Active shooter in Colorado

[Sho Nuff 719]

Well, we seem to come to this impasse of...well, its difficult to do...so lets do nothing.

And I just don't accept that.

I don't know the answer yet...but doing nothing seems irresponsible.

[BLS 313]

 

1. I never said anything about full auto. In succession quickly can mean semi auto and with a high capacity magazine.

2. You may be one of the few I have heard who said they would use the AR for home defense. I certainly would think you would be in the very small minority that would have things like handguns and shot guns and would chose the AR.

3. Used in hunting...my point is why? Why is there a need for a high capacity magazine to hunt a focking deer? Again, I get controlling populations of things is an issue...but I would believe other rifles would work just fine in that capacity. You don't hear complaining about a 30-06 because how many are used in mass killings? How easy is it to pull into a crowded area and start firing off multiple rounds vs that of the AR? That is the point.

 

 

Parrot...Im talking more the semi-auto with a high capacity magazine...firing off multiple rounds in quick succession (not full auto...never claiming this)...does not seem like an accurate way for 99% of the people out there to shoot.

Also was talking more from the perspective of self defense. Bringing a rifle to your shoulder vs a handgun or even a shot gun seems to be a less efficient means of protecting yourself. how many people are keeping an AR under the bed with proper locks vs. easily getting to their hand gun? I think BLS would be in a very very small minority.

 

And yes...ARs are very fun...and may have use. I am just going with the constitutional argument that I don't believe that is the type of thing the framers had in mind. The design of that weapon is to kill and be able to fire multiple shots pretty quickly.

 

 

1. Many people use AR's for home defense. I'm going to venture you'd be amazed at how many people do.

2. I don't have any locks on my AR's, shotgun or handgun. Doesn't do me much good if it's locked up and I need it. I don't have kids, BTW.

3. I would argue it's exactly what the founders/framers had in mind. And armed society helps keep the government from runaway power.

All that's needed to control the population is to disarm them. The framers just finished defeating a tyrant and were pretty adamant about keeping that from happening again.

 

I'll fully concede that if I were to use a firearm to commit a mass murder, it would be an AR15 and not my deer rifle. For exactly the same reasons you said. It's lighter, more portable, magazine fed, reliable and if used by someone who knows what they are doing, extremely accurate, even in semi auto mode.

[Mungwater 588]

Well, we seem to come to this impasse of...well, its difficult to do...so lets do nothing.

And I just don't accept that.

I don't know the answer yet...but doing nothing seems irresponsible.

What is considered a high capacity magazine? A ten round is a little bigger than a pack of cigarettes. You can easily carry multiple and its just a button to switch it out.

 

Ban 30 rounders? Okay, those usually jam up because of the long spring, go for it.

 

You can limit the magazines all you want, but that will have little impact, if anything.

[BLS 313]

Well, we seem to come to this impasse of...well, its difficult to do...so lets do nothing.

And I just don't accept that.

I don't know the answer yet...but doing nothing seems irresponsible.

 

I would argue that we should first off hold the .gov accountable and get them to enforce the current gun laws.

That would probably help with gang violence, etc. However, it won't do much/anything in regards to the recent mass shootings.

 

Those are politically-driven almost always. And usually it's a mix from left to right, so don't go blaming teabaggers. It's everyone.

 

Why? Why are people killing others en masse?

The tool they use is irrelevant in my opinion. It is certainly not the correct approach to find a real solution.

Let's find out why people are reaching this point. I have theories, but deaf ears and all that.

[BLS 313]

What is considered a high capacity magazine? A ten round is a little bigger than a pack of cigarettes. You can easily carry multiple and its just a button to switch it out.

 

Ban 30 rounders? Okay, those usually jam up because of the long spring, go for it.

 

You can limit the magazines all you want, but that will have little impact, if anything.

 

Agreed.

 

FWIW I've never had an issue with 30 round magazines not feeding reliably. Magpul anti-tilt followers (even in steel USGI mags) corrects the canting problem.

[Bert 1,091]

Well, we seem to come to this impasse of...well, its difficult to do...so lets do nothing.

And I just don't accept that.

I don't know the answer yet...but doing nothing seems irresponsible.

I don't disagree with you but things like drunk driving are currently a far bigger issue in this country. But that is also an issue no one seems to want to deal with in this country.

[Strike 3,961]

I don't disagree with you but things like drunk driving are currently a far bigger issue in this country. But that is also an issue no one seems to want to deal with in this country.

 

[Bert 1,091]

 

Why is that funny?

[Strike 3,961]

Why is that funny?

 

I assumed you had to be joking. We have done a hell of a lot re: drunk driving over the last 30 years. Do you work for MADD or something?

[Mungwater 588]

 

I assumed you had to be joking. We have done a hell of a lot re: drunk driving over the last 30 years. Do you work for MADD or something?

We have done a lot, but most of those are reactionary, maybe he wants breathalyzers in every car.

[Strike 3,961]

We have done a lot, but most of those are reactionary, maybe he wants breathalyzers in every car.

 

Better yet, let's just ban alcohol completely!!!

[Mungwater 588]

 

Better yet, let's just ban alcohol completely!!!

And cars!

[Bert 1,091]

 

I assumed you had to be joking. We have done a hell of a lot re: drunk driving over the last 30 years. Do you work for MADD or something?

30 years? Damn you are old.

[Bert 1,091]

And cars!

You just gave every enviro nut job a woody.

[Sho Nuff 719]

 

 

1. Many people use AR's for home defense. I'm going to venture you'd be amazed at how many people do.

2. I don't have any locks on my AR's, shotgun or handgun. Doesn't do me much good if it's locked up and I need it. I don't have kids, BTW.

3. I would argue it's exactly what the founders/framers had in mind. And armed society helps keep the government from runaway power.

All that's needed to control the population is to disarm them. The framers just finished defeating a tyrant and were pretty adamant about keeping that from happening again.

 

I'll fully concede that if I were to use a firearm to commit a mass murder, it would be an AR15 and not my deer rifle. For exactly the same reasons you said. It's lighter, more portable, magazine fed, reliable and if used by someone who knows what they are doing, extremely accurate, even in semi auto mode.

We are well beyond being able tbdefend from a tyrant. Your AR won't do squat for you.

Again...nobody is disarming you....

[BLS 313]

We are well beyond being able tbdefend from a tyrant. Your AR won't do squat for you.

Again...nobody is disarming you....

 

Tell that to the Afghans.

[NewbieJr 540]

I don't disagree with you but things like drunk driving are currently a far bigger issue in this country. But that is also an issue no one seems to want to deal with in this country.

They aren't dealing with it? I see billboards every five miles about it. Penalties are getting stiffer and stiffer. Short of abolishing alcohol, they're doing about all they can.

[Sho Nuff 719]

I don't disagree with you but things like drunk driving are currently a far bigger issue in this country. But that is also an issue no one seems to want to deal with in this country.

So drunk driving laws haven't changed and become more strict over the years?

[Bert 1,091]

They aren't dealing with it? I see billboards every five miles about it. Penalties are getting stiffer and stiffer. Short of abolishing alcohol, they're doing about all they can.

Penalties are not that stiff until you have multiple DUI's. Billboards? Really?

[Bert 1,091]

So drunk driving laws haven't changed and become more strict over the years?

They have and so have gun regulations.

[Strike 3,961]

Penalties are not that stiff until you have multiple DUI's. Billboards? Really?

 

This varies from state to state, but in most states you're looking at 10k for a DUI, not to mention insurance increases, going to meetings, etc......Seems pretty stiff for a first offense.

[Bert 1,091]

 

This varies from state to state, but in most states you're looking at 10k for a DUI, not to mention insurance increases, going to meetings, etc......Seems pretty stiff for a first offense.

We will have to agree to disagee.

[NewbieJr 540]

Penalties are not that stiff until you have multiple DUI's. Billboards? Really?

So what do you suggest?

[Sho Nuff 719]

They have and so have gun regulations.

And not quite even as much or as close no.

[KSB2424 3,083]

It seems to me we need to better focus on actually enforcing the laws already on the books. Maybe we should focus more on how to more efficiently and effectively do that.

[penultimatestraw 473]

 

It's the same old tired argument.

The Constitution is anachronistic; well at least the 2nd Amendment is.

 

I read your link; just so you know.

 

I realize many of you do not agree; and think it's tin foil, etc. to believe that the 2nd amendment was put there specifically for 1 purpose.

To keep the government from becoming tyrannical. Freedom comes at a cost, and nothing is completely preventable.

Let's be honest: both sides of the argument are pretty tired. I think preventing a personal crime is a much better argument than stopping a tyrannical government though. No chance in hell a few guns will stand up to the latter.

[penultimatestraw 473]

 

Better yet, let's just ban alcohol completely!!!

We just need to ban irresponsible a$$holes.

[BLS 313]

Let's be honest: both sides of the argument are pretty tired. I think preventing a personal crime is a much better argument than stopping a tyrannical government though. No chance in hell a few guns will stand up to the latter.

 

:sigh:

 

Again, tell that to the Afghans.

[penultimatestraw 473]

So what do you suggest?

One strike you're out. Lose your license, big fine. Repeat offenders go to jail. It's not like it is rocket science to avoid driving while drinking.

[penultimatestraw 473]

 

:sigh:

 

Again, tell that to the Afghans.

Afghani government/military <> US government/military

[Strike 3,961]

One strike you're out. Lose your license, big fine. Repeat offenders go to jail. It's not like it is rocket science to avoid driving while drinking.

 

The country of incarceration can add more people to it's prison population!!!! Woo Hoo!!!!!

[penultimatestraw 473]

 

The country of incarceration can add more people to it's prison population!!!! Woo Hoo!!!!!

You're right, it is a sh!tty use of jail space. The problem is, the current penalties are poor deterrents.

 

Maybe require a breathalyzer needed for ignition, installed into DUI-recipient's vehicle after first violation (funded by the fine)? Not only do you reduce drunk driving, you create jobs!

[MDC 5,890]

One strike you're out. Lose your license, big fine. Repeat offenders go to jail. It's not like it is rocket science to avoid driving while drinking.

I think a huge part of the problem is that our laws treat a guy who's had a couple over dinner and drove home too soon the same way they treat a drive who was focking ripped. Especially since the way these laws are enforced is hugely inconsistent.

 

Aside from that I'm not sure you want to seriously hurt away someone's ability to earn a living just based on one bad decision. Taking away a man's license forever for getting caught over the limit is to me pretty excessive.

[mmmmm...beer 691]

Let's be honest: both sides of the argument are pretty tired. I think preventing a personal crime is a much better argument than stopping a tyrannical government though. No chance in hell a few guns will stand up to the latter.

Yeah... vietnam and afganastaghn taught us that.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Yeah... vietnam and afganastaghn taught us that.

Get back to me when a similar situation occurs in the developed world.

[penultimatestraw 473]

I think a huge part of the problem is that our laws treat a guy who's had a couple over dinner and drove home too soon the same way they treat a drive who was focking ripped. Especially since the way these laws are enforced is hugely inconsistent.

 

Aside from that I'm not sure you want to seriously hurt away someone's ability to earn a living just based on one bad decision. Taking away a man's license forever for getting caught over the limit is to me pretty excessive.

You're right. I like the big fine/mandatory breathalyzer in vehicle idea better.

[JTB 52]

I don't think its a tired argument...given the founding fathers were writing it at a time of muskets or cannons.

 

Again...have your hunting rifles, shot guns, even concealed handguns.

I have zero interest in taking them away.

I don't even care if you stockpile ammo (though, having no way to track the complete nuts who do this is a bit scary...but such is life).

 

My concern is high capacity magazines in rifles that can squeeze off rounds in succession so quickly. What legit use is there for this? Its my understanding these are some of the worst weapons as far as home protection...they are not necessarily as accurate so they are not typical hunting weapons.

 

Other than...hey, its fun to shoot them (and I have done so...it is very fun)...what legit use is there? Educate me. (and not with the wild pig in texas excuse...that is going to be a very limited use isn't it?)

I guess I can answer and will as honestly as I can.

 

I purchased a Colt AR-15, military issue, 2 months ago. I bought it with 1 purpose, an investment that I can actually enjoy. Unlike stock, I can use and enjoy the AR-15. With that said, for a profit or course, I'd be willing to sell my gun to the Government because I really don't NEED it. I have plenty or sporting rifles, shotguns and handguns to protect my family.

 

So the long story short, I own a semi auto with a large mag capacity for an investment but don't think they are necessary good to have in the general publics hands.

 

I also have a 3D printer concern. How do we stop weapons from being fabricated by the general public?

[MDC 5,890]

You're right. I like the big fine/mandatory breathalyzer in vehicle idea better.

Works for me.

[IGotWorms 3,310]

 

Perfect. I see my apology was well received.

I was just messing with you

[parrot 789]

Afghani government/military <> US government/military

 

That's true; it's going to much harder to get the U.S. military to fire on U.S. civilians.