Government Orders 7000 "Personal Defense Weapons."

[Weegle777 78]

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.

Almost word for word what I said a few posts up.

[AUDub 11,152]

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.

[autigeremt 6,639]

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.

[AUloggerhead 2,236]

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.

(1) Criminals don't respect laws. If you pass the law to limit magazines to 10 rounds ... what makes you think a criminally insane person (such as Lanza, Loughner, Holmes, Choi, etc.) will bother with committing their crime with a "legal" magazine? It's ludicrous to think they will confine themselves to lawful behavior if they're bent on committing mass murder in the first place(!) Also, the sudden imposition of a ban on magazine size will instantly create a black market for the existing magazines. They are not going to evaporate into thin air.

(2) if you had been at Va Tech at the time of the mass murder, I don't think you would have fared any better than the other students that were present. Choi had two pistols and managed to keep anyone from rushing him as he reloaded. The point is, Choi utilized multiple weapons & magazines to carry out his shooting rampage. If you limit magazines to 10 rounds and assuming he's going to follow all gun laws (lol!)19 magazines means he gets to carry 190 rounds in his backpack. Even if he only fires off about half of that amount, we're still talking about a bloody massacre.

Again, feel-good legislation often has unintended consequences and won't address the real problem. I'm against these proposed gun control laws for those reasons. The general public would be better off if the federal privacy laws re the disclosure of medical info of mentally disturbed individuals were revised. Also, let's use common sense regarding "gun-free zones." For the same reason that no right-minded homeowner would put up a front yard sign stating his house is a "gun-free zone," there is no rational reason to alert would be mass murderers with "gun-free zone" signs at our schools, theaters & malls. Better for them to have some doubt whether or not they would be met with an immediate armed response.

[selias 2,398]

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.

True, it's hard to equate automobiles with firearms...automobiles kill more people.

I agree that it's a mental health issue but why punish everyone because of the actions of a few?

[AUDub 11,152]

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.

But we do.

True, it's hard to equate automobiles with firearms...automobiles kill more people.

Cars don't kill people. They are just as inanimate as a 30 round magazine. This doesn't refute my reasoning.

I agree that it's a mental health issue but why punish everyone because of the actions of a few?

If we're still on the car example, why do you have to pass a test o legally operate a vehicle on public roads. Is not allowing people without a license to drive considered punishment?

[AUDub 11,152]

Loggerhead.

1. You're correct, they won't be going away anytime soon.

2. Cho obviously planned and executed the act very well (that sounds terrible). It was different from Tucson or Newtown. But I would still do my best to stop it. In my opinion, when he wasn't shooting was the best time to try. And you're correct, it would have still been a massacre, but maybe it would have been 30 instead of 50.

I agree with your stance on the mental health aspect, but it's by no means a catch all. We already have lines concerning what sort of weapons should be available to the general public. I guess we just disagree on where that line should be drawn.

EDIT: fixing autocorrected words.

[selias 2,398]

Cars don't kill people. They are just as inanimate as a 30 round magazine. This doesn't refute my reasoning.

If we're still on the car example, why do you have to pass a test o legally operate a vehicle on public roads. Is not allowing people without a license to drive considered punishment?

Yet, you're willing to lay the blame of shooting deaths on firearms?

Mandatory safety training when purchasing a firearm? I could support that.

[homersapien 11,382]

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! :-\

[AUDub 11,152]

Yet, you're willing to lay the blame of shooting deaths on firearms?

Mandatory safety training when purchasing a firearm? I could support that.

But I don't blames the guns. I understand that no gun will ever harm someone without another human holding it. By proposing limitations I am by no means punishing the guns.

Mandatory safety training would be excellent, in my opinion. I wouldn't stop there, but if it's the best we could do I'd be satisfied.

[homersapien 11,382]

Sorry. I disagree. There is a violence problem is this country. The problem is, that violence is very rarely committed with the weapons you want banned. Take away the guns all you want. You should be taking away the mental issues at the root, though. It makes zero sense.

And the main thing that makes me uncertain of future generations' security isn't guns. It's people that progressively feel the need to whittle away at personal liberty because they succumb to artificial hysteria. Lets face it, you are scared. Why are you scared and who scared you? Is your fear warranted? Is overreaction common in your life?

I would suggest you take a step back, think about the situation as a whole and re-evaluate. The fear you feel is smoke and mirrors. WDE.

This is one of the most ironic posts I've seen on this forum. And that's saying a lot.

[homersapien 11,382]

Hold up for a second. You think gun owners need to justify why they need certain legal guns? That's backwards. The people that want to take them away should carry that burden. The problem is, the only reason you have is you "think society would be better off". That's not good enough for me. The data shows there is no AR-15 problem in this country. Therefore, I can't justify taking them away from people. Especially if the biggest reason for doing so starts with "I think".

I think that in a debate, each side needs to defend (or "justify") it's position.

Lots of people, including other gun owners such as myself, feel that society would be better off....

I reject the proposition that data don't indicate we have a problem with AR-15 type weapons. The sort of data you refer to would probably would "say" we don't have a problem with automatic versions of the AR-15 were they legalized. No one claims that all of a sudden, AR-15's are going to cause massive numbers of gun-related deaths. I doubt that if submachine guns (for example) were made readily available, they would ever surpass pistols for the number of gun-related deaths. (Same is true for my proverbial grenade launchers )

But there is little doubt we would have deadly incidents involving these weapons, perhaps on a much larger scale that we have seen. (Although I would argue that a fully auto AR-15 is only marginally more deadly than a semi-auto version.)

In other words, a data-based argument for restricting these sort of weapons is a red herring. (But who knows? Maybe after we increase the numbers of AR-type rifles to tens of millions, this sort of data argument will develop some relevance, just in a different direction)

This is more about common sense than it is shear numbers of casualties. Common sense requires you to compare benefits to costs. I argue there are no real benefits and the costs, even if relatively small compared to pistols (for example) aren't necessary.

Then, why is so much political energy being used on AR-15s when if they're truly worried about gun violence, why not go after hand guns too since they account for much more murders?

Well personally, I would say its for the same reason that we don't "go after cars" because they result in more deaths than firearms.

If one assumes the right to arm yourself for personal protection is roughly as important - or has the equivalent utlility - as using cars for transportation, then a certain amount of accidental deaths comes with it.

There is a difference in the nature of the each "tool". Cars are much less likely to be used as weapons and have a much greater utility than guns (generally speaking) but the principle is the same.

[homersapien 11,382]

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.

I think the point is, if you are going to use historical analogies, use relevant ones. The political conditions existent in Viet Nam and Iraq have no relevance to the United States.

[homersapien 11,382]

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.

RPG's and grenade launchers (sorry) don't need crews.

[homersapien 11,382]

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.

Imagine one of these mass shooters actually using more of a military tactic such as fire and maneuver - shoot up one classroom (for example) or one area of a large venue (for example) and then running to another classroom or area. What sort of weapon is ideal for that sort of "assault" technique?

Sure, you use such techniques with a pistol or shotgun, but there's a reason that assault type rifles exist, They are much more lethal and better suited for such tactics, especially with additional nuances such as taped magazines.

This is why I say the term "assault rifle" covers a lot more than just cosmetics. They are what they are.

[homersapien 11,382]

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.

That's strange reasoning. Pointing out how much ammo he didn't use makes the case for limiting magazines.

If he had an AR-15 and was using taped 30 round mags, he would have gone through a lot more ammo. And more powerful rounds at that.

[homersapien 11,382]

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.

I agree. Limiting magazine capacity alone is a pretty pathetic proposal in terms of addressing the issue.

But I disagree that "this whole push by the government" is purely emotional. I would hope that most people would recognize that a lot of arguments are being offered on this very thread that are more reasoned-based than emotional. In fact, the emotional-based arguments are being proposed more by the anti-regulation side than the regulation side.

[homersapien 11,382]

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.

Uh, we already blame the shooter for shooting murders also.

The point is, just as we as a society have reduced the incidence of drunk driving tragedies (and we have) there is a lot we can do to prevent mass random shootings, which are really acts of terrorism. Restricting the availability of military-purposed arms is an obvious tactic.

[homersapien 11,382]

(1) Criminals don't respect laws. If you pass the law to limit magazines to 10 rounds ... what makes you think a criminally insane person (such as Lanza, Loughner, Holmes, Choi, etc.) will bother with committing their crime with a "legal" magazine? It's ludicrous to think they will confine themselves to lawful behavior if they're bent on committing mass murder in the first place(!) Also, the sudden imposition of a ban on magazine size will instantly create a black market for the existing magazines. They are not going to evaporate into thin air.

Hasn't that point been addressed multiple times? The fact that criminals will disobey laws (by definition) doesn't mean that laws are pointless to begin with.

(2) if you had been at Va Tech at the time of the mass murder, I don't think you would have fared any better than the other students that were present. Choi had two pistols and managed to keep anyone from rushing him as he reloaded. The point is, Choi utilized multiple weapons & magazines to carry out his shooting rampage. If you limit magazines to 10 rounds and assuming he's going to follow all gun laws (lol!)19 magazines means he gets to carry 190 rounds in his backpack. Even if he only fires off about half of that amount, we're still talking about a bloody massacre.

Likewise, this has also been addressed repeatedly. The fact that mass shooting can be accomplished with sporting arms or pistols is no reason not to have limitations on more capable weapons, like assault rifles, grenades, etc.

Again, feel-good legislation often has unintended consequences and won't address the real problem.

And again, I think we pretty much all agree with that. I certainly do.

I'm against these proposed gun control laws for those reasons. The general public would be better off if the federal privacy laws re the disclosure of medical info of mentally disturbed individuals were revised. Also, let's use common sense regarding "gun-free zones." For the same reason that no right-minded homeowner would put up a front yard sign stating his house is a "gun-free zone," there is no rational reason to alert would be mass murderers with "gun-free zone" signs at our schools, theaters & malls. Better for them to have some doubt whether or not they would be met with an immediate armed response.

Again, I think everyone agrees there are many things that should be considered. But the point is that they should not be considered exclusively. This particular thread is about regulating the availability of certain classes of weapons. I am sure we could generate an equally long thread on limiting the availability of guns to people with mental issues. In fact, I suggest that subject is a lot more complicated and problematic than simple regulation of guns.

[homersapien 11,382]

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.

[homersapien 11,382]

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.

True, it's hard to equate automobiles with firearms...automobiles kill more people.

Not to mention illness and simple old age. In fact, there are a lot of things that kill more people and one of them is going to kill every one of us.

I agree that it's a mental health issue but why punish everyone because of the actions of a few?

Well, you see, the problem is we can't actually really identify the "few" until after the fact.

And depending on how you define good mental health, most, if not all, of us can be a candidates at various periods in our lives. Heck, the male brain doesn't typically reach emotional maturity until the mid-twenties. And don't get me started about ordinary depression. We would probably benefit as a society if we put Prozac in the drinking water.

[homersapien 11,382]

Cars don't kill people. They are just as inanimate as a 30 round magazine. This doesn't refute my reasoning.

If we're still on the car example, why do you have to pass a test o legally operate a vehicle on public roads. Is not allowing people without a license to drive considered punishment?

Yet, you're willing to lay the blame of shooting deaths on firearms?

Right. Just like we blame the car instead of the drunk driver. :-\

This should be recognized as a specious argument by now.

[AUloggerhead 2,236]

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.

That's strange reasoning. Pointing out how much ammo he didn't use makes the case for limiting magazines.

If he had an AR-15 and was using taped 30 round mags, he would have gone through a lot more ammo. And more powerful rounds at that.

You've completely missed the point (why am I not surprised?) Choi used 2 handguns & 19 magazines to carry out his murders. Let that sink in for a moment ... 19 freaking magazines. Even if a law had been in place limiting his choice of magazine capacity to 10 rounds (and assuming he would dutifully obey this law,) he would still have committed the murders with his 2 handguns & 19 reduced capacity magazines. And whether he killed/wounded 49 or 39 or 29 or 19 is irrelevant to the fact that it still would have represented yet another needless bloodbath in this country by a psychopath! Reducing magazine capacity is pretty much a useless gesture of a law. Choi's actions at Va Tech prove this without a shadow of a doubt.

The problem is not laws regulating the weapon nor the magazine capacity. The problem stems from current laws regulating mental health. I would welcome legislative action toward the real problem.

[AUGradinTX 0]

Love it that some ignore the facts. AR-15s are very rarely used to commit crimes. Regardless, some think that getting rid of them will cause a substantial decline in crime. How someone can logically come to that conclusion while looking at concrete data to the contrary is beyond me. It's lunacy.

I'm guessing this is why some people are skeptical of the true motives of people that want them banned. Their argument is bogus.

VP Biden told Americans to buy shotguns instead of AR-15s. What good is this going to do? Shotguns are used FAR MORE than AR-15s to kill people. What's more, murders committed with firearms have been on the decline for nearly a decade. There is no problem. It's artificial. You are being led to believe that we all of the sudden have this huge AR-15 problem in this country. We absolutely do not. Do some research.

Reply of denial from the sheeple in 3, 2, 1...

[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?