Government Orders 7000 "Personal Defense Weapons."

[alexava 6,973]

Most idiot mass killers are not as prepared or effecient as choi at va tech. Yes we can see instances where handguns or hunting guns can be lethal, but it takes some creativity. Ars come ready to do serious damage with little on no training, its exactly what they are made for. By the way a mag ban would ban pistol mags over 10 too i think.

[selias 2,398]

Most idiot mass killers are not as prepared or effecient as choi at va tech. Yes we can see instances where handguns or hunting guns can be lethal, but it takes some creativity. Ars come ready to do serious damage with little on no training, its exactly what they are made for. By the way a mag ban would ban pistol mags over 10 too i think.

They're no more "ready to do serious damage" than most other autloading rifles. The only difference is the furniture.

[autigeremt 6,643]

I have a hard time equating cars with 30 round magazines. Cars are very heavily regulated.

Also, I'm not accusing the guns of any wrongdoing.

The problem is not with weapons. It is with the decline of our society. And to ignore that is just ignorant on many levels. Where there is no line of what is right and what is wrong, there can be no boundary to gauge anything by. Start by repairing families and you will begin to repair our society.

I think it's a combination of the two. The high availability of deadly weapons to people that aren't quite right.

I disagree (shocker). You can have 10 weapons to every man, woman, and child....but if no one uses them on another they are just metal.

Wow that's profound. Not sure it's relevant though.

I suppose I could have used my Model 1911 to crack walnuts, but a hammer works a lot better. ;D/>

Profound? No! True? Yes!

[homersapien 11,388]

So a guy walking into a crowded place with one Semi-auto AR-15 is more dangerous than a guy with four locked and loaded Glock 9's? A weapon is neither offensive nor defensive. It is a tool. The user makes a weapon offensive or defensive.

LOL! Are you serious?

Well the obvious answer is yes, an AR-15 would be more dangerous (effective) than four pistols. I would think that is obvious.

How many pistols can you effectively shoot at one time? How many pistols can you effectively re-load at one time? (I have this mental image of starting off with one pistol in each hand like a kid playing cowboy...)

And a gun's design, like any any "tool", can still be specialized for different purposes. Assault type weapons are clearly specialized for....................... wait for it............................... assault! :-\/>

Yes I am serious. Think about it. I have one AR. 30 round mag. I shoot 30 rounds. I have to reload mags. Now:

I have four Glock 19's. locked and loaded with full clips. 15 in each clip, 1 chambered in each. That would be 64 rounds. I fire 32, drop the empty weapons, grab the loaded ones. I am back firing within a second.

It would take longer in a pressure situation to load another magazine in the AR, than it would to use four Glocks.

Get it now? Or do I need to simplify it a little more?

Right, And you're going to juggle all those pistols while you are constantly firing and maneuvering.

You really ought to get in touch with the Pentagon. You have insight that will change the whole tactical philosophy of small arms combat. Our soldiers need to ditch all those M-4s and just carry four Berettas when clearing a building. What a DA line of argument that is.

Do you get that? Do you understand my response or should I simplify it?

[homersapien 11,388]

Most idiot mass killers are not as prepared or effecient as choi at va tech. Yes we can see instances where handguns or hunting guns can be lethal, but it takes some creativity. Ars come ready to do serious damage with little on no training, its exactly what they are made for. By the way a mag ban would ban pistol mags over 10 too i think.

They're no more "ready to do serious damage" than most other autloading rifles. The only difference is the furniture.

Any auto loading rifle with detachable magazines are either equally capable or can be made equally capable.

Auto loading rifles with closed magazines are not as capable as auto loaders with detachable magazines.

The former can do more damage, more efficiently, than the latter.

[autigeremt 6,643]

Most idiot mass killers are not as prepared or effecient as choi at va tech. Yes we can see instances where handguns or hunting guns can be lethal, but it takes some creativity. Ars come ready to do serious damage with little on no training, its exactly what they are made for. By the way a mag ban would ban pistol mags over 10 too i think.

They're no more "ready to do serious damage" than most other autloading rifles. The only difference is the furniture.

Any auto loading rifle with detachable magazines are either equally capable or can be made equally capable.

Auto loading rifles with closed magazines are not as capable as auto loaders with detachable magazines.

The former can do more damage, more efficiently, than the latter.

Only if an idiot decides to use it as an offensive tool. You are never going to get your point across on this issue. Guns don't kill on their own. Period.

[Weegle777 78]

So a guy walking into a crowded place with one Semi-auto AR-15 is more dangerous than a guy with four locked and loaded Glock 9's? A weapon is neither offensive nor defensive. It is a tool. The user makes a weapon offensive or defensive.

LOL! Are you serious?

Well the obvious answer is yes, an AR-15 would be more dangerous (effective) than four pistols. I would think that is obvious.

How many pistols can you effectively shoot at one time? How many pistols can you effectively re-load at one time? (I have this mental image of starting off with one pistol in each hand like a kid playing cowboy...)

And a gun's design, like any any "tool", can still be specialized for different purposes. Assault type weapons are clearly specialized for....................... wait for it............................... assault! :-\/>

Yes I am serious. Think about it. I have one AR. 30 round mag. I shoot 30 rounds. I have to reload mags. Now:

I have four Glock 19's. locked and loaded with full clips. 15 in each clip, 1 chambered in each. That would be 64 rounds. I fire 32, drop the empty weapons, grab the loaded ones. I am back firing within a second.

It would take longer in a pressure situation to load another magazine in the AR, than it would to use four Glocks.

Get it now? Or do I need to simplify it a little more?

Right, And you're going to juggle all those pistols while you are constantly firing and maneuvering.

You really ought to get in touch with the Pentagon. You have insight that will change the whole tactical philosophy of small arms combat. Our soldiers need to ditch all those M-4s and just carry four Berettas when clearing a building. What a DA line of argument that is.

Do you get that? Do you understand my response or should I simplify it?

Sometimes I wonder if you come on this board to just argue. That example was as elementary as it can get, and you still couldn't grasp it. Either you are here just to disagree with everybody that doesn't think like you do, or you aren't very intelligent. Do you have any experience with guns or are you just spouting off your liberal company line? You called my argument a DA argument. I would have to say that my argument isn't the DA one, but your response.

[AUloggerhead 2,238]

... By the way a mag ban would ban pistol mags over 10 too i think.

Geez, thanks for the clarification. Perhaps the people in favor of banning magazine capacity should also add another ban to their law: let's ban backpack capacity too. After all, how many 10-round magazines are needed to kill a deer?

[AUGradinTX 0]

So a guy walking into a crowded place with one Semi-auto AR-15 is more dangerous than a guy with four locked and loaded Glock 9's? A weapon is neither offensive nor defensive. It is a tool. The user makes a weapon offensive or defensive.

LOL! Are you serious?

Well the obvious answer is yes, an AR-15 would be more dangerous (effective) than four pistols. I would think that is obvious.

How many pistols can you effectively shoot at one time? How many pistols can you effectively re-load at one time? (I have this mental image of starting off with one pistol in each hand like a kid playing cowboy...)

And a gun's design, like any any "tool", can still be specialized for different purposes. Assault type weapons are clearly specialized for....................... wait for it............................... assault! :-\/>

Yes I am serious. Think about it. I have one AR. 30 round mag. I shoot 30 rounds. I have to reload mags. Now:

I have four Glock 19's. locked and loaded with full clips. 15 in each clip, 1 chambered in each. That would be 64 rounds. I fire 32, drop the empty weapons, grab the loaded ones. I am back firing within a second.

It would take longer in a pressure situation to load another magazine in the AR, than it would to use four Glocks.

Get it now? Or do I need to simplify it a little more?

Right, And you're going to juggle all those pistols while you are constantly firing and maneuvering.

You really ought to get in touch with the Pentagon. You have insight that will change the whole tactical philosophy of small arms combat. Our soldiers need to ditch all those M-4s and just carry four Berettas when clearing a building. What a DA line of argument that is.

Do you get that? Do you understand my response or should I simplify it?

Sometimes I wonder if you come on this board to just argue. That example was as elementary as it can get, and you still couldn't grasp it. Either you are here just to disagree with everybody that doesn't think like you do, or you aren't very intelligent. Do you have any experience with guns or are you just spouting off your liberal company line? You called my argument a DA argument. I would have to say that my argument isn't the DA one, but your response.

Bingo!

When someone's best argument is, "I think society would be better off," or when he/she has to make up new words/terms to back that argument... yeah, he/she just can't stand to be wrong and wants to argue. No amount of data, stats, truth will make him see the light. Ever.

[tgr4lfe 220]

Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859 were killed in 2011. http://www.cdc.gov/n...stats/lcod.htm/

1. All guns are always loaded.
   
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
   
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
   
4. Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.
   —Colonel Jeff Cooper
   

That's all I want to emphasize.

Self defense can mean more than a one on one encounter.

True. But I'm afraid your point flew right over my head. My point was that the Second Amendment applies in home defense situations.

I happen to agree with Alexava. Assault weapons are better suited as offensive weapons.

Someone breaks in my house, you can damn well bet I'm gonna be on the offensive, like the guy with the night vision goggles guarding the spicy wheat thins!! Joking aside, I would be on the offensive I will have and use the element of surprise. Hopefully, be able to have some fun with him at the same time, by scaring the bejesus out of him! It'd be great to video that happening, but my focus would be on protecting my family!! Like Bigbens42 said BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET!!

[homersapien 11,388]

Most idiot mass killers are not as prepared or effecient as choi at va tech. Yes we can see instances where handguns or hunting guns can be lethal, but it takes some creativity. Ars come ready to do serious damage with little on no training, its exactly what they are made for. By the way a mag ban would ban pistol mags over 10 too i think.

They're no more "ready to do serious damage" than most other autloading rifles. The only difference is the furniture.

Any auto loading rifle with detachable magazines are either equally capable or can be made equally capable.

Auto loading rifles with closed magazines are not as capable as auto loaders with detachable magazines.

The former can do more damage, more efficiently, than the latter.

Only if an idiot decides to use it as an offensive tool. You are never going to get your point across on this issue. Guns don't kill on their own. Period.

Assuming you agree that limitations should be placed on certain categories of weapons (you know what I'm talking about), my point is simply to add semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines to those categories.

Granted, I realize there are plenty of people on this forum who don't agree with regulating any class of weapon, so it's obvious my point can't be "sold" to them. I am more interested in hearing from the people who do agree with the concept of limiting specified classes of weapons and their reasons why assault type rifles shouldn't be more restricted.

So far, I have heard a lot of emotional/fear based reasoning relating to having fight the government, but I contend that is outmoded fantasy. I know a lot will disagree with that, even though they cannot provide feasible scenarios as to how that could happen.

But again, those who sincerely believe in Obama's "secret negro army" (the OSNA) aren't going to give a s##t about realistic scenarios are they?

So, bottom line, I guess I don't really expect a serious debate. But there's no harm in trying to exhibit a rational counterpoint for those who are more rationally inclined and willing to employ critical thinking. I guess everyone else will just be happy in their bumper-sticker approach.

"Guns don't kill on their own. Period" is a nice example. Thanks.

[homersapien 11,388]

So a guy walking into a crowded place with one Semi-auto AR-15 is more dangerous than a guy with four locked and loaded Glock 9's? A weapon is neither offensive nor defensive. It is a tool. The user makes a weapon offensive or defensive.

LOL! Are you serious?

Well the obvious answer is yes, an AR-15 would be more dangerous (effective) than four pistols. I would think that is obvious.

How many pistols can you effectively shoot at one time? How many pistols can you effectively re-load at one time? (I have this mental image of starting off with one pistol in each hand like a kid playing cowboy...)

And a gun's design, like any any "tool", can still be specialized for different purposes. Assault type weapons are clearly specialized for....................... wait for it............................... assault! :-\/>

Yes I am serious. Think about it. I have one AR. 30 round mag. I shoot 30 rounds. I have to reload mags. Now:

I have four Glock 19's. locked and loaded with full clips. 15 in each clip, 1 chambered in each. That would be 64 rounds. I fire 32, drop the empty weapons, grab the loaded ones. I am back firing within a second.

It would take longer in a pressure situation to load another magazine in the AR, than it would to use four Glocks.

Get it now? Or do I need to simplify it a little more?

Right, And you're going to juggle all those pistols while you are constantly firing and maneuvering.

You really ought to get in touch with the Pentagon. You have insight that will change the whole tactical philosophy of small arms combat. Our soldiers need to ditch all those M-4s and just carry four Berettas when clearing a building. What a DA line of argument that is.

Do you get that? Do you understand my response or should I simplify it?

Sometimes I wonder if you come on this board to just argue.

Why else would I come here? To sing in the choir? Jesus, no wonder talk radio is such a hit with you people.

That example was as elementary as it can get, and you still couldn't grasp it. Either you are here just to disagree with everybody that doesn't think like you do, or you aren't very intelligent.

Yeah, you are clearly much more intelligent than I am. I am just trying to do my best.

Do you have any experience with guns or are you just spouting off your liberal company line?

Yes. I have experience with guns. I likely have much more experience that you as I have been on earth for a lot longer. I don't need the "liberal company line" whatever the hell that is.

You called my argument a DA argument. I would have to say that my argument isn't the DA one, but your response.

Have you called the Pentagon yet with your suggestion for using four pistols instead of that cumbersome M4?

[homersapien 11,388]

So a guy walking into a crowded place with one Semi-auto AR-15 is more dangerous than a guy with four locked and loaded Glock 9's? A weapon is neither offensive nor defensive. It is a tool. The user makes a weapon offensive or defensive.

LOL! Are you serious?

Well the obvious answer is yes, an AR-15 would be more dangerous (effective) than four pistols. I would think that is obvious.

How many pistols can you effectively shoot at one time? How many pistols can you effectively re-load at one time? (I have this mental image of starting off with one pistol in each hand like a kid playing cowboy...)

And a gun's design, like any any "tool", can still be specialized for different purposes. Assault type weapons are clearly specialized for....................... wait for it............................... assault! :-\/>

Yes I am serious. Think about it. I have one AR. 30 round mag. I shoot 30 rounds. I have to reload mags. Now:

I have four Glock 19's. locked and loaded with full clips. 15 in each clip, 1 chambered in each. That would be 64 rounds. I fire 32, drop the empty weapons, grab the loaded ones. I am back firing within a second.

It would take longer in a pressure situation to load another magazine in the AR, than it would to use four Glocks.

Get it now? Or do I need to simplify it a little more?

Right, And you're going to juggle all those pistols while you are constantly firing and maneuvering.

You really ought to get in touch with the Pentagon. You have insight that will change the whole tactical philosophy of small arms combat. Our soldiers need to ditch all those M-4s and just carry four Berettas when clearing a building. What a DA line of argument that is.

Do you get that? Do you understand my response or should I simplify it?

Sometimes I wonder if you come on this board to just argue. That example was as elementary as it can get, and you still couldn't grasp it. Either you are here just to disagree with everybody that doesn't think like you do, or you aren't very intelligent. Do you have any experience with guns or are you just spouting off your liberal company line? You called my argument a DA argument. I would have to say that my argument isn't the DA one, but your response.

Bingo!

When someone's best argument is, "I think society would be better off," or when he/she has to make up new words/terms to back that argument... yeah, he/she just can't stand to be wrong and wants to argue. No amount of data, stats, truth will make him see the light. Ever.

Well that's one way of getting off the hook I suppose.

By the way, I didn't mean "think" as in maybe, I meant it as I "believe". I do believe that society would be better off without the proliferation of assault type weapons for the reasons I have stated. You have had the opportunity to explain why you believe we are better off with easily-available weapons of this type. But IMO, you haven't provided any rationally-sound reasons.

And have I not addressed every "data" or "stats" argument made against my proposition? Is there one you would like to re-visit?

And "truth" is a relative concept which is typically invoked to establish an emotionally-based moral high ground in the absence of rational argument.

And I find it amusing that you are so surprised by the concept I come on here to "argue". I wonder if you understand what the object of a political thread is? But it does explain a lot.

[alexava 6,973]

Most idiot mass killers are not as prepared or effecient as choi at va tech. Yes we can see instances where handguns or hunting guns can be lethal, but it takes some creativity. Ars come ready to do serious damage with little on no training, its exactly what they are made for. By the way a mag ban would ban pistol mags over 10 too i think.

They're no more "ready to do serious damage" than most other autloading rifles. The only difference is the furniture.

Any auto loading rifle with detachable magazines are either equally capable or can be made equally capable.

Auto loading rifles with closed magazines are not as capable as auto loaders with detachable magazines.

The former can do more damage, more efficiently, than the latter.

Only if an idiot decides to use it as an offensive tool. You are never going to get your point across on this issue. Guns don't kill on their own. Period.

not sure i ever heard anyone anywhere imply guns killed on their own.

[alexava 6,973]

The two issues, mentally ill people(and potentially mentally ill) and high capacity guns. You have to deal with both. Yet the only argument the other side can spew is that of fighting our own tyrannical govt.

[autigeremt 6,643]

The two issues, mentally ill people(and potentially mentally ill) and high capacity guns. You have to deal with both. Yet the only argument the other side can spew is that of fighting our own tyrannical govt.

The mental illness issue was spouted on day 1. High capacity mags have to have a criminal with intent t do harm before thy are an issue.

[autigeremt 6,643]

Most idiot mass killers are not as prepared or effecient as choi at va tech. Yes we can see instances where handguns or hunting guns can be lethal, but it takes some creativity. Ars come ready to do serious damage with little on no training, its exactly what they are made for. By the way a mag ban would ban pistol mags over 10 too i think.

They're no more "ready to do serious damage" than most other autloading rifles. The only difference is the furniture.

Any auto loading rifle with detachable magazines are either equally capable or can be made equally capable.

Auto loading rifles with closed magazines are not as capable as auto loaders with detachable magazines.

The former can do more damage, more efficiently, than the latter.

Only if an idiot decides to use it as an offensive tool. You are never going to get your point across on this issue. Guns don't kill on their own. Period.

Assuming you agree that limitations should be placed on certain categories of weapons (you know what I'm talking about), my point is simply to add semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines to those categories.

Granted, I realize there are plenty of people on this forum who don't agree with regulating any class of weapon, so it's obvious my point can't be "sold" to them. I am more interested in hearing from the people who do agree with the concept of limiting specified classes of weapons and their reasons why assault type rifles shouldn't be more restricted.

So far, I have heard a lot of emotional/fear based reasoning relating to having fight the government, but I contend that is outmoded fantasy. I know a lot will disagree with that, even though they cannot provide feasible scenarios as to how that could happen.

But again, those who sincerely believe in Obama's "secret negro army" (the OSNA) aren't going to give a s##t about realistic scenarios are they?

So, bottom line, I guess I don't really expect a serious debate. But there's no harm in trying to exhibit a rational counterpoint for those who are more rationally inclined and willing to employ critical thinking. I guess everyone else will just be happy in their bumper-sticker approach.

"Guns don't kill on their own. Period" is a nice example. Thanks.

Just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they believe in all the OSNA crap. Detachable mags are only a means to an end. When the next fool uses an enclosed clip rifle you will want those restricted as well. Start attacking the problem instead of adding another burden on the law abiding.

[alexava 6,973]

The fool that uses an enclosed mag is not a mass killer. At least not a good one.

[AUloggerhead 2,238]

The two issues, mentally ill people(and potentially mentally ill) and high capacity guns. You have to deal with both. Yet the only argument the other side can spew is that of fighting our own tyrannical govt.

Right. That pesky ole 2nd Amendment thing again. How dare any US citizen ever use the Bill of Rights as justification in an argument?

[AUDub 11,153]

The two issues, mentally ill people(and potentially mentally ill) and high capacity guns. You have to deal with both. Yet the only argument the other side can spew is that of fighting our own tyrannical govt.

Right. That pesky ole 2nd Amendment thing again. How dare any US citizen ever use the Bill of Rights as justification in an argument?

Because whether or not the Bill of Rights can justifiably be applied in this argument is obviously a matter of opinion. Idealism vs. reality, I guess.

[homersapien 11,388]

The two issues, mentally ill people(and potentially mentally ill) and high capacity guns. You have to deal with both. Yet the only argument the other side can spew is that of fighting our own tyrannical govt.

.... High capacity mags have to have a criminal with intent t do harm before thy are an issue.

Like the mother of the Sandy Hook shooter?

[homersapien 11,388]

The two issues, mentally ill people(and potentially mentally ill) and high capacity guns. You have to deal with both. Yet the only argument the other side can spew is that of fighting our own tyrannical govt.

Right. That pesky ole 2nd Amendment thing again. How dare any US citizen ever use the Bill of Rights as justification in an argument?

So why aren't you "up in arms" about the restrictions on so many other weapons? Doesn't the second amendment apply to RPG's (for example)?

[alexava 6,973]

The two issues, mentally ill people(and potentially mentally ill) and high capacity guns. You have to deal with both. Yet the only argument the other side can spew is that of fighting our own tyrannical govt.

Right. That pesky ole 2nd Amendment thing again. How dare any US citizen ever use the Bill of Rights as justification in an argument?

So why aren't you "up in arms" about the restrictions on so many other weapons? Doesn't the second amendment apply to RPG's (for example)?

that dont fit his argument

[autigeremt 6,643]

The two issues, mentally ill people(and potentially mentally ill) and high capacity guns. You have to deal with both. Yet the only argument the other side can spew is that of fighting our own tyrannical govt.

.... High capacity mags have to have a criminal with intent t do harm before thy are an issue.

Like the mother of the Sandy Hook shooter?

Or the shooter himself. He knew right from wrong. He needed help, no doubt. But a high capacity mag had nothing to do with the reason why he lost his mind.

[AUloggerhead 2,238]

The two issues, mentally ill people(and potentially mentally ill) and high capacity guns. You have to deal with both. Yet the only argument the other side can spew is that of fighting our own tyrannical govt.

Right. That pesky ole 2nd Amendment thing again. How dare any US citizen ever use the Bill of Rights as justification in an argument?

So why aren't you "up in arms" about the restrictions on so many other weapons? Doesn't the second amendment apply to RPG's (for example)?

I'm not "up in arms" about restrictions on so many other weapons. Did you know you can legally buy a grenade launcher, or a 20 mm anti-tank gun, provided you have the time to get the necessary background checks, and of course, the disposal income to purchase them? http://www.cracked.com/article_18732_6-things-you-wont-believe-are-more-legal-than-marijuana_p2.html

What a country, huh?