How scary they look is the most important criteria. On a serious note, I have enjoyed reading the civil discussion. I've had JUST enough work to keep me from devoting enough time to try and put my thoughts to words. Summarily, I fall into the category that banning or restricting mag capacity, semi-auto weapons, scary looking guns, instituting wait periods, or anything else of that nature will have ZERO impact on reducing mass shootings. The focus must lie in keeping unstable individuals from getting these weapons. Which is going to be complex, but I think the only real way to make a dent. Education on warning signs and hi-risk behaviors. Surely there's been enough study on these mass shooters now the same as there has been for serial killers to develope a pattern. they should start educating parents, teachers, doctors, doctors & others who interact often with people what hi risk behavior to look for nad keep those peopel from accessing guns. They need to look at parents letting thier 10 year olds play 1st person shooter games non stop. Movies that glorify killing people. Kids growing up seeing and partaking this behavior have ZERO concept of what shooting or killing something really is. It's just another video game to them. They need to look at security, and this 100% laughable joke of gun free zones being safe. Gun free zones are the all you can eat candy stores to mass shooters. My work building has NO real security and is a "gun free" zone. I guess that little sign in the lobby (that is actually in the center of the building and not at the actual entrance) will make bad guys stop & turn around. Or maybe make one of the 76 bitter employees not decide to come back & exact revenge on the place.
I buy everclear all the time to make my famous apple cider... Busted! Everyone still avoids my question. Pistols kill way more people in America than semi auto rifles... Why are they not first on the list? Is it somehow less tragic when 100 people are murdered over the span of a month vs 20 in one day? And you want to discuss lethality. Give a below average gun user three options. A) a shotgun that holds 10-15 rounds B) two pistols that hold 11 rounds each or C) an AR with a 30 round mag. Who kills the most people walking into a room of kids huddled together. Shotgun from close range is a sure fire death nearly guaranteed with every trigger pull, maybe multiple. Pistols and ARs take much more accuracy and weapon efficiency to get kill shots (more wounded survivors). Any way you approach it ARs aren't much different than other guns in close quarters ( they stand out in longer range scenarios such as in combat from across a field). No matter which angle you approach a gun ban, it's a slippery slope because all of them are so lethal in the wrong hands. Banning one sets up a much easier battle to ban the next one than the battle to ban the initial gun of choice. In close quarters, I still adamantly believe pistols are far and away the most deadly/easy to use weapon. That's why they are used so much more frequently.
Complex situation for sure. The problem is...anyone could have used a revolver with a couple speed loaders to do the same thing in this situation. It's not the gun, its the NUT behind the gun. I don't know what the answer is but I know that if you give an inch, they'll take a mile. While I could care less about AR type guns personally, I don't want to see them banned for this exact reason. Good discussion guys.
Still wish you would have played the pretend game. This group seems to play nice today. I haven't gotten sand in my eye once. I think they banned the high alcohol content Everclear, no? At least I think they did here due to college kids dieing from alcohol poisoning. I suppose my Scotch is next.......bummer, damn slippery slope.
You guys are forgetting the most important thing that any new restrictions, bans or taxes placed on fire arms or ammunition will have to meet, and thats how these putrid politicians can spin them to make them more palatable to the voting masses. Its all about getting re elected, never for get that!
We were just taking it easy on you liberals. I couldn't even finish typing that without busting out laughing. :D
I know my homestate of MN banned Everclear, but its legal here in SD! I dont know what i'd do without my apple pie.
"It's not the gun, its the NUT behind the gun." I think it's both and something will be done about both. Either with gun owners input or without it. Burying our heads in the sand or the flag (like the NRA lately) ain't going to do squat. It's very clear to me that it is in my best interest as a gun owner to make sure we don't look like uncaring, uncompromising fools by fighting any regulation. Yes nut jobs or the parents of nut jobs who leave weapons laying around screwed this up for the rest of us but we gun owners do have some responsibility to deal with it. IMO, AW's are like 18 wheelers. Not everyone should be able to use them just cause they know how it works. And now that we have resisted any regulation on AW's, none of us will be able to buy them. Sucks, but the NRA's stance of zero regulation had something to do with that. That's why they get no $$ from me.
How exactly do you legislate against bad parents and "nuts" buying guns... Is there a lie detector test involved, breathalyzer? If people are the problem how do we determine which people can and which people can't under your scenario?
I would like to agree with you on this....but, some of these idiots go against everything that seems intelligent and everyone screams for their head. Then, they re-elect the dumbass. There seems to be a lot of idiots electing idiots these days. The politicians are being held less and less accountable by their constituents for some reason. Apathy?
If I am in room of zombies I want an ar15 with a 100 mag clip. Anyone who wants a shot gun I want them standing next to me. I just have to outlast them before the zombies get him. It's like running away from a grizzly bear. I just have to be faster than the slowest guy.
I am still confused... we are trusting clowns that can't pass a budget, can't spend less than they take in and can't stay in office without cheating on their spouse to decide whether or not the rest of us should be armed. I just don't get it.
So your argument against semi-autos having a defensive purpose is creating a defensive situation and asking which gun you'd want to have?? Weird. BTW, A 100 mag is going to fail pretty quickly and then you're left with an unwieldy club. Ideally, you'd have a pistol with many high capactiy magazines if you were trapped in a small space with multiple attackers.
When did I say semi-autos dont have a defensive purpose? Not following you here. They were designed for defense. You will have to explain your remark for me to discuss it.
So, if my twisted mind told me that a room full of school kids were my attackers, I would definitely want to go in there with multiple high capacity magazines to inflict the most damage, right? Makes sense, and I completely agree.
