Gun banning and fast and furious...

[Tez3]

By your logic: bdibdjfb lsjfbfufbr odhfkdfidnd oejdhfufbfmxk. And might I add: idhffbjnf. I can't help it if you cannot or will not take what I say the way I mean it. I'm responsible for what I say, not what you understand. I have no responsibility to convey my message in a comprehensible manner. Reception and comprehension of the message are entirely the responsibility if the recipient, right? It's not like the transmitter of a message could possibly be held accountable for poor conveyance of a message through flippant negligence of English grammar and semantics, right? And how do phalanges feel against the uvula, I'd really like to know!

Any time you feel you want to stop these personal attacks on me feel free. You don't have to like me or what I write, you can put me on ignore but personal attacks are against the rules here, as is carrying on these attacks from thread to thread.

 

[Josh Oakley]

Marksmanship is nice but we were trained for suppressive fire to limit the ability of the enemy to maneuver and to allow us to move freely around the battlefield. Once again, single fire was what they were training us to do, not fully automatic. It burns up way too much ammo and, as has been stated, it isn't accurate. 2004---where are the killing sprees with AK's and Ar-15's?

I don't disagree with you on your general points so far this thread, but since you asked: Geneva County massacre, and the tacoma mall shooting.

 

[Josh Oakley]

Any time you feel you want to stop these personal attacks on me feel free. You don't have to like me or what I write, you can put me on ignore but personal attacks are against the rules here, as is carrying on these attacks from thread to thread.

I'm not attacking your person, I'm attacking your logic. But by your logic, it is your responsibility to take what I say the way I mean it, not mine. If you are interpreting a humorous critique of logic and methods as a personal attack, that is your responsibility. As you said, I can only be responsible for the things I say, not what you understand. If you cannot or will not take what I say the way I mean it, that is your responsibility, not mine.

 

[JohnEdward]

I understand what your saying but you cant legislate peoples perspective. If someone has the mindset to treat guns as toys banning the gun wont change his mindset. A recreational object and a toy are two differnet things. I have an AK for a few reasons. #1 its collectable and it played an important role in modern history #2 its an extreamly durable weapon and will shoot not matter what you do with it. When I was in Albania in the Marines I trained with some Albanian Military who used bacon fat as lub for the gun and looked like they never cleaned them and they still shot and smelled like cooking bacon to boot lol #3 it is fun to shoot. All shooting I do is for recreation Im not a soilder in a war zone. Im not an irresponsible gun owner I have a safe all my guns are locked up. I follow all range safety rules.

AS to the Bank Robbery it kinda goes against your argument since the only two people killed were the 2 robbers. All the automatic fire they used was very ineffective. they fireed approx 1800 rounds and only hit 18 people killing none.
2ndly banning these weapons wouldnt have prevented this event from occuring since as Bill said its already ILLEGAL to rob a bank with any and all guns.

Me quoting myself is a response to the above quote.

I don't want an AK weapon in the hands of every red neck bubba, terrorist or nut case Armageddon survivalist or wacko with a hair trigger bent on society getting their hands on one on American soil legally. I don't want to see them in public at rallies, or similar events, instead I prefer to see them in the hands of police or military under those conditions. I don't want to hear one was use in any sort of crime, especially by cartels either. I would think price isn't an issue for cartels, it is availability.

The only time I want to see these weapons in the public’s hands is when everybody needs assault weapon is to protect the country [if need be].

It boggles my mind and creates concern for me when people disagree with what I said [my own quotes].

 

[billc]

Tacoma: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Mall_shooting

[h=2]The shooter[/h]

The perpetrator in the shootings was 20-year-old Dominick Sergio Maldonado, who had an extensive juvenile criminal record including burglary, theft, and possession of burglary tools. He had also been given a court order not to possess any weapons. At the time of the shooting, Maldonado had recently separated from his girlfriend, and had been taking methamphetamine for five days.[SUP][3][/SUP]

I love those court orders, they should use them more often. This is simply to point out that the criminal was...well, a criminal, and ILLEGALLY had possession of the firearm and apparently was using Meth.

Also, the weapon wasn't an AK or an AR:

The gunman, Dominick Maldonado, entered the mall with a semi-automatic Norinco MAK-90 rifle and a pistol, injuring six before he instigated four armed kidnappings.

 

[granfire]

AS to the Bank Robbery it kinda goes against your argument since the only two people killed were the 2 robbers. All the automatic fire they used was very ineffective. they fireed approx 1800 rounds and only hit 18 people killing none.
2ndly banning these weapons wouldnt have prevented this event from occuring since as Bill said its already ILLEGAL to rob a bank with any and all guns.

Well you can't blame them, it wasn't for the lack of trying, really, that nobody croaked, at least one person came awefully close.

 

[billc]

Geneva county:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,508507,00.html

Curious, they don't mention the type of firearm used. They say it was automatic fire, but I would like to know exactly what weapon it was.

 

[ballen0351]

Geneva county:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,508507,00.htmlCurious, they don't mention the type of firearm used. They say it was automatic fire, but I would like to know exactly what weapon it was.

If I remember right he used an AR15 and an SKS rifle. It still doesn't help johns argument he continues to ignore the facts that less then 1% of all gun crimes and only used in 4% of spree killings and mass shootings involve these guns. He just dosent want redneck to own them. Well I don't want bad drivers allowed to drive sports cars so ban them too while were at it. More people die from car accidents then assault weapons so at least I have a real reason for my ban not just propaganda and fear mongering.

 

[ballen0351]

Well you can't blame them, it wasn't for the lack of trying, really, that nobody croaked, at least one person came awefully close.

no but it shows these are not the killer death machines people try to make then out to be the va tech shooter killed 32 with a 22 and 9mmI pistols. So why not add them to the ban? Why ban a gun on its looks and looks alone. Its silly and not based on reality.

 

[JohnEdward]

If I remember right he used an AR15 and an SKS rifle. It still doesn't help johns argument he continues to ignore the facts that less then 1% of all gun crimes and only used in 4% of spree killings and mass shootings involve these guns. He just dosent want redneck to own them. Well I don't want bad drivers allowed to drive sports cars so ban them too while were at it. More people die from car accidents then assault weapons so at least I have a real reason for my ban not just propaganda and fear mongering.

I don't wish to sound rude or be rude, but what in the world are you talking about? Per your logic, it is ok for drug cartels and other criminals to have unrestricted access to high powered assault weapons, and do as they will with them absence of any consequences, so you can have a high powered assault weapon. Just because such guns are equivalent to the thrill of a sports car?

I am concerned about public safety, I don't say, aw hell with public safety, I am owning that gun!"

I am concern with high powered weaponry being used predominately as the gun of choice by gangs and drug cartels here and abroad. You know like this news report talks about http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2078184...-weapon-attacks-rise-miami-area/#.Tq4I-3OM6YU in 2007. Then look at what is happening with our Southern neighbors right now, for example, they love the high powered assault weapon, it works for them.

I have a social conscious that over-rides my fancy. And unlike some, will not fight to protect my fancy tooth and nail. You say aw people dying from assault weapons isn't much, is so bad. That type of disregard for human live, just because you love the thrill of your assault weapon being just like a sports car, it bad. But when you say something like 2% - 3% isn't too much to have assault weapons involved in crimes, well in my book that isn't ok. Evidently you think that is acceptable. I suggest you translate that 2% into a real number. Then into real human lives.

There is my argument. You modeled my concern and support my "argument" about why a ban/restriction on automatic weapons should exist pretty well, if I don't say so myself.

 

[David43515]

I think that when people decide they want to ban these weapons from civillian ownership in order to "fight crime" they`re missing a very important point, one that Ballen already brought up. These assult weapons aren`t used in enough crimes for a ban to make a difference. And the reason for that is simple, you can`t stick an AK or an AR under your shirt and walk into a club or a store without someone noticing. Someone pointed out earlier that the ONLY basic difference between hunting rifles and military sniper rifles is that hunting rifles are available in more calibers. And again, they`re hardly ever used in crimes because they aren`t easy to conceal.

And i wish someone had clarified this early on, it would have saved alot of headaches. An "assault rifle", by definition, is a weapon capable of BOTH semi-auto and full auto fire, and fires an intermediate sized round. As Bill pointed out, semi-auto means that the weapon fires once for each time you pull the trigger. Fully automatic means that the weapon continues to fire as long as you hold down the trigger. Two very different animals. An intermediate round means it`s more powerful than the average pistol round, but not as powerful as a full-sized rifle round. (The idea being that since it`s designed for shorter range engagements it doesn`t need the long reach of a rifle round. Also the reduced recoil would be easier on the shooter.)

 

[David43515]

The idea of setting up requirements in order to execise a fundemental right has already been tried and proven to be a sad failure. Poll taxes and Jim Crow laws that said people should be "qualified" to vote are good examples. Human nature being what it is we tend to get drunk on our power and decide that the only people whose rights should be protected are people like us. We don`t want "the wrong kind of people" to own guns. The question becomes "who decides who the wrong kind of people are?"

And I think that the way we decide now really is the only fair way. We look at what people HAVE done, rather than what they MIGHT do. Crimminals are banned from gun ownership. People who have been proven to be mentally incompitent are banned from gun ownership. And people under age are temporarily banned. Other than that, untill you show that you`re too irresponsible to own a firearm we assume you are. We do the same thing with cars, swimming pools, boats, and alchahol. No one decides when you`ve earned the right to free speech or freedom of religion, because they`re rights beyond the scope of what government was meant to regulate. The constitution doesn`t say that the government gives us our rights. It says just the opposite: that it recognizes that there are certain rights every man has that are so fundimental that the government doesn`t have the power or authority to deny them without serious cause.

I`m afraid I`ll beging to ramble if I carry on too much more, so just let me finish by saying we have 100`s if not thousands of gun laws on the books already. If they were actually enforced instead of ignored by those elected into positions of trust we wouldn`t be having nearly as many problems.

 

[David43515]

I seriosly wish I could find the source for this, but I gave up most of my books when I got married. I remember when the Brady ban was just going into effect and both sides were looking for evidence to support their agendas, a very interesting statistic came out. According to police records concerning the number of assault weapons on the street, officers in New York had been attacked by tigers (escaped from the zoo) more often than they had encountered any assault weapons.

 

[JohnEdward]

no but it shows these are not the killer death machines people try to make then out to be the va tech shooter killed 32 with a 22 and 9mmI pistols. So why not add them to the ban? Why ban a gun on its looks and looks alone. Its silly and not based on reality.

you're saying because a Walther P 22 and a 9mm Glock :shotgun:are more of a killing machine than saying things that fires 650 or more rounds of 5.45×39mm /min:wuguns: Therefore, assault weapons are less of a killing machine? Gee, ya better let the Mexican Drug cartels know this they are using and smuggling the wrong weapon.:hb:

 

[JohnEdward]

I seriosly wish I could find the source for this, but I gave up most of my books when I got married. I remember when the Brady ban was just going into effect and both sides were looking for evidence to support their agendas, a very interesting statistic came out. According to police records concerning the number of assault weapons on the street, officers in New York had been attacked by tigers (escaped from the zoo) more often than they had encountered any assault weapons.

Yea, lucky them. You might want to share that with the Mexican police.

 

[David43515]

John, you`re comparing apples and oranges again. The weapons the cartels are buying from regular gunstores aren`t capable of doing that. They`re buying up semi-auto weapons (one bullet per trigger pull) and taking them down there. The stores don`t have a liscense to sell what you trying to ban, and each time you buy a class 3 weapon (one capable of full auto fire) there`s a huge investigation buy local and federal LEOs. Each and every time.

 

[billc]

Excuse me for pointing this out, ...but...if you were a police officer in Ohio, recently, the odds of running into a tiger, or a lion, or a panther increased by quite a bit.

 

[David43515]

Yea, lucky them. You might want to share that with the Mexican police.

If Mexican Police are being shot with full auto weapons, chances are that they didn`t come from the US. They were either stolen or purchased on the black market from the police themselves or brought in from central and south america. (And unfortunately, theres also a good chance it`s being fired by another policeman on the wrong payroll.)

 

[billc]

The mexican police are dealing with para-military drug cartels. They actually have a problem with a military style operation, supplied by Chinese and European weapons, and once again, they are against Mexican law, and the activity of the drug cartels is ILLEGAL. This once again shows that banning these weapons will not work. The criminals understand their needs better than the do gooders do. They will ILLEGALLY acquire the tools they need to get their business done, without regard to what the law says.

 

[ballen0351]

John your argument is flawed. You claim to want to ban assault weapons because of gun crimes. If that were trye then why not ban all guns? Or why not ban the. 38 revolver since the ATF says its the number 1 weapon used in all gun crimes. Why not ban the Glock since the Va Tech shooter used it to kill way more people then any one else. You can't have it both ways your either pro 2nd amendment or your not. If you truly wanted to save america from gun violence then you need to actually ban the guns being used in crimes. The only reason you want these guns banned is because MSNBC told you they were dangerious. As for our southern neighbors banning guns in the us will not stop the violence. They are using full auto military weapons, grenades, rock launcers all of which are already banned in the US. The cartels are getting the guns from the mexican military and corupt police officials. Also you keep saying we want guns available to Everyone. That's just a lie nobody has said that. Im all for responsible back ground checks. Im ok with crminals and crazys not being allowed to own guns. What im not ok with is revoking the 2nd amendment because our souther neighbor is in the middle of a drug war, and because MSNBC and Obama don't think we are responsible enough and need to protct me for my own good. And it scares me that peopke in this country trust our govt that much.