Government Orders 7000 "Personal Defense Weapons."

[selias 2,398]

Im im ignoring vietnam and the middle east. Its not relevant to our situation. lets stick to the civilized world

Ok, so we're ignoring anything that doesn't support our POV. Good to know.

[selias 2,398]

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.

I would point out that the fact that although the guns have the same purpose, there is a reason the standard issue weapons for combat in the armed forces are not handguns.

"Assault weapon" is a made up political term to cover autoloading scary looking black rifles.

[AUDub 11,153]

"Assault weapon" is a made up political term to cover autoloading scary looking black rifles.

Well, I agree it is an arbitrary term. I ask this next question in all honesty, so keep your answer short. In your opinion, what is the purpose of an auto-loading rifle with a thirty round magazine?

[selias 2,398]

"Assault weapon" is a made up political term to cover autoloading scary looking black rifles.

Well, I agree it is an arbitrary term. I ask this next question in all honesty, so keep your answer short. In your opinion, what is the purpose of an auto-loading rifle with a thirty round magazine?

Short answer: convenience

[AUDub 11,153]

Short answer: convenience

Convenience for home defense?

[selias 2,398]

Short answer: convenience

Convenience for home defense?

Convenience just for the sake of convenience. An autoloading rifle is typically a poor choice for home defense. I'd go with a handgun or shotgun

You're really hung up on home defense aren't you. The primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment wasn't for home defense. It was a safety measure against a tyrannical government.

[AUDub 11,153]

No, I'm just slow on the uptake.

I don't want to put words in your mouth. Where do you personally draw the line on what weapons should be available to the general public?

[Weegle777 78]

"Assault weapon" is a made up political term to cover autoloading scary looking black rifles.

Well, I agree it is an arbitrary term. I ask this next question in all honesty, so keep your answer short. In your opinion, what is the purpose of an auto-loading rifle with a thirty round magazine?

Short answer: convenience

Don't jump off a cliff, but I believe we agree on something!

[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.

I would point out that the fact that although the guns have the same purpose, there is a reason the standard issue weapons for combat in the armed forces are not handguns.

Yes but standard issue weapons also have auto and three round burst options, along with a sidearm. An AR-15 with a 30 round mag, is less dangerous than four Glock 17's with 17 round clips. Plus the guy with the Glocks looks less suspicious than a guy with an AR.

[alexava 6,973]

With the exception of va tech. They are less successful too.

[selias 2,398]

No, I'm just slow on the uptake.

I don't want to put words in your mouth. Where do you personally draw the line on what weapons should be available to the general public?

Off-hand, I would say up to crew served weapons...but I haven't thought that much on what the limit should be.

[AUDub 11,153]

Off-hand, I would say up to crew served weapons...but I haven't thought that much on what the limit should be.

Cosmetic features of the weapon aside, does a law limiting the capacity of the magazines seem reasonable to you?

[Weegle777 78]

Joe Biden. How is this guy second in command?

[selias 2,398]

Off-hand, I would say up to crew served weapons...but I haven't thought that much on what the limit should be.

Cosmetic features of the weapon aside, does a law limiting the capacity of the magazines seem reasonable to you?

No, it's absurd. You want to curb gun violence? Look at the mental health issue. Arbitrary magazine size and cosmetic furniture does nothing but attack law abiding gun owners. "Black rifles" account for an insignificant number of gun deaths.

[cptau 169]

Joe Biden. How is this guy second in command?

When the US Army switched from M-14s firing 7.62 mm rounds to M-16s firing 5.56 mm rounds they would demo to the basic trainees the lack of any significant recoil the M-16 rife had. They did this by having someone fire the M-16 rifle with the butt of the M-16 on his groin.

[AUloggerhead 2,237]

Off-hand, I would say up to crew served weapons...but I haven't thought that much on what the limit should be.

Cosmetic features of the weapon aside, does a law limiting the capacity of the magazines seem reasonable to you?

No, it's absurd. You want to curb gun violence? Look at the mental health issue. Arbitrary magazine size and cosmetic furniture does nothing but attack law abiding gun owners. "Black rifles" account for an insignificant number of gun deaths.

Don't forget the "gun-free zone" mentality too. Even if Adam Lanza used his mother's pistols to shoot his way through the locked doors of the elem school instead of the AR-15, the fact remains that he would have been presented with the same defenseless targets with which to shoot at will. So yeah, I agree that banning semi-automatic rifles that look like assault rifles or banning magazines greater than 10 rounds would not & could not have prevented Newtown or the Clackamas Mall tragedies from happening. Once they are through the door an active shooter emergency can only be countered with a similarly armed response.

[AUDub 11,153]

Don't forget the "gun-free zone" mentality too. Even if Adam Lanza used his mother's pistols to shoot his way through the locked doors of the elem school instead of the AR-15, the fact remains that he would have been presented with the same defenseless targets with which to shoot at will. So yeah, I agree that banning semi-automatic rifles that look like assault rifles or banning magazines greater than 10 rounds would not & could not have prevented Newtown or the Clackamas Mall tragedies from happening. Once they are through the door an active shooter emergency can only be countered with a similarly armed response.

I would point the best real world example I can think of. Tucson. The shooter had at least three magazines. One of the women he had already shot took his second clip away from him as he attempted to reload. As he pulled out yet another clip, two men ran toward the shooter and tackled him.

Also, and correct me if I'm wrong, there was an armed bystander at the Giffords event. He supposedly almost shot one of the guys who tackled Loughner.

I think in the vast majority of gun crime cases things happen SO FAST that you don't have time to respond in the fashion you might wish to. Highly trained police and military guys who are on alert - yeah. You or me, focusing on something else? Not so much. This is my biggest complaint with the 'arm everyone!' movement.

[alexava 6,973]

More reloading means less shooting, plain and simple. I think the az. Shooting was almost exactly as you explained, i cant remember if he had 2 clips or 3. He did in fact fumble while changing and i read they were 33round mags. I didnt know a glock had that high capacity, glock 19 model maybe.

[alexava 6,973]

Im not against law abiding, sane people being armed. Nor is anyone in washington to my knowledge.. But you are correct that arming everyone like its the wild west is not the cure all.

[cptau 169]

Don't forget the "gun-free zone" mentality too. Even if Adam Lanza used his mother's pistols to shoot his way through the locked doors of the elem school instead of the AR-15, the fact remains that he would have been presented with the same defenseless targets with which to shoot at will. So yeah, I agree that banning semi-automatic rifles that look like assault rifles or banning magazines greater than 10 rounds would not & could not have prevented Newtown or the Clackamas Mall tragedies from happening. Once they are through the door an active shooter emergency can only be countered with a similarly armed response.

I would point the best real world example I can think of. Tucson. The shooter had at least three magazines. One of the women he had already shot took his second clip away from him as he attempted to reload. As he pulled out yet another clip, two men ran toward the shooter and tackled him.

Also, and correct me if I'm wrong, there was an armed bystander at the Giffords event. He supposedly almost shot one of the guys who tackled Loughner.

I think in the vast majority of gun crime cases things happen SO FAST that you don't have time to respond in the fashion you might wish to. Highly trained police and military guys who are on alert - yeah. You or me, focusing on something else? Not so much. This is my biggest complaint with the 'arm everyone!' movement.

Don't assume the police are that good either in a shootout, or somebody with a knife. The NY police have some problems.

http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0

The encounter was breathtakingly brief: a surveillance video showed a gunman outside the Empire State Building on Friday pulling a pistol, pointing it at two police officers, their firing at him and his falling to the sidewalk.

All the yelling and cries of pain occurred out of camera view, just north of where the gunman, Jeffrey T. Johnson, collapsed and died: nine bystanders were struck, cradling bloody arms or lying on the sidewalks and curbs.

The police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, confirmed on Saturday that all nine were wounded by police bullets, bullet fragments or shrapnel from ricochets. Mr. Kelly also confirmed that the shooter, Mr. Johnson, never fired another shot after killing a former co-worker, Steven Ercolino, moments earlier.

“We had a witness that said that Johnson fired at the police,” Mr. Kelly said Saturday. “But the final count of the shells, it appears that that is not the case.”

It was the second time in two weeks that police officers fired fusillades on the crowded streets of Midtown — 28 shots fired between the two episodes — and with it, there were once again questions of police protocol in urban settings. In the first shooting, no bystanders were struck when officers fired 12 shots at a man with a knife just south of Times Square.

The police also kill and injure people they hit on the road when chasing people in hot pursuit. Many times the person they are chasing is not really dangerous, they just have a stolen car or are wanted on some arrest warrant. So stop high speed police pursuits?

http://www.fbi.gov/s...police-pursuits

"Perhaps the most compelling, ongoing, and logical reason for law enforcement’s continued interest in high-speed vehicle pursuits has been its concern in balancing the values of crime control and offender apprehension with ensuring the safety of all parties who potentially might be involved—police officers, suspects, victims, bystanders, and the community.”¹ This balancing test has formed the cornerstone of pursuit policies, training, and practice for the past several decades.

Police pursuit records provide some frightening statistics. First, the majority of police pursuits involve a stop for a traffic violation. Second, one person dies every day as a result of a police pursuit. On average, from 1994 through 1998, one law enforcement officer was killed every 11 weeks in a pursuit, and 1 percent of all U.S. law enforcement officers who died in the line of duty lost their lives in vehicle pursuits. Innocent third parties who just happened to be in the way constitute 42 percent of persons killed or injured in police pursuits. Further, 1 out of every 100 high-speed pursuits results in a fatality.²

[AUloggerhead 2,237]

Don't forget the "gun-free zone" mentality too. Even if Adam Lanza used his mother's pistols to shoot his way through the locked doors of the elem school instead of the AR-15, the fact remains that he would have been presented with the same defenseless targets with which to shoot at will. So yeah, I agree that banning semi-automatic rifles that look like assault rifles or banning magazines greater than 10 rounds would not & could not have prevented Newtown or the Clackamas Mall tragedies from happening. Once they are through the door an active shooter emergency can only be countered with a similarly armed response.

I would point the best real world example I can think of. Tucson. The shooter had at least three magazines. One of the women he had already shot took his second clip away from him as he attempted to reload. As he pulled out yet another clip, two men ran toward the shooter and tackled him.

Also, and correct me if I'm wrong, there was an armed bystander at the Giffords event. He supposedly almost shot one of the guys who tackled Loughner.

I think in the vast majority of gun crime cases things happen SO FAST that you don't have time to respond in the fashion you might wish to. Highly trained police and military guys who are on alert - yeah. You or me, focusing on something else? Not so much. This is my biggest complaint with the 'arm everyone!' movement.

Never said to "arm everyone." I'm just against knee-jerk legislation that accomplishes little more than to put hurdles in front of law-abiding citizens who freely choose to take the step of arming themselves.

I will correct you on the mass shooting incident in Tucson -- the guy who made the tackle was shot by Loughner himself. The individual who had a CCW permit and was armed showed up after Loughner was subdued. So, he didn't "almost shoot" an innocent bystander. He didn't shoot anyone.

A better example of why any proposed ban on limiting magazines to 10 rounds or less will be ineffective is the Va Tech mass shooting incident. In his backpack, Choi was carrying almost 400 rounds of ammo in 19 magazines of either 10 or 15 rounds. And unfortunately for his 49 victims, he didn't fumble or drop his magazines during reloading like Loughner did in Tucson.

[AUDub 11,153]

Never said to "arm everyone." I'm just against knee-jerk legislation that accomplishes little more than to put hurdles in front of law-abiding citizens who freely choose to take the step of arming themselves.

I apologize. I don't want to put words in your mouth. I wasn't referring to you, and it was probably best I kept that part of my opinion to myself.

I will correct you on the mass shooting incident in Tucson -- the guy who made the tackle was shot by Loughner himself. The individual who had a CCW permit and was armed showed up after Loughner was subdued. So, he didn't "almost shoot" an innocent bystander. He didn't shoot anyone.

Thank you. I recalled a bit differently.

A better example of why any proposed ban on limiting magazines to 10 rounds or less will be ineffective is the Va Tech mass shooting incident. In his backpack, Choi was carrying almost 400 rounds of ammo in 19 magazines of either 10 or 15 rounds. And unfortunately for his 49 victims, he didn't fumble or drop his magazines during reloading like Loughner did in Tucson.

Why is your example better? Were it me, I'd be waiting for a reload to make a move, no matter how hopeless it may seem. Like alexava said, more reloading is less shooting.

Don't assume the police are that good either in a shootout, or somebody with a knife. The NY police have some problems.

The police also kill and injure people they hit on the road when chasing people in hot pursuit. Many times the person they are chasing is not really dangerous, they just have a stolen car or are wanted on some arrest warrant. So stop high speed police pursuits?

http://www.fbi.gov/s...police-pursuits

I want to know what you think about limiting the magazines, not why you think the police are inept.

[Weegle777 78]

The big push to put all of these measures in place by the government is geared toward the people who will actually go through the legal process of buying weaponry. What exactly is the government doing to limit the access of the people they should be focusing on? ACTUAL CRIMINALS NOT LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. Limiting magazine capacity is ridiculous. It's like soaking up water from a water leak when you could just turn the faucet off. This whole push by the government is purely emotional.

[selias 2,398]

A drunk driver causes an accident and kills a family, we blame the drunk. Applying gun control logic to this, we should be blaming the car and the car manufacturer. A firearm is a tool, it it neither inherently good or evil.

Something said by Dr. Carr in one of my networking classes at Auburn has stuck with me through the years: All technology is inherently neutral. It's up to each end user to determine the application be it good or evil.

[Weegle777 78]

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.