Is it time for a serious conversation about Gun Control?

[aubearcat 2,137]

@homersapien To finish my thoughts on the last post and concerning the use of ARs in mass shootings, it’s because of the reasons I listed is why I believe they are used in the mass shootings along with the high capacity magazines. Also, one of the most notorious mass shootings was done by Charles Whitman with a bolt action rifle. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

6 minutes ago, aubearcat said:

I’m not being adversarial. I’m saying that I don’t think it should necessarily be made available to civilians. I’m aware of the weapon’s specs. We had to take an extensive training class to get qualified to carry one. The AR is used because of the ease of use, relatively low recoil (to me it’s not much worse than a .22), and accuracy. Yes it can be used for home defense because of the lack of penetration. It’s less dangerous to use in a close quarters situation (that’s why you see SWAT/TAC teams use short barrel ARs on entry)than a 12 gauge, which many on this site have stated as their go to for home defense. Also, I know people that hunt feral hogs with ARs. All that being said, I probably wouldn’t have one if it weren’t for Work. 

Presumably, you were already far more qualified than the average civilian to pick up a gun that you were unfamiliar with and had received no training on and wield it safely and responsibly. Yet, you were required to train extensively before carrying one. 

Appreciate your thoughts in this thread.

 

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

7 minutes ago, aubearcat said:

@homersapien To finish my thoughts on the last post and concerning the use of ARs in mass shootings, it’s because of the reasons I listed is why I believe they are used in the mass shootings along with the high capacity magazines. Also, one of the most notorious mass shootings was done by Charles Whitman with a bolt action rifle. 

Took him 96 minutes to shoot 17 people. 

[aubearcat 2,137]

3 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Took him 96 minutes to shoot 17 people. 

The lack of capacity slowed him down. That’s what makes the AR such a deadly beast in the hands of these people. A 30 round magazine that can be fired from a low recoil weapon. Add on the fact you can carry say 5-10 to reload with and you can create an unimaginable path of destruction. 

[aubearcat 2,137]

@homersapien @McLoofus here’s an article about the AR as a home defense weapon. It’s from a gun website but still has value 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/gundigest.com/reviews/ar-15-ideal-home-defense-guns/amp

[McLoofus 35,182]

8 minutes ago, aubearcat said:

The lack of capacity slowed him down. That’s what makes the AR such a deadly beast in the hands of these people. A 30 round magazine that can be fired from a low recoil weapon. Add on the fact you can carry say 5-10 to reload with and you can create an unimaginable path of destruction. 

Limiting the capacity of magazines has seemed to me like one of the "common sense" solutions that should stay on the table. 

[homersapien 11,389]

57 minutes ago, aubearcat said:

I’m not being adversarial. I’m saying that I don’t think it should necessarily be made available to civilians. I’m aware of the weapon’s specs. We had to take an extensive training class to get qualified to carry one. The AR is used because of the ease of use, relatively low recoil (to me it’s not much worse than a .22), and accuracy. Yes it can be used for home defense because of the lack of penetration. It’s less dangerous to use in a close quarters situation (that’s why you see SWAT/TAC teams use short barrel ARs on entry)than a 12 gauge, which many on this site have stated as their go to for home defense. Also, I know people that hunt feral hogs with ARs. All that being said, I probably wouldn’t have one if it weren’t for Work. 

I am not trying to be adversarial either.  But I think you are just flat out wrong about the suitability of this cartridge for self defense. Yes, it might be "safer" than say, a .30-06 or other calibers of high powered cartridges, but it's still a (very) high velocity rifle. 

The original military spec. for this rifle in terms of penetrative ability were:

• Penetration of US steel helmet through one side at 500 yards
• Penetration of .135-inch steel plate at 500 yards

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56×45mm_NATO

I don't think a couple of layers of sheetrock is going to protect a family member in an adjacent room  from a stray round.

Actually - IMO a least - a pump or autoloading shotgun is the ideal weapon for home defense (with #3 buckshot, or smaller).  Even a pistol round is more problematic than a shotgun in terms of penetration into other parts of the house.  

As to why SWAT teams use the 5.56,  I suspect they would answer for the precision a rifle offers.  But it's a valid question.  Shotguns probably would be more appropriate for the tactical situations they are most likely to encounter which often involve innocent people in adjacent rooms or houses.

[homersapien 11,389]

35 minutes ago, aubearcat said:

@homersapien @McLoofus here’s an article about the AR as a home defense weapon. It’s from a gun website but still has value 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/gundigest.com/reviews/ar-15-ideal-home-defense-guns/amp

No offense, but that was a pretty weak argument. The most it said regarding the penetration danger was "limited worries". 

Compared to what one might say?  Well, compaired to other high powered rifle cartridges and 00 buckshot.  (Note how they later conceded the possibility of using #4 shot instead of 00.)  

I stand my ground regarding the wisdom of using this cartridge for home defense.  A 5.6mm would be a better choice if your only other option was say, a .30-06 deer rifle, or nothing at all.  But neither is a gun suitable for home defense.

[aubearcat 2,137]

28 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No offense, but that was a pretty weak argument. The most it said regarding the penetration danger was "limited worries". 

Compared to what one might say?  Well, compaired to other high powered rifle cartridges and 00 buckshot.  (Note how they later conceded the possibility of using #4 shot instead of 00.)  

I stand my ground regarding the wisdom of using this cartridge for home defense.  A 5.6mm would be a better choice if your only other option was say, a .30-06 deer rifle, or nothing at all.  But neither is a gun suitable for home defense.

I suppose we’re at an impasse and agree to disagree.  Not only does law enforcement use ARs on entry and clearing, the military does as well because of it’s close quarters effectiveness and the ability to go long range if necessary. That being said, again I repeat, I don’t know that the AR should be made readily available to civilians. Now as far as reasonable measures to take concerning firearm regulations, magazine limitations as loof stated, is a good start. 

[DKW 86 7,428]

We need to do gun laws AND take a serious look at what is going on in our culture...WE NEED BOTH.

 

[DKW 86 7,428]

I dont agree with the teacher that the gun is not part of the problem. It is. The gun laws are part of the problem/answer. But a culture where NO LIVES MATTER is also doing deep damage.

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

3 hours ago, McLoofus said:

From the article:

Does "mentally impaired" offend you any less, Salty?

Well, it is certainly in keeping with our nation's approach to gun violence that we're all going to have to get shot dead before we can prove that guns are a big part of the problem. AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE. Jesus.

Guns are not the problem. Bad guys with guns are the problem. I simply threw the article out due to your rhetoric. Not going to pretend that I have the answer. As previously stated,  I do not agree with these weapons being on the market.

[augolf1716 21,213]

Good discussion 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

6 hours ago, McLoofus said:

Yes, the lobby whose primary function is to make sure that the gun industry maintains a high profit margin is complicit in the unnecessary and dangerous proliferation of guns. 

This issue isn't a partisan one for me, as Obama failed almost as miserably as Trump has. (Obama did not make it legal for the mentally ill to purchase firearms as Trump has, and he was trying to work with a GOP congress whose stated goal was to oppose every single initiative he put on the table no matter what, but he still failed.) But, unlike the GOP, Democrats don't go around feigning moral superiority with the wildly misleading "pro-life" tag. So that, combined with the current GOP-dominated Federal government to whom the NRA gives 90% of its campaign contributions, is what leads to comments like the one shared earlier in this thread. 

 

Based off the false premise that you can pragmatically legislate away mass shootings and a misunderstanding of considerations that MUST be addressed and rights potentially infringed  by such sweeping bills. It's erroneous to fault republicans just as it erroneous to fault Obama (as you mentioned him earlier). In what way did either fail in re gun control? By not passing sweeping regulation and if so exactly what kind of regulation?

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

Guns are not the problem. Bad guys with guns are the problem. I simply threw the article out due to your rhetoric. Not going to pretend that I have the answer. As previously stated,  I do not agree with these weapons being on the market.

Yep. and when those guys come around, we need good guys with guns. I can't grasp the logic of tightening gun laws when it ultimately burdens (i.e. Homer's proposed 500% sales tax) law-abiding citizens and has no effect on the psycho hell-bent on shooting up a school.

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

13 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Based off the false premise that you can pragmatically legislate away mass shootings and a misunderstanding of considerations that MUST be addressed and rights potentially infringed  by such sweeping bills. It's erroneous to fault republicans just as it erroneous to fault Obama (as you mentioned him earlier). In what way did either fail in re gun control? By not passing sweeping regulation and if so exactly what kind of regulation?

 

Gotta seize the moment in some folks mind.......i guess

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Gotta seize the moment in some folks mind.......i guess

FBI protocol was not followed, but instead its somehow Republican's (and Obama's) fault for not passing sweeping gun laws

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

I dont agree with the teacher that the gun is not part of the problem. It is. The gun laws are part of the problem/answer. But a culture where NO LIVES MATTER is also doing deep damage.

Also the FBI's failure to follow protocol.... then we wouldn't even be playing this politics-blame game which is to no avail. 

[alexava 6,973]

If you watch the videos these kids took you would not consider assault weapons “ inanimate “. 

[RunInRed 16,432]

@NolaAuTiger my “liberal ass” started this thread back in 2012.  Stating liberals are just screaming for changes now that Trump is on office is flat out false.

[homersapien 11,389]

5 hours ago, aubearcat said:

I suppose we’re at an impasse and agree to disagree.  Not only does law enforcement use ARs on entry and clearing, the military does as well because of it’s close quarters effectiveness and the ability to go long range if necessary. That being said, again I repeat, I don’t know that the AR should be made readily available to civilians. Now as far as reasonable measures to take concerning firearm regulations, magazine limitations as loof stated, is a good start. 

Please note that neither of those two examples involve home defense.

[homersapien 11,389]

3 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Guns are not the problem. Bad guys with guns are the problem. I simply threw the article out due to your rhetoric. Not going to pretend that I have the answer. As previously stated,  I do not agree with these weapons being on the market.

Don't forget troubled teenagers.  

[homersapien 11,389]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Yep. and when those guys come around, we need good guys with guns. I can't grasp the logic of tightening gun laws when it ultimately burdens (i.e. Homer's proposed 500% sales tax) law-abiding citizens and has no effect on the psycho hell-bent on shooting up a school.

You are totally missing the point.  The availability of cheap, mass-marketed assault rifles is part of the problem, psychos aside.

[homersapien 11,389]

2 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Gotta seize the moment in some folks mind.......i guess

[McLoofus 35,182]

2 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

FBI protocol was not followed, but instead its somehow Republican's (and Obama's) fault for not passing sweeping gun laws

Looking forward to your excuse next time. Won't be long, sadly.