Assualt weapons

[_Quasimodo]

Maybe a thread on assault weapons wasn't a great idea. I hadn't expected as much animosity as it has engendered.

I guess the subject of guns is a lot like the subject of religion. People that love their religion really LOVE their religion and people that love their guns really LOVE their guns.

I have been around both all my life, but I have never been emotional about either one (except maybe the pellet gun I got for Xmas when I was twelve... just like Ralphie).

One of my brother-in-laws is an avid gun collector. He has hundreds of all types. He is a great guy and would never harm anyone, but if I didn't think it would cause a family dispute, I would ask him why he didn't collect coins instead.

Maybe that would be a good second question to ask. What is the allure in collecting guns? A person could probably defend his/ her household with one gun. Why do we need so many?

I'm expecting a call someday from my BIL saying that his house was burglarized and all his guns were stolen. Enough to equip a small army.

[_maklelan]

Maybe a thread on assault weapons wasn't a great idea. I hadn't expected as much animosity as it has engendered.

I guess the subject of guns is a lot like the subject of religion. People that love their religion really LOVE their religion and people that love their guns really LOVE their guns.

I have been around both all my life, but I have never been emotional about either one (except maybe the pellet gun I got for Xmas when I was twelve... just like Ralphie).

One of my brother-in-laws is an avid gun collector. He has hundreds of all types. He is a great guy and would never harm anyone, but if I didn't think it would cause a family dispute, I would ask him why he didn't collect coins instead.

Maybe that would be a good second question to ask. What is the allure in collecting guns? A person could probably defend his/ her household with one gun. Why do we need so many?

I'm expecting a call someday from my BIL saying that his house was burglarized and all his guns were stolen. Enough to equip a small army.

It's become an identity marker for many people. More guns = more American/Christian/conservative.



For other's, as I've tried to point out, more guns = more manly:

[_Lemmie]

Maybe a thread on assault weapons wasn't a great idea. I hadn't expected as much animosity as it has engendered.

I guess the subject of guns is a lot like the subject of religion. People that love their religion really LOVE their religion and people that love their guns really LOVE their guns.

I have been around both all my life, but I have never been emotional about either one (except maybe the pellet gun I got for Xmas when I was twelve... just like Ralphie).

One of my brother-in-laws is an avid gun collector. He has hundreds of all types. He is a great guy and would never harm anyone, but if I didn't think it would cause a family dispute, I would ask him why he didn't collect coins instead.

Maybe that would be a good second question to ask. What is the allure in collecting guns? A person could probably defend his/ her household with one gun. Why do we need so many?

I'm expecting a call someday from my BIL saying that his house was burglarized and all his guns were stolen. Enough to equip a small army.

It's become an identity marker for many people. More guns = more American/Christian/conservative.



For other's, as I've tried to point out, more guns = more manly:

What is it you have been trying to point out? the sexism that can be found in advertising campaigns? the sexism inherent in your statement 'more guns =more manly'?

If this is your attempt to admit you have been sexist in this thread, apology accepted.

[_subgenius]

Given the US constitutional amendment, any weapon of any sort should be permissible for a citizen to possess.

The idea that one cannot defend oneself is abhorrent to the fundamental structure of our community.

So, yes, any assault weapon should be allowed for all law abiding citizen of the United states

Just another lame straw man.

Please demonstrate where anyone ever said you shouldn't be allowed to defend yourself.

And then go ahead and demonstrate when and where people have ever used AR-15s to defend themselves. These are not self defense weapons. That's why they call them assault weapons. That's what they're designed for. Almost all the guns used for self defense are hand guns. No one is saying we should ban hand guns. Got it?

Probably not. So go ahead with your next ignorant straw man.

1. It seems that you don't understand how the straw man works, but that's ok, cause it ain't here.
2. Your narrow view of that which a person may defend themself from is erroneous. A handgun with a magazine limitation may be insufficient in many real world situations.
3. You often rely on the "show me where" or "show me when" method of argument. Aside from the obvious intellectual shortcoming of such a juvenile response, there is the obvious rebuttal of the AR15 is obviously an effective deterrent to any attack, thus negating it's actual use to defend. Also note that you cannot show us where/when the strict gun bans and gun laws in California saved 14 peoplelast week.
4. My rebuttal above was not model specific because that sort of cherry picking us for those opinions that are intellectually starved and without a foundation in common sense.
5. Any attempt to diminish the 2nd amendment is a diminished of self defense, ergo you are disallowing self defense. It's like your posts have no awareness of how the 2nd amendment came about or even it history from English common law, or even Blackstone's rather eloquent commentary on the matter....in short, your posts lack rigor and are founded mostly in the intellectual void of whatever liberal emotion du jour is being spooned into your brain.

[_ldsfaqs]

There is a reason why Police went from primarily having "Revolvers" to switching to Semi-Auto's like Glocks, S&W's, etc.
The higher capacity magazines are often needed.

Civilians are no different from needing standard capacity or high capacity. All a bad guy has to do is hide behind a corner, and keep trying to kill you, and it's a gun fight, where all the rounds you can get is life or death.

[_Quasimodo]

There is a reason why Police went from primarily having "Revolvers" to switching to Semi-Auto's like Glocks, S&W's, etc.
The higher capacity magazines are often needed.

Civilians are no different from needing standard capacity or high capacity. All a bad guy has to do is hide behind a corner, and keep trying to kill you, and it's a gun fight, where all the rounds you can get is life or death.

How often does this happen to you, ldsfaqs? It doesn't seem to be a very likely scenario.

[_ludwigm]

Please elaborate on this system an how you see it shaving numbers off of that 0.00007 percent margin.

Could you elaborate what this 0.00007 percent margin is?

Mak follows this stuff closely (I haven't for years, not sure why I piped up now) tells us that France has 3 in 100k gun related deaths, where the US has 10 in 100k ... the difference/margin between the two is 0.00007.

Sorry... I know nothing of weapons --- on being a poor veteran after 39 years service. I've never ever shot the evil enemy with my radars.

But I must say the math works differently.

In France the mentioned rate is 70% LESS than in US. Less than 1/3 of it, if I don't use such complicated function as "percent".

Looking it from the other direction, in US the rate is 233% MORE than in France. More than 3 times more.

[_RockSlider]

There is a reason why Police went from primarily having "Revolvers" to switching to Semi-Auto's like Glocks, S&W's, etc.
The higher capacity magazines are often needed.

Actually most agencies used 1911 45's (semi-auto, typically carried "locked and loaded" as the 1911 is a single action) and those that did not used 357's. Two of the main reasons for this were:

1. both of these caliber/hand guns statistically gave "one shot stops" 95% of the time.
2. The lower velocities and large calibers did not tend to through-and-through hitting non-intentional people behind the target.

The 9mm that most moved to is where the "triple tap" came from (chest, chest, head). With one-shot-stops being somewhere around 60%. So even the 6 round 357 was the equivalent of 18 9mm rounds .

I used to find it interesting that government agencies typically moved to the 40's instead of the 9mm's. Kind of like that cop shows battles of who's the boss between the minions and the feds.

Of course that 40 is going to be almost as good as the 45 in one shot stops without the disadvantages of the single action 1911.

But as Mak would point out walking around locked and loaded showed real big proxy dicks. (Colt 1911's are still the coolest semi-auto hand gun) by the way, 1911 was the year Colt introduced it to the market.





shown locked and loaded

[_RockSlider]

Maybe an interesting "Politically Correct"?

I let an old conceal carry permit expire and redid the required classes to get a new one about 3 years back.

Turns out that over the years, using the term "one-shot-stop" and talking about statistical probabilities of various self defense hand guns to kill with one shot (ok, so one-shot-stop was politically correct before there was such a thing) became taboo. Of course the idea here also being to make that one shot to the chest (biggest target, lungs/heart).

Of course this all originally comes from law enforcement's terminology/practices which even back in the day was based on lawsuits and disciplinary actions. "Only used the given standard of force required to stop him from what his was doing you're honor."

Well of course when they moved to 9mm and knew damn well they were going to have to shoot them at least twice to stop em, a new standard was needed to avoid the appearance of overkill in the courts.

So what do we get in-place of this? 60% + 60% to the chest, and a hail Mary for that final head shot, the triple tap. A new court accepted terminology and practice.

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. If a citizen in a self defense situation, unloads their clip on someone (overkill) they are wide open for criminal as well as civil action. But if one triple-tap stops someone, like the cops do, all is good!

I've had a conceal carry off and on for many years. I have all the equipment for several of my hand guns but have never really carried. My wife also has a conceal carry. After this recent CA shooting I told her that I think I will start to carry. She said she was thinking the same.

Either of us will be glad to defend you as well Mak, if we ever found ourselves hiding behind an office table.

Oh and Mak, my wife is super hot, irresistible actually when she goes open holster, lock and loaded.

but I would not mess with her if I were you. Statistically, in competition shooting, women shooters rule over men shooters

[_Kevin Graham]

There is a reason why Police went from primarily having "Revolvers" to switching to Semi-Auto's like Glocks, S&W's, etc.
The higher capacity magazines are often needed.

Civilians are no different from needing standard capacity or high capacity. All a bad guy has to do is hide behind a corner, and keep trying to kill you, and it's a gun fight, where all the rounds you can get is life or death.

What a ridiculous comment. You and subgenius have completely deluded yourselves. People never need high capacity magazines for "self defense," unless of course they're trying to shoot cops while driving the "get away" car. Name me a single example of some innocent bystander needing more than a few rounds for "self defense." I doubt you could name one in the past decade. You guys truly do live in this imaginary world based on Spike TV.