The Firearms Industry Boycott Grows.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by PIMking

you can move to one of your liberal anti gun paradises like England if you want, no one is stopping you from leaving and you can be in your gun free double rainbow utopia like all the other unicorn riders

No thanks, I'll just wait out you gun lovers, time is on our side.

Scalia isn't getting any younger.

And then you can move to Yemen to be around a bunch of other gun lovers.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by helix139

Not the same thing. In my solution, if there is no harm there is no foul and it is left up to the individual to weigh their own risks. In yours, a single guy who lives alone and keeps his pistol accessible in his nightstand as opposed to locking it up every night in a safe is punished despite there being no real danger of the gun being stolen.



For the same reason an 18 wheeler shouldn't be considered a car. Arms of the time of the 2nd amendment were generally understood to mean individually carried weapons that generally don't cause significant collateral damage. Ordinance was generally considered to be cannons and the like and were never protected. There wasn't really a definition of explosives as they weren't really used by the military at the time, but in function explosives would be significantly closer to ordinance than arms, as they cause indiscriminate devastation on a large scale as opposed to comparatively limited damage caused by a targeted bullet, slug, or shot shell

Do we really need to go over how much collateral damage has been caused by gun usage in this country? If the test should be on the capability to cause collateral damage, it would seem likely that allowed guns would be limited to only the most accurate and easiest to handle guns.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by GatorMid

Not yet, but that's not the point. Cruise missiles aren't exactly commonplace in this country - thugs with guns wanting to rape/murder/burglarize sadly are...

Earlier you seemed to lump all semi-autos into the same category - is it just "assault weapons" you're after now? What exactly is an "assault weapon"?

I can carry three 10-round clips and get them all off pretty quickly - not too much longer than one may take to get off a single 30 rounder.

Or are the AR 15's just a little too scary looking....

I waterfowl hunt - I absolutely love it....and I love my 2 benelli semi-autos. Heading out on a snow goose hunt in a couple days and have already modified one of them to be able to hold extra shells - if ARs are banned, the crazies and the thugs will still have plenty of options to carry out their sick intentions. And my guns will be on the short list to be banned.

Regardless, I wonder AGAIN, what the number of ARs used in crimes would look like as a percentage of those owned by law abiding citizens...and I continue to wonder why some want to punish so many by limiting their abilities to continue lawfully owning, in an effort to curb the unlawful activities of criminals that represent such a small fraction.

It's just not right.

And once again how did those "thugs" get guns? Stolen from legal gun owners and bought from legal gun dealers through straw purchases. Maybe the issue is that we need to cut their supply rather than getting into shootouts.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

An unlimited supply of guns will simply walk over the Arizona and New Mexico borders. Pipelines for a black market in weapons will thrive. The prices will be higher but not that much.

Doubtful. I have no idea why you would switch over from drugs to guns without an absolutely amazing profit margin. Similar risks to operating as in the drug market. So it would require an astounding markup to make up for the amazing markup provided by operating in the drug market.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

No thanks, I'll just wait out you gun lovers, time is on our side.

Scalia isn't getting any younger.

And then you can move to Yemen to be around a bunch of other gun lovers.

you and you liberal baby boomers will die out before me

[helix139]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

Do we really need to go over how much collateral damage has been caused by gun usage in this country? If the test should be on the capability to cause collateral damage, it would seem likely that allowed guns would be limited to only the most accurate and easiest to handle guns.

Well in that case, AR-15s would be at the top of the list as would most military weapons.

But there is a difference, and it's not total collateral damage, but collateral damage per discharge. Explosives are intended to cause indiscriminate damage by their very nature. Guns, though dangerous, don't have nearly that kind of destructive power in a single discharge. One discharge of a gun generally has the possibility of killing 1 person, maybe a couple given the right ammo and extremely unlikely circumstances, but for the most part the gun has to be aimed and the trigger has to be pulled in order to kill someone and nobody else is in danger except the person it is aimed at. Explosives will kill anyone and destroy anything in the blast radius with a single use and by their very nature tend to be volatile and unstable and more prone to going off accidentally with no action on the part of anyone.

[wygator]

Originally Posted by helix139

Well in that case, AR-15s would be at the top of the list as would most military weapons.

But there is a difference, and it's not total collateral damage, but collateral damage per discharge. Explosives are intended to cause indiscriminate damage by their very nature. Guns, though dangerous, don't have nearly that kind of destructive power in a single discharge. One discharge of a gun generally has the possibility of killing 1 person, maybe a couple given the right ammo and extremely unlikely circumstances, but for the most part the gun has to be aimed and the trigger has to be pulled in order to kill someone and nobody else is in danger except the person it is aimed at. Explosives will kill anyone and destroy anything in the blast radius with a single use and by their very nature tend to be volatile and unstable and more prone to going off accidentally with no action on the part of anyone.

A complete assault weapon ban would have little effect on gun homicides because most are committed with handguns.

[helix139]

Originally Posted by wygator

A complete assault weapon ban would have little effect on gun homicides because most are committed with handguns.

You're preaching to the choir dude I was simply saying that ARs and military style rifles would be at the top of the list in terms of accuracy and controllability.

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by wygator

A complete assault weapon ban would have little effect on gun homicides because most are committed with handguns.

By far, the weapon of choice, as the post-assault ban, government funded study proved in spades.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by wygator

A complete assault weapon ban would have little effect on gun homicides because most are committed with handguns.

Maybe, but there would probably be several kids still alive in Newtown if assault weapons were banned. That alone makes it worth it.

[mdgator05]

Originally Posted by wygator

A complete assault weapon ban would have little effect on gun homicides because most are committed with handguns.

Then why do we see results like this on a state-by-state level:

[helix139]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Maybe, but there would probably be several kids still alive in Newtown if assault weapons were banned. That alone makes it worth it.

The killer in Newtown left his AR-15 in his trunk. It was not used in the shooting. He used pistols.

And as far as the "worth it" part, not to sound callous, as the loss of each life was certainly tragic, but statistically it is not significant at all. These mass shootings are outliers and the result would be giving up a significant class of personal defense tool to possibly save an extremely small number of lives. For all we know, the Newtown killer would have used Fertilizer and Gasoline and made a bomb and blown up the school if he couldn't get a hold of a pistol. It's simply not worth it, IMO, as when these weapons are eventually needed in wide use (and at some point they will be), the cost of not having them for the people of this country will be catastrophic even moreso than all of our mass shootings combined.

[HudsonGator]

Originally Posted by helix139

The killer in Newtown left his AR-15 in his trunk. It was not used in the shooting. He used pistols.

You need to stop reading and/or listening to wherever you are getting your information, the NRA, Fox News, some gun freak website, etc. The truth is every one of those kids died as a result of a bullet from an assault weapon.

Lt. J. Paul Vance, the face of an ongoing Connecticut State Police investigation into worst grade-school shooting in U.S. history, Thursday debunked media and Internet reports that Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza killed his victims with handguns and not the Bushmaster XM-15 E2S rifle that is now the focus of a proposed federal assault-weapons ban.

All 26 of Lanza's victims were shot with the .223-caliber semi-automatic rifle, said Vance, who bristled at claims to the contrary during an interview with Hearst Connecticut Newspapers.

"It's all these conspiracy theorists that are trying to mucky up the waters," said Vance, the longtime state police spokesman.

Multiple Second Amendment and gun owner websites have attempted to cast doubts on whether the Bushmaster XM-15, a type of AR-15 rifle that is currently legal, was used in the Dec. 14 carnage done by Lanza....

http://www.greenwichtime.com/newtown...th-4220548.php

Originally Posted by helix139

And as far as the "worth it" part, not to sound callous, as the loss of each life was certainly tragic, but statistically it is not significant at all. These mass shootings are outliers and the result would be giving up a significant class of personal defense tool to possibly save an extremely small number of lives. For all we know, the Newtown killer would have used Fertilizer and Gasoline and made a bomb and blown up the school if he couldn't get a hold of a pistol. It's simply not worth it, IMO, as when these weapons are eventually needed in wide use (and at some point they will be), the cost of not having them for the people of this country will be catastrophic even moreso than all of our mass shootings combined.

Sorry, but your "right" to have an assault weapon is not worth more than one single child's life. You don't need an AR-15 to shoot deer and you certainly don't need one to defend yourself. Just as society has come to terms with the idea that people don't need machine guns, we need to accept that citizens don't need assault weapons.

Pistols, shotguns and standard hunting rifles should be more than sufficient to make you gun people happy.

[gatorpa]

Originally Posted by PIMking

The Federal Government and it's fast and furious programs

Love it!!

[gatorpa]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

No thanks, I'll just wait out you gun lovers, time is on our side.

Scalia isn't getting any younger.

And then you can move to Yemen to be around a bunch of other gun lovers.

240 years or so, I would not hold your breath

[Lawdog88]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Maybe, but there would probably be several kids still alive in Newtown if assault weapons were banned. That alone makes it worth it.

Your implied argument that all lawful owners of military-styled firearms - who have committed no illegal act with said firearms - should be required to give up their right to own them, either out of some kind of transferred guilt about Newtown or because of the false notion that, in doing so, no person will ever be killed by a military-styled firearm in the future, is a stupid one.

[Minister_of_Information]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

Maybe, but there would probably be several kids still alive in Newtown if assault weapons were banned. That alone makes it worth it.

Sorry, but liberty is a value that is more fundamental than the illusion of safety and the expiation of irrational guilt. At least in the opinion of some.

[wygator]

Originally Posted by HudsonGator

You need to stop reading and/or listening to wherever you are getting your information, the NRA, Fox News, some gun freak website, etc. The truth is every one of those kids died as a result of a bullet from an assault weapon.



http://www.greenwichtime.com/newtown...th-4220548.php



Sorry, but your "right" to have an assault weapon is not worth more than one single child's life. You don't need an AR-15 to shoot deer and you certainly don't need one to defend yourself. Just as society has come to terms with the idea that people don't need machine guns, we need to accept that citizens don't need assault weapons.

Pistols, shotguns and standard hunting rifles should be more than sufficient to make you gun people happy.

Sorry, but you're just not getting it. An assault weapon is simply a rifle with a pistol grip or some other cosmetic addition. It usually shoots a 22LR or .223 Remington round. The most popular handguns are 9mm, 38ACP, 38 special, 40 S & W, 45 and 357 Magnum. All are a larger caliber and more damaging than the most common "assault weapons".

He could have done the same thing, just as fast, with a couple of handguns, or a few extra magazines. It's the crazy person behind the gun...not the gun.

It is a horrific event...shooting the kids one by one in that classroom. By all accounts he wasn't rushed, so the size of the magazine was not a contributing factor. He could have poured gasoline all over the room and set it on fire if he was that determined to commit mass murder, which he apparently was.

[wygator]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

Then why do we see results like this on a state-by-state level:

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you're getting at. Maybe if I had the accompanying article.

Please explain what you want me to understand from this graph.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by mdgator05

Many guns have limited purpose outside of killing people.

You think self defense is a "limited purpose?"