the barrel end? Carolyn McCarthy is that you?

 

[wiegeabo]

No criminal has ever broken into my place with a gun... in 51 years. There was one time when a person went postal at my job and one of the hostages talked the shooter out of it (yes, a bad guy with a gun was stopped by a good guy without a gun). So I guess your conclusion is correct.

It's not my conclusion. It's yours.

And it's a flawed argument because the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises. Not allowing guns does not prevent a criminal from using a gun. They don't have to follow your rules.

Not having to deal with a criminal with a gun in your home has nothing to do with any ban in your home. It's just luck. And the number of years has nothing to do with anything either since it could literally change tomorrow. No one ever thinks it could happen to them until it does.

 

[Destructus86]

While the argument that the person is the cause of the problem, you cannot deny that the gun's make it easier for them to commit the crimes they do. You have to admit that holding a gun gives you a sense of power. For those who've been shooting for a longer time, it may not be as strong but, it's there. I know I felt it, especially when firing an M-60 and an M-203. That sense of power would easily embolden a person who is desperate enough to commit a crime. I often wonder, if the gun didn't exist, would the criminal be so bold?

They are not in their right mind. I don't think boldness has anything to do with it. It's not something that happens at random...it's a gradual change. a build up of negative emotion and in many cases extreme mental illness.

 

[Destructus86]

btw..I don't think I saw anyone respond to my question? Why are public shootings more common nowadays than they were in the past where it was virtually unheard of and when guns were more plentiful?

 

[Hotwire]

That stock is moving in and out along the shaft of the barrel end. That by definition is telescopic. I don't care what technique you use the person in the video demonstrated that you can make a semi-automatic weapon act like a fully automatic machine gun. That's dangerous and should be banned.

That's not a telescopic stock. Telescopic would mean that I one position it was much shorter than I another position. The slide stock is simply allowing the recoil of the bolt to be used to push the gun forward so another round can be fired without the shooter actually pulling the trigger a second time. That being said, I cannot fathom how these things are legal as they effectively allow for fully automatic fire. Now, as Kabal and others have pointed out, automatic fire is wasteful and, for the most part, inaccurate. However, the whole idea of full auto is to put as many rounds down range as possible in the shortest time. They were not designed for accuracy, they were designed to cause mass casualties to a large group. So, while it's not happened that someone used a slide stock on a rifle to commit mass modern, you can't really deny that a weapon like that has any less potential to do so than an actual fully automatic rifle.

 

[wiegeabo]

btw..I don't think I saw anyone respond to my question? Why are public shootings more common nowadays than they were in the past where it was virtually unheard of and when guns were more plentiful?

It was answered.

 

[Hotwire]

btw..I don't think I saw anyone respond to my question? Why are public shootings more common nowadays than they were in the past where it was virtually unheard of and when guns were more plentiful?

That's a good question. One not easily answered. I'd wager there has to be a level of desensitization at play. Blame who you want for it but, there's really no denying, not much shocks us anymore.

 

[Hotwire]

They are not in their right mind. I don't think boldness has anything to do with it. It's not something that happens at random...it's a gradual change. a build up of negative emotion and in many cases extreme mental illness.

I wasn't talking about mass shootings. I meant gun crime in general. Like armed robbery, things like that.

 

[Hotwire]

Population for one thing (more nuts). Semiautomatics for another.

You can go on a killing spree with a bolt-action rifle, but it does require skill.

Semi-automatic weapons have been around since the late 1800's. Hell, the gatling gun was invented in 1862.