Is it time for a serious conversation about Gun Control?

[homersapien 11,447]

I've come to the conclusion that most don't know what a civilian AR is, but because of the appearance of the gun, they are scared by it.

Explain it to us. What are practical uses/advantages of owning an assault rifle.

Ask SEAL team 6. I don't know.

Once again, an AR-15 isn't an assault rifle. Not sure how many times I need to say this...

Joseph Goebbels would be so proud of you.

Congrats. You lose the argument by default by virtue of Godwin's Law.

So, does that mean we can adopt Goebbels methods with impunity?

[homersapien 11,447]

I've come to the conclusion that most don't know what a civilian AR is, but because of the appearance of the gun, they are scared by it.

Explain it to us. What are practical uses/advantages of owning an assault rifle.

Ask SEAL team 6. I don't know.

Once again, an AR-15 isn't an assault rifle. Not sure how many times I need to say this...

Joseph Goebbels would be so proud of you.

Congrats. You lose the argument by default by virtue of Godwin's Law.

So far, I'm content with rifle sports... not so much hog hunting and protection. MOST criminals will book it if you fire a shotgun into the air. It just seems unfair to hunt animals with semi auto rifles. At least they have a chance to get away if you have to take some time to reload. Isn't it easier to just buy a pack of bacon at the grocery store?

You are not always just "hunting" hogs for meat or sport. Many times they are destroying the land and are considered pests. For that, you have to get as many as you can while they are in range. A bolt gun isn't going to cut it.

Yeah, an M1 or BAR with a blind magazine is just as worthless. Gotta have those 30 round detachable mags.

[3rdgen 2]

I dont think the media has an agenda to turn me into an anti gun crusader. They certainly didnt sensationalize the situation. They reported what happened. And it did happen. I dont think the laws that will be proposed, will affect very many people at all percentage wise. But so many people who will not even be affected at all are the ones i hear preaching about the 2nd amendment the most. That is who has the agenda. That is why i asked the question earlier, who of you against new regs even owns a high capacity assault rifle.

I'll stipulate both sides have an agenda. One side realizes bad things happen and the best one can hope for is that those things don't happen to you or your loved ones. But that if and when it does someone is there who is prepared to stop it with limited damage. The other believes the elimination of a style of weapon can limit the scope of these events and that a new set of laws can change the human heart. One side would abridge the freedoms of others because they can't see the purpose of someone having a certain weapon. The other doesn't care whether someone exercises their rights or not. But they want that option available to them. Not much common ground between the two sides as I see it. But I have made clear my opinion as to which side is correct. Especially since we have tried the remedy of the opposing side for 10 years during which the archetype for these mass shootings occurred. That being the columbine attack in which 2 9 mm semiautos and 2 shotguns one pump the other an overunder were used. All of which weren't illegal under the old assault weapons ban or under the new Feinstein proposal.

How do you feel about my freedom to own a RPG being abridged?

I don't really care those are out there and I have yet to hear of them being used in a crime here. It is not a gun it is an explosive which is covered differently under the law and requires certain liscenses to obtain.. The same as the fact people can own artillery pieces and tanks. They can also have ammunition for these pieces.

[Weegle777 78]

Side note: It's ironic how most of the hippies yelling for tighter gun control to protect the poor children with their whole lives ahead of them have no problem with all of the babies being aborted.

Extremely well said. :bow:/>

Well said maybe, but totally irrelevant, if not downright wacko.

Bet you were one of the wackos that thought it was great that "life" might have been found on Mars aren't you. :laugh:/>

wtf?

I didn't think you were intelligent enough to see the correlation. Shocking.

Well I guess you were right. Care to explain it to me? Please?

Sorry, I apologize for the insult. That was wrong of me. What I meant with the life on Mars correlation, was that most atheist/liberal/scientists find it utterly amazing and the greatest possible scientific breakthrough ever that a "single cell organism" found on Mars would qualify as "life" to them, but a group of cells growing into a human being inside a mother is nothing but a useless clump of nothingness worthy of zero chance of life.

Well, assuming your serious (and I am not sure you are) that's one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. I was hoping the "rational:wacko" ratio would be better on an Auburn-related forum. Guess not.

Ok. Why is it absurd? Are you just going to say something like that without explaining what you mean? I explained what I meant, so how about you do the same?

[homersapien 11,447]

why is ammonium nitrate no longer available to me? why is it that it is such a hassle to board an airplane? why do people who appear to be of middle eastern descent seem to be randomly pulled out of terminals and double searched for possible weapons? its because when tradegy strikes people with common sense react accordingly. will it stop all mass murders? no. but doing nothing just invites it. you folks who are against limiting the most destructive weapons are not gonna wake up and think differently all the sudden, i know that. but to those of us who can see that there is no need for high capacity assault rifles, you seem very stubborn. i have not seen any reasonable response as to why these weapons should be legal or available to us. if this kid had been more thoroughly trained that number of 26 would have one more digit in it and you folks think the weapons are not the problem? i bet less than 0.5% of the population own these anyway, so why are so many people against banning them?

There already are laws against assault style weapons. Those laws so stop people from getting their hands on them and using them. Even if there wasn't one already in the home, what's to say he wouldn't have gone out to find one somewhere or just used the Glock and Sig or just got a Remington 1187 semi-auto shotgun?

The "you's" in the below rant are not directed directly at alexava.

The Second Amendment gave us a right to have firearms, but those that will never and don't want one, want the government to step in an infringe on my right to want to purchase one. I would want one for the fun of going out to the range, for self protection, and the protection of my family, IF/WHEN something happens I want to be able to protect them, myself and our belongings. So many of the left, want to just keep on trampling on the Constitution. I think what this 20 year old maniac did was despicable and I know he will rot in hell, but having been in law enforcement and still in the public safety field at a major university, it is pretty much impossible to predict these things.

It's the mis-use of these weapons that is the problem. It's the people and society that have let morality break down to the point that someone would even think that this was what they should do b/c they have had a bad life or been picked on or what ever the excuse is, insert it here. Yes, I know bullying is bad, but how much worse is this? The gun was just laying around in the closet until the moron picked up and made the choice to use it to kill innocents. Blame society as things perpetually break down to where people think this way. The mentality of "I want to die, so I'm going to take out a bunch of other people with me." Are you kidding me?!? Just off yourself and leave everyone else alone, especially the children!!! Restricting gun laws is not going to solve it, illegal weapons will ALWAYS find there way into society, hell, our own government is doing it and getting LEOs killed by doing so!!!

People need to wake up and see that more government control is NOT the answer!! We don't need the government dictating EVERYTHING we do! If you feel this way, then grow up!!

So are you OK with WalMart selling hand grenades?

Where did I say anything about hand grenades??? It is not a firearm, an insidiary device. Geez what kind of stupid question is that??

Well, it's like this: Even though a hand grenade is an "insidiary" device it's a military weapon with little or no civilian utility, just like assault rifles.

But if it makes it easier for you to understand my point, make it an M249.

So it wasn't really a stupid question. It was a question made before considering the intelligence - and likely response of my audience.

Understand?

[3rdgen 2]

I've come to the conclusion that most don't know what a civilian AR is, but because of the appearance of the gun, they are scared by it.

Explain it to us. What are practical uses/advantages of owning an assault rifle.

Ask SEAL team 6. I don't know.

Once again, an AR-15 isn't an assault rifle. Not sure how many times I need to say this...

Joseph Goebbels would be so proud of you.

Congrats. You lose the argument by default by virtue of Godwin's Law.

So far, I'm content with rifle sports... not so much hog hunting and protection. MOST criminals will book it if you fire a shotgun into the air. It just seems unfair to hunt animals with semi auto rifles. At least they have a chance to get away if you have to take some time to reload. Isn't it easier to just buy a pack of bacon at the grocery store?

You are not always just "hunting" hogs for meat or sport. Many times they are destroying the land and are considered pests. For that, you have to get as many as you can while they are in range. A bolt gun isn't going to cut it.

Yeah, an M1 or BAR with a blind magazine is just as worthless. Gotta have those 30 round detachable mags.

An m1 garand or m1 carbine? The carbine would be fairly useless against most things of any size not enough knock down power. The m1 garand has an 8 rd clip and fires a 30-06 bullet. Do you really think carrying more clips will dissuade any of these killers?

[homersapien 11,447]

Interesting take...though I'm at a loss to figure out what any of that has to do with you comparing someone to a Nazi.

Well I already responded to your earlier post, but it's possible that my response was too obtuse, so I'll respond to this one as well.

He wasn't comparing you to a Nazi. He was comparing your rhetorical tactics to those of Goebbels because they are exactly the same. You know, "repeat a lie often enough an people will come to believe it" (I paraphrase). Thus, "Goebbels would be proud".

Understand?

[tgr4lfe 220]

You are either not reading or have an incredibly limited ability to absorb what you are reading. Just curious, how old are you?

I'm sorry. I had a hard time weeding through your truckload of childish "gotchas" and silliness while I was trying to take part in a mature discussion. You are really not one to mock someones ability (or lack thereof) to absorb what they're reading. You have made it a point several times in this thread to dodge honest presentations and reply with trite quips and poorly veiled insults. Your refusal to acknowledge anyone's points reminds me of a game I play with my children where they go nuts telling me where my glasses are while I pretend to be unaware that they still are on top of my head.

I honestly cannot see wasting any more time on your nonsense.

Good. You have my permission to ignore my posts.

Sorry if I offended you, but it seems like a lot of people who respond to my posts don't actually read them carefully or in their entirety.

It's quite possible that I was ambiguous or obtuse, but some responses clearly indicate they apparently didn't read what I wrote. It's very annoying to have to go back, point it out and repeat it, again, again and again.

I know that ADD runs rampant in the younger generation - undoubtedly exacerbated by multitasking and tweeting - which is why I asked how old you were.

Regardless, if you really have trouble understanding what I wrote, ask about it and I will try to clarify. But if you are going to respond without reading - or understanding - it, then good riddance.

BS, you've done everything possible to generate discord on here. Even now with this post you play coy with "they apparently didn't read what I wrote", then the ADD and asking how old someone is, man, who are you kidding?? That comment was meant nothing but to belittle the poster. Don't sit acting like you are an innocent in all of this, when you are the one stirring the pot most of the time!!

[homersapien 11,447]

I dont think the media has an agenda to turn me into an anti gun crusader. They certainly didnt sensationalize the situation. They reported what happened. And it did happen. I dont think the laws that will be proposed, will affect very many people at all percentage wise. But so many people who will not even be affected at all are the ones i hear preaching about the 2nd amendment the most. That is who has the agenda. That is why i asked the question earlier, who of you against new regs even owns a high capacity assault rifle.

I'll stipulate both sides have an agenda. One side realizes bad things happen and the best one can hope for is that those things don't happen to you or your loved ones. But that if and when it does someone is there who is prepared to stop it with limited damage. The other believes the elimination of a style of weapon can limit the scope of these events and that a new set of laws can change the human heart. One side would abridge the freedoms of others because they can't see the purpose of someone having a certain weapon. The other doesn't care whether someone exercises their rights or not. But they want that option available to them. Not much common ground between the two sides as I see it. But I have made clear my opinion as to which side is correct. Especially since we have tried the remedy of the opposing side for 10 years during which the archetype for these mass shootings occurred. That being the columbine attack in which 2 9 mm semiautos and 2 shotguns one pump the other an overunder were used. All of which weren't illegal under the old assault weapons ban or under the new Feinstein proposal.

How do you feel about my freedom to own a RPG being abridged?

I don't really care those are out there and I have yet to hear of them being used in a crime here. It is not a gun it is an explosive which is covered differently under the law and requires certain liscenses to obtain.. The same as the fact people can own artillery pieces and tanks. They can also have ammunition for these pieces.

Do you think they should be as readily available as a Bushmaster (for example)?

[3rdgen 2]

Some more stats on murder rates

In 2011 the U.S. per capita murder rate was 4.2 per 100,000.

For comparison, the following countries had higher murder rates (trying to list only civilized nations here):

The Bahamas 27.4 (wow)

North Korea (communist dictatorship) was 15.2.

South Africa 31.8

Brazil 21.0

Greenland 19.2 (wow, this shocked me)

Georgia was 4.3

Moldova was 7.5

Russia 10.2

Ukraine 5.2

Estonia 5.2

Lithuania 6.6

Mongolia 8.7

1st world countries with a lower murder rate:

Canada 1.6

Japan 0.2

Great Britain: 1.2

Sweden: 1.0

Iceland 0.3

Norway 0.6

Germany 0.8

Denmark 0.9

Finland 2.2

Italy 0.9

Portugal 1.2

Spain 0.8

Austria 0.6

France 1.1

Belgium 1.7

Netherlands 1.1

Switzerland 0.7

Poland 1.1

Australia 1.0

Greece 1.5

And the grand prize for friendly nations -- Monaco. They had ZERO murders in 2011 (but they only have 36,000 people).

Just to point out since Switzerland is on that list every male between the age of 18-49 is issued with an Sturmgewher 90 assault rifle and a semiautomatic handgun which they keep at home in case of invasion.

After they have gone through military training, which happens to be compulsory.

Reminds me of that preamble to the second amendment: " A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,...

We seem to ignore that part.

Then you obviously don't know the US code. It defines the milita as all males between the ages of 17-45. It also includes females enlisted in the national guard. However, all males between 17-45 are included in the milita irregardless of whether they are a member of the national guard or not.

Wow. I never realized that was in the Constitution. Maybe you really are a lot more knowledgeable than me. :-\/>

It is not in the constitution. You harped on the word militia in the 2nd amendment so I gave the definition of militia according to the US government. You didn't like it because it contradicts your belief as to whom should be able to obtain certain weapons. Since you can't win the argument you revert back to thinly veiled insults. Enjoy yourself though but know that no matter what you think or whatever laws come out of the emotional reaction to this event. People all over the country will continue to exercise there freedoms without harming anyone. While the criminal and crazy will continue to kill with whatever happens to at hand.

[tgr4lfe 220]

why is ammonium nitrate no longer available to me? why is it that it is such a hassle to board an airplane? why do people who appear to be of middle eastern descent seem to be randomly pulled out of terminals and double searched for possible weapons? its because when tradegy strikes people with common sense react accordingly. will it stop all mass murders? no. but doing nothing just invites it. you folks who are against limiting the most destructive weapons are not gonna wake up and think differently all the sudden, i know that. but to those of us who can see that there is no need for high capacity assault rifles, you seem very stubborn. i have not seen any reasonable response as to why these weapons should be legal or available to us. if this kid had been more thoroughly trained that number of 26 would have one more digit in it and you folks think the weapons are not the problem? i bet less than 0.5% of the population own these anyway, so why are so many people against banning them?

There already are laws against assault style weapons. Those laws so stop people from getting their hands on them and using them. Even if there wasn't one already in the home, what's to say he wouldn't have gone out to find one somewhere or just used the Glock and Sig or just got a Remington 1187 semi-auto shotgun?

The "you's" in the below rant are not directed directly at alexava.

The Second Amendment gave us a right to have firearms, but those that will never and don't want one, want the government to step in an infringe on my right to want to purchase one. I would want one for the fun of going out to the range, for self protection, and the protection of my family, IF/WHEN something happens I want to be able to protect them, myself and our belongings. So many of the left, want to just keep on trampling on the Constitution. I think what this 20 year old maniac did was despicable and I know he will rot in hell, but having been in law enforcement and still in the public safety field at a major university, it is pretty much impossible to predict these things.

It's the mis-use of these weapons that is the problem. It's the people and society that have let morality break down to the point that someone would even think that this was what they should do b/c they have had a bad life or been picked on or what ever the excuse is, insert it here. Yes, I know bullying is bad, but how much worse is this? The gun was just laying around in the closet until the moron picked up and made the choice to use it to kill innocents. Blame society as things perpetually break down to where people think this way. The mentality of "I want to die, so I'm going to take out a bunch of other people with me." Are you kidding me?!? Just off yourself and leave everyone else alone, especially the children!!! Restricting gun laws is not going to solve it, illegal weapons will ALWAYS find there way into society, hell, our own government is doing it and getting LEOs killed by doing so!!!

People need to wake up and see that more government control is NOT the answer!! We don't need the government dictating EVERYTHING we do! If you feel this way, then grow up!!

So are you OK with WalMart selling hand grenades?

Where did I say anything about hand grenades??? It is not a firearm, an insidiary device. Geez what kind of stupid question is that??

Well, it's like this: Even though a hand grenade is an "insidiary" device it's a military weapon with little or no civilian utility, just like assault rifles.

But if it makes it easier for you to understand my point, make it an M249.

So it wasn't really a stupid question. It was a question made before considering the intelligence - and likely response of my audience.

Understand?

Making an "obtuse" question with no background is intelligent? If you want to make points then just f'ing say what you want instead of dancing around things and taking jabs at everyone on the board.

There is a HUGE difference in those things. There are laws already in place for ALL of these weapons, why screw around with that, except for the government to try to take more control. Full auto weapons are already illegal. Just b/c nut jobs want to take a rifle and kill people now everyone thinks ALL guns should be outlawed. It is just an emotional knee jerk reaction that will serve no purpose to limit guns getting in the hands of those that wish ill on others. No one is talking about making already illegal weapons, like grenades, available at the corner market, but going the opposite direction is not going to fly in America either.

[homersapien 11,447]

Side note: It's ironic how most of the hippies yelling for tighter gun control to protect the poor children with their whole lives ahead of them have no problem with all of the babies being aborted.

Extremely well said. :bow:/>

Well said maybe, but totally irrelevant, if not downright wacko.

Bet you were one of the wackos that thought it was great that "life" might have been found on Mars aren't you. :laugh:/>

wtf?

I didn't think you were intelligent enough to see the correlation. Shocking.

Well I guess you were right. Care to explain it to me? Please?

Sorry, I apologize for the insult. That was wrong of me. What I meant with the life on Mars correlation, was that most atheist/liberal/scientists find it utterly amazing and the greatest possible scientific breakthrough ever that a "single cell organism" found on Mars would qualify as "life" to them, but a group of cells growing into a human being inside a mother is nothing but a useless clump of nothingness worthy of zero chance of life.

Well, assuming your serious (and I am not sure you are) that's one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. I was hoping the "rational:wacko" ratio would be better on an Auburn-related forum. Guess not.

Ok. Why is it absurd? Are you just going to say something like that without explaining what you mean? I explained what I meant, so how about you do the same?

You really expect me to seriously deconstruct an argument about gun control that is based on scientists being excited about the possibility of life on Mars and abortion?

That would be foolish. While I may be a lot of things, I am no fool.

Heck, this is so wacko I am still not sure you aren't kidding and trying to suck me in.

[homersapien 11,447]

Some more stats on murder rates

In 2011 the U.S. per capita murder rate was 4.2 per 100,000.

For comparison, the following countries had higher murder rates (trying to list only civilized nations here):

The Bahamas 27.4 (wow)

North Korea (communist dictatorship) was 15.2.

South Africa 31.8

Brazil 21.0

Greenland 19.2 (wow, this shocked me)

Georgia was 4.3

Moldova was 7.5

Russia 10.2

Ukraine 5.2

Estonia 5.2

Lithuania 6.6

Mongolia 8.7

1st world countries with a lower murder rate:

Canada 1.6

Japan 0.2

Great Britain: 1.2

Sweden: 1.0

Iceland 0.3

Norway 0.6

Germany 0.8

Denmark 0.9

Finland 2.2

Italy 0.9

Portugal 1.2

Spain 0.8

Austria 0.6

France 1.1

Belgium 1.7

Netherlands 1.1

Switzerland 0.7

Poland 1.1

Australia 1.0

Greece 1.5

And the grand prize for friendly nations -- Monaco. They had ZERO murders in 2011 (but they only have 36,000 people).

Just to point out since Switzerland is on that list every male between the age of 18-49 is issued with an Sturmgewher 90 assault rifle and a semiautomatic handgun which they keep at home in case of invasion.

After they have gone through military training, which happens to be compulsory.

Reminds me of that preamble to the second amendment: " A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,...

We seem to ignore that part.

Then you obviously don't know the US code. It defines the milita as all males between the ages of 17-45. It also includes females enlisted in the national guard. However, all males between 17-45 are included in the milita irregardless of whether they are a member of the national guard or not.

Wow. I never realized that was in the Constitution. Maybe you really are a lot more knowledgeable than me. :-\/>

It is not in the constitution. You harped on the word militia in the 2nd amendment so I gave the definition of militia according to the US government. You didn't like it because it contradicts your belief as to whom should be able to obtain certain weapons. Since you can't win the argument you revert back to thinly veiled insults. Enjoy yourself though but know that no matter what you think or whatever laws come out of the emotional reaction to this event. People all over the country will continue to exercise there freedoms.

No, I was simply pointing out the first clause in the second amendment (the one typically ignored). This clause has the potential to be interpreted (by the supreme court) in any number of ways, regardless of whatever "definitions" may exist in the legal system.

That is simple fact and has nothing to do with pushing my beliefs.

[homersapien 11,447]

I've come to the conclusion that most don't know what a civilian AR is, but because of the appearance of the gun, they are scared by it.

Explain it to us. What are practical uses/advantages of owning an assault rifle.

Ask SEAL team 6. I don't know.

Once again, an AR-15 isn't an assault rifle. Not sure how many times I need to say this...

Joseph Goebbels would be so proud of you.

Congrats. You lose the argument by default by virtue of Godwin's Law.

So far, I'm content with rifle sports... not so much hog hunting and protection. MOST criminals will book it if you fire a shotgun into the air. It just seems unfair to hunt animals with semi auto rifles. At least they have a chance to get away if you have to take some time to reload. Isn't it easier to just buy a pack of bacon at the grocery store?

You are not always just "hunting" hogs for meat or sport. Many times they are destroying the land and are considered pests. For that, you have to get as many as you can while they are in range. A bolt gun isn't going to cut it.

Yeah, an M1 or BAR with a blind magazine is just as worthless. Gotta have those 30 round detachable mags.

1) An m1 garand or m1 carbine? The carbine would be fairly useless against most things of any size not enough knock down power. The m1 garand has an 8 rd clip and fires a 30-06 bullet.

2) Do you really think carrying more clips will dissuade any of these killers?

1) I was referring to the Garand.

2) No, but then I never made that argument

[3rdgen 2]

Your argument the entire time has been it is the gun, what it looks like, or its magazine capacity that is the problem not the fact the guy was messed up. Last I heard mental illness can present after 18 years of age and sometimes rather suddenly. Last I heard people with military training are still people and are capable of snapping like the soldier that killed all those civilians in afghanistan. Or Charles Whitman the former marine who sniped people from the tower at the university of texas in 1963. If you know a Walmart selling selective fire weapons please give the address as I am sure there is a reward for that with the ATF. It is the ultimate proliferation because unlike the USA where you have to purchase a semiautomatic military styled rifle thus limiting these weapons to people. The Swiss are issued and trained in the use of a rifle that is actually capable of full auto fire. They have access to these weapons during domestic disputes, when they are drunk/ high on drugs, and any number of other situations that could lead to violence without a high murder rate. You either still don't understand the difference between selective fire military issued weapons and semiautomatic military styled weapons or you ignore it to be obtuse.

No my argument has not been "it is the gun". My argument has been there is really no practical need for the number of high capacity military weapons in our society. They are not really suitable for hunting or even self-defense. They are specialized weapons meant to kill other people as efficiently and rapidly as possible in combat situations.

That is exactly why I keep bringing up other military weapons that are strictly controlled, such as automatics and hand grenades. I think the control of these weapons is perfectly analogous to weapons like the Bushmaster.

If you had been paying attention you would know that I have acknowledged that this is only one small sliver of the problem and may do little or nothing to address the problem. But the fact remains, this troubled kid had easy access to a Bushmaster simply because his mother (of all people) thought she had to have one.

And your harping on the details of selective fire weapons vs "pure" semi-automatics is a ridiculous red herring that has no meaningful significance. It's not that I don't understand the nuances between these technical distinctions, it's that I consider them irrelevant to my argument.

But if you want to flatter yourself with the presumption that you are just so much more knowledgeable that I am about firearms and that is the reason for my position, then indulge yourself. And the fact that I have explained this (several times) is proof that I am not trying to be "obtuse" about it.

I'm not trying to prove anything. I think you know exactly what the difference is between a military weapon that is selective fire and a military style weapon that can only fire as a semiautomatic. But you are trying to confuse people who do not have experience with weapons just like the media in order to win their support of your opinion. Since most people hear assault weapon and picture rambo mowing down the bad guys. I'm just counteracting that misinformation.

[homersapien 11,447]

You are either not reading or have an incredibly limited ability to absorb what you are reading. Just curious, how old are you?

I'm sorry. I had a hard time weeding through your truckload of childish "gotchas" and silliness while I was trying to take part in a mature discussion. You are really not one to mock someones ability (or lack thereof) to absorb what they're reading. You have made it a point several times in this thread to dodge honest presentations and reply with trite quips and poorly veiled insults. Your refusal to acknowledge anyone's points reminds me of a game I play with my children where they go nuts telling me where my glasses are while I pretend to be unaware that they still are on top of my head.

I honestly cannot see wasting any more time on your nonsense.

Good. You have my permission to ignore my posts.

Sorry if I offended you, but it seems like a lot of people who respond to my posts don't actually read them carefully or in their entirety.

It's quite possible that I was ambiguous or obtuse, but some responses clearly indicate they apparently didn't read what I wrote. It's very annoying to have to go back, point it out and repeat it, again, again and again.

I know that ADD runs rampant in the younger generation - undoubtedly exacerbated by multitasking and tweeting - which is why I asked how old you were.

Regardless, if you really have trouble understanding what I wrote, ask about it and I will try to clarify. But if you are going to respond without reading - or understanding - it, then good riddance.

BS, you've done everything possible to generate discord on here. Even now with this post you play coy with "they apparently didn't read what I wrote", then the ADD and asking how old someone is, man, who are you kidding?? That comment was meant nothing but to belittle the poster. Don't sit acting like you are an innocent in all of this, when you are the one stirring the pot most of the time!!

Guilty, for the most part.

But I am not belittling anyone who doesn't deserve it. I will respond with courtesy to anyone who questions my statements, or asks for clarification/confirmation or even disagrees and states their reasons.

But I don't suffer fools. If someone comes back and grossly mischaracterizes what I said or invents something I didn't say to simply further their own position, it annoys me and I'll let them know.

[homersapien 11,447]

why is ammonium nitrate no longer available to me? why is it that it is such a hassle to board an airplane? why do people who appear to be of middle eastern descent seem to be randomly pulled out of terminals and double searched for possible weapons? its because when tradegy strikes people with common sense react accordingly. will it stop all mass murders? no. but doing nothing just invites it. you folks who are against limiting the most destructive weapons are not gonna wake up and think differently all the sudden, i know that. but to those of us who can see that there is no need for high capacity assault rifles, you seem very stubborn. i have not seen any reasonable response as to why these weapons should be legal or available to us. if this kid had been more thoroughly trained that number of 26 would have one more digit in it and you folks think the weapons are not the problem? i bet less than 0.5% of the population own these anyway, so why are so many people against banning them?

There already are laws against assault style weapons. Those laws so stop people from getting their hands on them and using them. Even if there wasn't one already in the home, what's to say he wouldn't have gone out to find one somewhere or just used the Glock and Sig or just got a Remington 1187 semi-auto shotgun?

The "you's" in the below rant are not directed directly at alexava.

The Second Amendment gave us a right to have firearms, but those that will never and don't want one, want the government to step in an infringe on my right to want to purchase one. I would want one for the fun of going out to the range, for self protection, and the protection of my family, IF/WHEN something happens I want to be able to protect them, myself and our belongings. So many of the left, want to just keep on trampling on the Constitution. I think what this 20 year old maniac did was despicable and I know he will rot in hell, but having been in law enforcement and still in the public safety field at a major university, it is pretty much impossible to predict these things.

It's the mis-use of these weapons that is the problem. It's the people and society that have let morality break down to the point that someone would even think that this was what they should do b/c they have had a bad life or been picked on or what ever the excuse is, insert it here. Yes, I know bullying is bad, but how much worse is this? The gun was just laying around in the closet until the moron picked up and made the choice to use it to kill innocents. Blame society as things perpetually break down to where people think this way. The mentality of "I want to die, so I'm going to take out a bunch of other people with me." Are you kidding me?!? Just off yourself and leave everyone else alone, especially the children!!! Restricting gun laws is not going to solve it, illegal weapons will ALWAYS find there way into society, hell, our own government is doing it and getting LEOs killed by doing so!!!

People need to wake up and see that more government control is NOT the answer!! We don't need the government dictating EVERYTHING we do! If you feel this way, then grow up!!

So are you OK with WalMart selling hand grenades?

Where did I say anything about hand grenades??? It is not a firearm, an insidiary device. Geez what kind of stupid question is that??

Well, it's like this: Even though a hand grenade is an "insidiary" device it's a military weapon with little or no civilian utility, just like assault rifles.

But if it makes it easier for you to understand my point, make it an M249.

So it wasn't really a stupid question. It was a question made before considering the intelligence - and likely response of my audience.

Understand?

Making an "obtuse" question with no background is intelligent? If you want to make points then just f'ing say what you want instead of dancing around things and taking jabs at everyone on the board.

There is a HUGE difference in those things. 1) There are laws already in place for ALL of these weapons, why screw around with that, except for the government to try to take more control. Full auto weapons are already illegal. Just b/c nut jobs want to take a rifle and kill people now 2) everyone thinks ALL guns should be outlawed. It is just an emotional knee jerk reaction that will serve no purpose to limit guns getting in the hands of those that wish ill on others. No one is talking about making already illegal weapons, like grenades, available at the corner market, but going the opposite direction is not going to fly in America either.

1) That's my point. Either you support regulations on these already-regulated weapons or not. If you don't, then the debate is over.

But if you do, then principled arguments against further regulations against assault rifles are empty. There is no rational difference in the philosophy of regulating assault rifles vs. machine guns.

2) Has anyone on this thread suggested that? I think not.

[homersapien 11,447]

Your argument the entire time has been it is the gun, what it looks like, or its magazine capacity that is the problem not the fact the guy was messed up. Last I heard mental illness can present after 18 years of age and sometimes rather suddenly. Last I heard people with military training are still people and are capable of snapping like the soldier that killed all those civilians in afghanistan. Or Charles Whitman the former marine who sniped people from the tower at the university of texas in 1963. If you know a Walmart selling selective fire weapons please give the address as I am sure there is a reward for that with the ATF. It is the ultimate proliferation because unlike the USA where you have to purchase a semiautomatic military styled rifle thus limiting these weapons to people. The Swiss are issued and trained in the use of a rifle that is actually capable of full auto fire. They have access to these weapons during domestic disputes, when they are drunk/ high on drugs, and any number of other situations that could lead to violence without a high murder rate. You either still don't understand the difference between selective fire military issued weapons and semiautomatic military styled weapons or you ignore it to be obtuse.

No my argument has not been "it is the gun". My argument has been there is really no practical need for the number of high capacity military weapons in our society. They are not really suitable for hunting or even self-defense. They are specialized weapons meant to kill other people as efficiently and rapidly as possible in combat situations.

That is exactly why I keep bringing up other military weapons that are strictly controlled, such as automatics and hand grenades. I think the control of these weapons is perfectly analogous to weapons like the Bushmaster.

If you had been paying attention you would know that I have acknowledged that this is only one small sliver of the problem and may do little or nothing to address the problem. But the fact remains, this troubled kid had easy access to a Bushmaster simply because his mother (of all people) thought she had to have one.

And your harping on the details of selective fire weapons vs "pure" semi-automatics is a ridiculous red herring that has no meaningful significance. It's not that I don't understand the nuances between these technical distinctions, it's that I consider them irrelevant to my argument.

But if you want to flatter yourself with the presumption that you are just so much more knowledgeable that I am about firearms and that is the reason for my position, then indulge yourself. And the fact that I have explained this (several times) is proof that I am not trying to be "obtuse" about it.

I'm not trying to prove anything. I think you know exactly what the difference is between a military weapon that is selective fire and a military style weapon that can only fire as a semiautomatic. But you are trying to confuse people who do not have experience with weapons just like the media in order to win their support of your opinion. Since most people hear assault weapon and picture rambo mowing down the bad guys. I'm just counteracting that misinformation.

No, I am not trying to confuse anyone. My position is that there is no practical difference between the "civilian" versions of these weapons to the military versions.

I don't focus on whatever technical differences there are, because IMO, they don't matter. Likewise, I am not interested in trying to adhere to a precise definition of the term "assault rifle" for the same reason.

I keep explaining this but it keeps coming back. If you want to argue that selective fire capabilities, or subtle differences between military and "civilian" rounds make a huge practical difference in the issue, then do so. I will disagree, but I am not trying to "confuse" people by ignoring technical nuances.

[Weegle777 78]

Side note: It's ironic how most of the hippies yelling for tighter gun control to protect the poor children with their whole lives ahead of them have no problem with all of the babies being aborted.

Extremely well said. :bow:/>

Well said maybe, but totally irrelevant, if not downright wacko.

Bet you were one of the wackos that thought it was great that "life" might have been found on Mars aren't you. :laugh:/>

wtf?

I didn't think you were intelligent enough to see the correlation. Shocking.

Well I guess you were right. Care to explain it to me? Please?

Sorry, I apologize for the insult. That was wrong of me. What I meant with the life on Mars correlation, was that most atheist/liberal/scientists find it utterly amazing and the greatest possible scientific breakthrough ever that a "single cell organism" found on Mars would qualify as "life" to them, but a group of cells growing into a human being inside a mother is nothing but a useless clump of nothingness worthy of zero chance of life.

Well, assuming your serious (and I am not sure you are) that's one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. I was hoping the "rational:wacko" ratio would be better on an Auburn-related forum. Guess not.

Ok. Why is it absurd? Are you just going to say something like that without explaining what you mean? I explained what I meant, so how about you do the same?

You really expect me to seriously deconstruct an argument about gun control that is based on scientists being excited about the possibility of life on Mars and abortion?

That would be foolish. While I may be a lot of things, I am no fool.

Heck, this is so wacko I am still not sure you aren't kidding and trying to suck me in.

Eh, you are such a militant liberal atheist that it would be a waste of typing space to even give you the chance to make even more of an idiot out of yourself than you already have in this thread.

[homersapien 11,447]

Side note: It's ironic how most of the hippies yelling for tighter gun control to protect the poor children with their whole lives ahead of them have no problem with all of the babies being aborted.

Extremely well said. :bow:/>

Well said maybe, but totally irrelevant, if not downright wacko.

Bet you were one of the wackos that thought it was great that "life" might have been found on Mars aren't you. :laugh:/>

wtf?

I didn't think you were intelligent enough to see the correlation. Shocking.

Well I guess you were right. Care to explain it to me? Please?

Sorry, I apologize for the insult. That was wrong of me. What I meant with the life on Mars correlation, was that most atheist/liberal/scientists find it utterly amazing and the greatest possible scientific breakthrough ever that a "single cell organism" found on Mars would qualify as "life" to them, but a group of cells growing into a human being inside a mother is nothing but a useless clump of nothingness worthy of zero chance of life.

Well, assuming your serious (and I am not sure you are) that's one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. I was hoping the "rational:wacko" ratio would be better on an Auburn-related forum. Guess not.

Ok. Why is it absurd? Are you just going to say something like that without explaining what you mean? I explained what I meant, so how about you do the same?

You really expect me to seriously deconstruct an argument about gun control that is based on scientists being excited about the possibility of life on Mars and abortion?

That would be foolish. While I may be a lot of things, I am no fool.

Heck, this is so wacko I am still not sure you aren't kidding and trying to suck me in.

Eh, you are such a militant liberal atheist that it would be a waste of typing space to even give you the chance to make even more of an idiot out of yourself than you already have in this thread.

I think that is a smart move on your part. I am somewhat surprised.

[The Freak 2,528]

No, I am not trying to confuse anyone. My position is that there is no practical difference between the "civilian" versions of these weapons to the military versions.

I don't focus on whatever technical differences there are, because IMO, they don't matter. Likewise, I am not interested in trying to adhere to a precise definition of the term "assault rifle" for the same reason.

I keep explaining this but it keeps coming back. If you want to argue that selective fire capabilities, or subtle differences between military and "civilian" rounds make a huge practical difference in the issue, then do so. I will disagree, but I am not trying to "confuse" people by ignoring technical nuances.

You keep explaining your opinion... but not realizing that it is ridiculous.

If there is no difference between the military and civilian version of the rifle, then there is no difference between the civilian and a 30.06. So, by your logic, they should all be banned. That's why no one is listening to you. And the insults aren't helping either. So, good luck with your crusade.

[Weegle777 78]

Side note: It's ironic how most of the hippies yelling for tighter gun control to protect the poor children with their whole lives ahead of them have no problem with all of the babies being aborted.

Extremely well said. :bow:/>

Well said maybe, but totally irrelevant, if not downright wacko.

Bet you were one of the wackos that thought it was great that "life" might have been found on Mars aren't you. :laugh:/>

wtf?

I didn't think you were intelligent enough to see the correlation. Shocking.

Well I guess you were right. Care to explain it to me? Please?

Sorry, I apologize for the insult. That was wrong of me. What I meant with the life on Mars correlation, was that most atheist/liberal/scientists find it utterly amazing and the greatest possible scientific breakthrough ever that a "single cell organism" found on Mars would qualify as "life" to them, but a group of cells growing into a human being inside a mother is nothing but a useless clump of nothingness worthy of zero chance of life.

Well, assuming your serious (and I am not sure you are) that's one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. I was hoping the "rational:wacko" ratio would be better on an Auburn-related forum. Guess not.

Ok. Why is it absurd? Are you just going to say something like that without explaining what you mean? I explained what I meant, so how about you do the same?

You really expect me to seriously deconstruct an argument about gun control that is based on scientists being excited about the possibility of life on Mars and abortion?

That would be foolish. While I may be a lot of things, I am no fool.

Heck, this is so wacko I am still not sure you aren't kidding and trying to suck me in.

Eh, you are such a militant liberal atheist that it would be a waste of typing space to even give you the chance to make even more of an idiot out of yourself than you already have in this thread. :laugh:/>

I think that is a smart move on your part. I am somewhat surprised.

Yes because it is apparent that you have such a huge grasp on this thread topic. And please don't make a fool of yourself and act like a big bad boy behind that keyboard, I'm quite certain a confrontation isn't something you would enjoy with me. But, everybody is a bad A behind the scenes.

[homersapien 11,447]

Side note: It's ironic how most of the hippies yelling for tighter gun control to protect the poor children with their whole lives ahead of them have no problem with all of the babies being aborted.

Extremely well said. :bow:/>

Well said maybe, but totally irrelevant, if not downright wacko.

Bet you were one of the wackos that thought it was great that "life" might have been found on Mars aren't you. :laugh:/>

wtf?

I didn't think you were intelligent enough to see the correlation. Shocking.

Well I guess you were right. Care to explain it to me? Please?

Sorry, I apologize for the insult. That was wrong of me. What I meant with the life on Mars correlation, was that most atheist/liberal/scientists find it utterly amazing and the greatest possible scientific breakthrough ever that a "single cell organism" found on Mars would qualify as "life" to them, but a group of cells growing into a human being inside a mother is nothing but a useless clump of nothingness worthy of zero chance of life.

Well, assuming your serious (and I am not sure you are) that's one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. I was hoping the "rational:wacko" ratio would be better on an Auburn-related forum. Guess not.

Ok. Why is it absurd? Are you just going to say something like that without explaining what you mean? I explained what I meant, so how about you do the same?

You really expect me to seriously deconstruct an argument about gun control that is based on scientists being excited about the possibility of life on Mars and abortion?

That would be foolish. While I may be a lot of things, I am no fool.

Heck, this is so wacko I am still not sure you aren't kidding and trying to suck me in.

Eh, you are such a militant liberal atheist that it would be a waste of typing space to even give you the chance to make even more of an idiot out of yourself than you already have in this thread. :laugh:/>

I think that is a smart move on your part. I am somewhat surprised.

Yes because it is apparent that you have such a huge grasp on this thread topic. And please don't make a fool of yourself and act like a big bad boy behind that keyboard, I'm quite certain a confrontation isn't something you would enjoy with me. But, everybody is a bad A behind the scenes.

I thought you weren't going to waste any more space on me? Heck you even included smileys.

[RunInRed 16,487]

Sadly, bump 

[RunInRed 16,487]

I'd also like to know what carrying a gun on your side would have done to protect you in this situation ...