Gun owners keeping it classy

[Stellafane]

Originally Posted by Polaris

You really don't have any clue about the weapons under discussion, do you?

Well "no clue" is perhaps a little harsh, but I will readily admit to ignorance about their specific technical characteristics. And I can see where you'd think that ignorance is the cause of my lack of understanding, but I don't believe it is. My point -- which I believe remains valid -- is my question about the continued public availability of weapons designed solely to kill human beings, without offering any practical value in terms of self-defense or hunting. I just don't think that whatever fun one derives from shooting at targets or "varmints" justifies the existence of devices that can and are being used for mass murder.

Now if somehow these types of weapons could be confined solely to shooting ranges, and someone be made so it's impossible for them to be removed from the premises, I could support their use, since their risk to society would be eliminated. But I just don't see how that could ever be made possible.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

You're forgetting the mother of the "lone nutcase" who provided him with training and access to her guns.

Which I think is what a lot of us find the most concerning. Crazies and criminals will always find ways to carry out their acts of atrocity. But what about the otherwise law-abiding citizens who facilitate these atrocities through their own carelessness and irresponsibility?

As a gun-owner, do you not feel any responsibility to safeguard the rest of us from the misuse of your firearms? And if so, do you agree that stricter enforcement needs to take place in order to ensure gun-owners are taking the necessary steps to safeguard the public from the misuse of their firearms?

I am all about gun safes. Do you propose some sort of law enforcing that gun owners obtain some sort of safe for their firearms?

[Dcdrac]

Coming back to the card topic you do not have to be a non gun owner to see that this card is wrong on so many levels.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

Coming back to the card topic you do not have to be a non gun owner to see that this card is wrong on so many levels.

I know, right? You're supposed to dress up a bit for Xmas cards.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

Coming back to the card topic you do not have to be a non gun owner to see that this card is wrong on so many levels.

To those unfamiliar with guns it may seem wrong, but for those of us who use shooting as a hobby, it is perfectly acceptable. Just because you do not understand it does not make it wrong.

[Stellafane]

I've pretty much said all I have to say on the subject (originally I just wanted to comment on the OP, not get into a general discussion about guns), but I will respond briefly to the following:

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

So your excuse for not going after alcohol is that it would be too hard?

Well, yeah actually. We know gun control works, based on the experiences of many other countries. We know that Prohibition didn't work in this country. If we had some effective measures to control alcohol abuse, I'd be all for them. But the fact that such measures aren't readily apparent doesn't mean we shouldn't employ gun-control measures that we already know would work. There may be very good reasons to oppose more restrictive gun control, but I really don't think our lack of action on alcohol control is one of them.

Quote:

Shooting the weapon under parental supervision at a range causes no harm to anyone. A child consuming alcohol is devastating to his body. Big difference.

The latter may be true, but the former certainly isn't in every case.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by Stellafane

Well "no clue" is perhaps a little harsh, but I will readily admit to ignorance about their specific technical characteristics. And I can see where you'd think that ignorance is the causee of my lack of understanding derives, but I don't believe it is. My point -- which I believe remains valid -- is my question about the continued public availability of weapons designed solely to kill human beings, without offering any practical value in terms of self-defense or hunting. I just don't think that whatever fun one derives from shooting at targets or "varmints" justifies the existence of devices that can and are being used for mass murder.

Now if somehow these types of weapons could be confined solely to shooting ranges, and someone be made so it's impossible for them to be removed from the premises, I could support their use, since their risk to society would be eliminated. But I just don't see how that could ever be made possible.

Agreed, that was harsh and I apologize. I've been trying to keep my responses in these threads civil and reasoned, and you have too from what I've seen. I've just seen too many arguments about justifying the ownership of a semi-automatic firearm (I have two) that begin with something to the effect of "why do you need a machine gun?!" To me this makes as much sense as saying I'd like to buy a Cessna and being asked why I want a fighter jet.

Regarding safe storage, here's a thought. In Dallas, back in 2004, I went to a range to fire a Mini Uzi. A real, fully automatic one, not a semi-automatic wannabe. It belonged to the range, IIRC, as a corporation. In order to even touch it, the range worker could not hand it to me. It was tethered to the booth, he set it down, and I picked it up - all under supervision.

[Stellafane]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

To those unfamiliar with guns it may seem wrong, but for those of us who use shooting as a hobby, it is perfectly acceptable. Just because you do not understand it does not make it wrong.

Yes, I agree. I do not understand, and as I stated earlier this card depresses me. But my lack of understanding doesn't mean those with whom I disagree are necessarily wrong, which is why I refused to call the card "disgusting."

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by Stellafane

I've pretty much said all I have to say on the subject (originally I just wanted to comment on the OP, not get into a general discussion about guns), but I will respond briefly to the following:



Well, yeah actually. We know gun control works, based on the experiences of many other countries. We know that Prohibition didn't work in this country. If we had some effective measures to control alcohol abuse, I'd be all for them. But the fact that such measures aren't readily apparent doesn't mean we shouldn't employ gun-control measures that we already know would work. There may be very good reasons to oppose more restrictive gun control, but I really don't think our lack of action on alcohol control is one of them.



The latter may be true, but the former certainly isn't in every case.

There are rare circumstances for just about every activity out there, so your video doesn't mean much to me, as it is about as far from the norm as it gets. And I don't necessarily think that comparing policies of other countries to ours is that useful, as our culture is completely different.

[Stellafane]

Originally Posted by Polaris

...In Dallas, back in 2004, I went to a range to fire a Mini Uzi. A real, fully automatic one, not a semi-automatic wannabe. It belonged to the range, IIRC, as a corporation. In order to even touch it, the range worker could not hand it to me. It was tethered to the booth, he set it down, and I picked it up - all under supervision.

I have no problem with this kind of setup. No one needs to justify a hobby -- whatever gets you off is my motto -- if there is no societal risk involved. Under such a setup as you describe, my response would be, blast away!

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by Polaris

Agreed, that was harsh and I apologize. I've been trying to keep my responses in these threads civil and reasoned, and you have too from what I've seen. I've just seen too many arguments about justifying the ownership of a semi-automatic firearm (I have two) that begin with something to the effect of "why do you need a machine gun?!" To me this makes as much sense as saying I'd like to buy a Cessna and being asked why I want a fighter jet.

Regarding safe storage, here's a thought. In Dallas, back in 2004, I went to a range to fire a Mini Uzi. A real, fully automatic one, not a semi-automatic wannabe. It belonged to the range, IIRC, as a corporation. In order to even touch it, the range worker could not hand it to me. It was tethered to the booth, he set it down, and I picked it up - all under supervision.

Personally, I think the regulation of assault rifles and machine guns are already exactly where they need to be. And it would be much, much more efficient if the anti gun crowd could educate themselves on the differences in the types of firearms before they comment on them because all it does is add more confusion to the argument when they have no idea what they are talking about. So if we want to regulate semi auto rifles, then let's talk about that. But when words such as "Machine gun" and 'Assault weapon" keep getting thrown around nothing is going to get done.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Personally, I think the regulation of assault rifles and machine guns are already exactly where they need to be. And it would be much, much more efficient if the anti gun crowd could educate themselves on the differences in the types of firearms before they comment on them because all it does is add more confusion to the argument when they have no idea what they are talking about. So if we want to regulate semi auto rifles, then let's talk about that. But when words such as "Machine gun" and 'Assault weapon" keep getting thrown around nothing is going to get done.

Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with the bolded. I'm thinking more in terms of compromise even if there was no jargon confusion. I won't be poor forever, and eventually I want to be able to own whatever firearm I want. If it means I have to keep my M60E3 in a range the same way a plane is kept in a hanger, so be it.

To be fair, also, I was the one who used the word "machine gun" (also a very specific thing) for hyperbolic reasons.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by Polaris

Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with the bolded. I'm thinking more in terms of compromise even if there was no jargon confusion. I won't be poor forever, and eventually I want to be able to own whatever firearm I want. If it means I have to keep my M60E3 in a range the same way a plane is kept in a hanger, so be it.

To be fair, also, I was the one who used the word "machine gun" (also a very specific thing) for hyperbolic reasons.

Oh I know you are the one who used it, but I have seen other users use the same term in other threads, calling out for their immediate ban. But they call for a ban not having any knowledge of the existing laws regarding machine guns, or any real knowledge of crimes actually committed with automatic weapons.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Oh I know you are the one who used it, but I have seen other users use the same term in other threads, calling out for their immediate ban. But they call for a ban not having any knowledge of the existing laws regarding machine guns, or any real knowledge of crimes actually committed with automatic weapons.

My company's PC keeps denying me access to the links I get from searching "crimes committed with Class 3 weapon" (some silly "weapons" policy ), but I recall some years ago reading that the only crime committed with a legal automatic weapon was a policeman using his Galil in a shooting in 1986.

Maybe someone else can track that down.

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

If all that target shooters wanted to do is improve their skill at target shooting and maybe enter competitions to do the same then why not use an air weapon with a low power?

They are just as accurate and none lethal in most cases (caveat to say that yes, I know that it is possible to make an air weapon with a very high power and in freak circumstances people have been killed with low power weapons.)

Some people do that. I bought an air rifle to improve my skills in the standing position after I did poorly with the M-16 at a medal shoot for the navy. The Olympic 10 meter air rifle target has a 0.5mm bullseye, this is like using a 4.6mm (3/16ths inch) bull at 100 yards.

There are air rifles designed for hunting small and medium sized game. They are made to kill animals. http://www.quackenbushairguns.com/

Power does not equal accuracy unless you are speaking of long range where wind is a factor. The faster a projectile reaches the target, the better the potential accuracy is. Since wind can be hard to guess and it not consistent in velocity from the shooter to the target, it is one of those variables that the air rifle shooter usually doesn't have to contend with.

Ranb

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Which could be gained in many other avenues. Why a firearm?

You can be a better "marksman" with something else? I guess I could take up ax throwing....

"Marksmanship" usually requires a firearm. But, I suppose spit balls could also count.....

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

Is it irrelevant because you now see the hypocrisy of attacking firearms when there is a substance that serves a much, much less relevant purpose in society but yet kills thousands more?

There are bans on alcohol in place in the USA. For example, one cannot drink alcohol at many work places and definitely not government facilities. Alcohol is heavily regulated, as well as it's use. I'd like to see firearms heavily regulated, as well as firearm usage.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

None of us committed crimes with guns, one lone nutcase in Newtown did. Why should the actions of a mentally unstable individual impact me?

Because it's a symptom of a much larger problem. This is a high-profile shooting, but people are shot every few minutes in the USA at large. That's the the issue that needs dealing with.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes

We should repeal the 2d Amendment,

No, and good luck with that dream.

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes

and start pulling all these useless guns out of circulation.

So, all useless guns? So, which ones would they be? Even the 1800's Blunderbuss that hangs in my living room, has a use, even though it hasn't fired a shot in, oh, about 100 years, and most likely couldn't.

Originally Posted by Charlie Wilkes

People who really want guns can still have them, but only after meeting stringent requirements.

Good luck with that too.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

You can be a better "marksman" with something else? I guess I could take up ax throwing....

"Marksmanship" usually requires a firearm. But, I suppose spit balls could also count.....

Or, as mentioned elsewhere, light guns. They use them in the olympics.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

There are bans on alcohol in place in the USA. For example, one cannot drink alcohol at many work places and definitely not government facilities. Alcohol is heavily regulated, as well as it's use. I'd like to see firearms heavily regulated, as well as firearm usage.

So you think alcohol is regulated more than firearms? Last time I checked, the day you turn 21 you can go purchase as much alcohol as you please. And btw, you can't carry firearms into government facilities either...

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Are you comparing the accuracy of air rifles with their traditional counterparts? There's no way they're as accurate. I'm sure velocity has a lot to do with accuracy - so the slower the projectile the less accurate.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems pretty off, calling it as accurate as a regular gun

No, you're correct. Air rifles are incredibly inaccurate, especially at a distance, or when there's any kind of breeze.

And they're spheres, which typically are very bad for accuracy and stability during flight. Hence, why bullets are not shaped like that, and haven't been for many years.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by Quad4_72

So you think alcohol is regulated more than firearms? Last time I checked, the day you turn 21 you can go purchase as much alcohol as you please. And btw, you can't carry firearms into government facilities either...

Alcohol regulations are different, not "more" regulated.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

No, you're correct. Air rifles are incredibly inaccurate, especially at a distance, or when there's any kind of breeze.

And they're spheres, which typically are very bad for accuracy and stability during flight. Hence, why bullets are not shaped like that, and haven't been for many years.

So you're saying that they are more challenging to shoot at range than a firearm?

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Because it's a symptom of a much larger problem. This is a high-profile shooting, but people are shot every few minutes in the USA at large. That's the the issue that needs dealing with.

How many dead people are okay? You'll be satisfied when the number of preventable deaths is brought down to what number?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

How many dead people are okay? You'll be satisfied when the number of preventable deaths is brought down to what number?

To the same, per capita, as... say.. Japan.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Stellafane

Who's hand waving the damage caused by alcohol? It's definitely a major societal problem. But I think using alcohol to justify the availability of assault weapons to the general public is an exceedingly weak argument at best, for reasons I articulated in my reply.

Stella, you're one of the more level headed posters on the other side of the isle than I, so I'll respond in kind.

Here's the basis of our arguments.

Guns do have many legitimate purposes. The fact that people use them to kill outside of the law, is no reason to take everyone's guns away. Punishing the innocent for the misdeeds of others is silly.

In regard to your use of the term "assault rifle". It's a "catch word" designed by politicians to make a gun sound more scary.

Here's a picture of what politicians have labeled an "assault rifle".



Now, that is a Bushmaster .223. Looks scary doesn't it?

Now, here's the exact same gun, functionally, but looks less scary, doesn't it.



Both shoot the identical round, both are semi auto, and both are very powerful.

However, the first has a barrel shroud, a pistol grip, and a few other things that make it look scarier. However, they function the exact same way.

Literally, no difference.

The term assault rifle, is just a buzzword.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Alcohol is regulated.

So are guns.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

To the same, per capita, as... say.. Japan.

Should we strive to match Japan's suicide rate, too?

And does it matter where we apply the regulations to reduce our per capita preventable death rate? Recreational boating is wholly unnecessary. Heck nobody ever uses a boat for self defense. Should we maybe just start there with a flat out ban? Several hundred lives saved every year. Easily implemented. Easily enforced.

And although there are probably some incidents where a golf club has been used to defend oneself, it seems certain there are cases where they have been used as a murder weapon. But more importantly, more people have died in the past 30 years getting struck by lightning while golfing than have been killed by guns in spree killings and mass murders. How about we ban golf? Or at least limit the number of golf courses to match the per capita rate of Japan. They have about 1 golf course for every 50,000 people. We have three times that many in the US. Close 2/3 of them. Quickly implemented. Nobody has to go door to door and confiscate anything. Hundreds of preventable deaths averted.

You good with that?

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by NoahFence

Because life sucks and it's not fair.

So, because people drive drunk and kill innocent people, cars should be banned? No, of course not, but that is the logic you're using.

It's flawed Noah.
No hard feelings though.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Stellafane

No I'm not dodging actually, although perhaps I didn't make myself adequately clear when I responded to you originally. So I'll try again:

* I cannot understand how public availability of assault weapons can be justified, given that their sole designed purpose is to kill lots of people quickly.

See my post above. You'll understand why your understanding is flawed.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Stella, you're one of the more level headed posters on the other side of the isle than I, so I'll respond in kind.

Here's the basis of our arguments.

Guns do have many legitimate purposes. The fact that people use them to kill outside of the law, is no reason to take everyone's guns away. Punishing the innocent for the misdeeds of others is silly.

In regard to your use of the term "assault rifle". It's a "catch word" designed by politicians to make a gun sound more scary.

Here's a picture of what politicians have labeled an "assault rifle".

http://i454.photobucket.com/albums/q...bushmaster.jpg

Now, that is a Bushmaster .223. Looks scary doesn't it?

Now, here's the exact same gun, functionally, but looks less scary, doesn't it.

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h1...ps4f4b6366.jpg

Both shoot the identical round, both are semi auto, and both are very powerful.

However, the first has a barrel shroud, a pistol grip, and a few other things that make it look scarier. However, they function the exact same way.

Literally, no difference.

The term assault rifle, is just a buzzword.

Uhm.. no. The attachments, functionally, make the same gun a little more deadly by reducing recoil, thus increasing accuracy at a higher ROF.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by GeeMack

Should we strive to match Japan's suicide rate, too?

Nope.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Stellafane

Well "no clue" is perhaps a little harsh, but I will readily admit to ignorance about their specific technical characteristics. And I can see where you'd think that ignorance is the cause of my lack of understanding, but I don't believe it is. My point -- which I believe remains valid -- is my question about the continued public availability of weapons designed solely to kill human beings, without offering any practical value in terms of self-defense or hunting. I just don't think that whatever fun one derives from shooting at targets or "varmints" justifies the existence of devices that can and are being used for mass murder.

Now if somehow these types of weapons could be confined solely to shooting ranges, and someone be made so it's impossible for them to be removed from the premises, I could support their use, since their risk to society would be eliminated. But I just don't see how that could ever be made possible.

Just a tidbit, but I've hunted wild boar with the exact same rifle that was used in CT. And quite effectively. And deer too. And a coyote too.

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Uhm.. no. The attachments, functionally, make the same gun a little more deadly by reducing recoil, thus increasing accuracy at a higher ROF.

Ok, take off the pistol grip and bipod. Same concept that he is describing applies. It still looks scarier.

[GeeMack]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Nope.

So just start by implementing those golf and boating bans then? We'd be saving lives the morning after the bans went into effect. That would be a good start, wouldn't it?

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Or, as mentioned elsewhere, light guns. They use them in the olympics.

Can you link to one of them? I've never seen how they work. Does it shoot a beam of light, similar to a laser?

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

So you're saying that they are more challenging to shoot at range than a firearm?

Technically, yes. But, you'd never have decent shots, and it'd come down more to dumb luck than anything else. It'd be almost impossible to become proficient with them, especially at a distance.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Uhm.. no. The attachments, functionally, make the same gun a little more deadly by reducing recoil, thus increasing accuracy at a higher ROF.

No sir. Same recoil. Neither have a recoil control stock.

Next assumption?

[Stellafane]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

See my post above. You'll understand why your understanding is flawed.

My reasoning may indeed be flawed if in fact the guns shown in the OP were originally designed for hunting and/or self-defense, and not as I assumed solely for killing people and/or target practice. I know I got somewhat off-track talking about larger gun control issues, but really the OP has all along been my primary concern for participating in this thread. To my admittedly very untrained eye, those devices do not appear to have any real utility for hunting or self-defense, and my discussions in this thread which others more knowledgeable about guns appeared to confirm that impression.

This is the core of my concern, devices designed solely for killing lots of people quickly, and thus in my view do not have a practical purpose outside military or law enforcement applications. I don't understand why people would want them. I'm not necessarily saying they should be outlawed (although were it up to me, I'd probably lean towards doing so, pending on doing more research before making a final decision). I'm just saying I don't understand their attraction. Which is fine, there's lots of things I don't understand. I was just commenting on the OP photo, and wandered off into other gun topics about which I am little qualified to comment. I do stand by my comments, however, about the inapplicability of using our attitudes toward alcohol as a model for how we should approach gun control.

For the record, I do not want to "take everyone's guns away." As I've noted earlier I endorse ownership of guns designed for self-defense and hunting, both of which I consider legitimate applications that offer societal benefit.