2013 Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by Kestrel

Dude, take a chill pill.

Our country does have rules that limit what assault rifles you can own.

What does that have to do with the fairy tales you are making up? You're just like Tricky; can't admit you are wrong.

Ranb

[Kestrel]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Is there something in this world scarier than a hunk of metal that can kill someone you love in half a second? How much worse does a gun have to be before you find it scary? Does it have to also set the house on fire? Does it have to leave a radiation half-life? Or does plain old death and dismemberment count these days in your world?

The "man card" marketing campaign for Bushmaster rifles makes you wonder a bit about the target audience.

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Is there something in this world scarier than a hunk of metal that can kill someone you love in half a second?

Yes there is.

Heart disease, diabetes, cancer, lung disease, stroke, accidents (especially motor vehicle, too many for me already) and alzheimers. The list is long. Guns are tame in comparison as far as I am concerned.

Ranb

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by Kestrel

The "man card" marketing campaign for Bushmaster rifles makes you wonder a bit about the target audience.

Considering the number of women I see shooting them at the local rifle range, it says more about Bushmaster and their stupid ideas about marketing than whatever you think the target audience it.

Ranb

[Fast Eddie B]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Is there something in this world scarier than a hunk of metal that can kill someone you love in half a second?

Maybe.

How about not having a hunk of metal when someone threatens to kill someone you love in half a second. Knowing you have to stand by, powerless, and watch it happen.

I think that's scarier.

Guns are used in defense of self and others every day. Someone trying to kill a loved one of mine has a good chance of ending up dead himself.

Just sayin'!

[Cylinder]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

How much worse does a gun have to be before you find it scary?

Like maybe if it started nagging me about leaving dirty underwear next to the shower?

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

In my world, I don't fear inanimate objects. They cannot work on their own.

ETA: The one in my avatar, are you afraid of it?

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publics...people/1041591

I can't begin to get inside your head on this, but even your silly argument fails when a gun malfunctions, because they are deadly tools made for killing. Guns fire bullets, and when they do, sometimes people are in the way and they die. Even safe guns in the hands of experts like yourself, who will never, ever, EVER accidentally shoot someone or lose your **** and kill someone.

[shawmutt]

Originally Posted by Kestrel

The "man card" marketing campaign for Bushmaster rifles makes you wonder a bit about the target audience.

What's the target audience for pink furniture? http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...grey-and-pink/

[shawmutt]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publics...people/1041591

I can't begin to get inside your head on this, but even your silly argument fails when a gun malfunctions, because they are deadly tools made for killing. Guns fire bullets, and when they do, sometimes people are in the way and they die. Even safe guns in the hands of experts like yourself, who will never, ever, EVER accidentally shoot someone or lose your **** and kill someone.

Your insistence on the "tools made for killing" is just getting silly--and if you got your way and banned guns because of 600 accidental deaths in a per year in a population of 300,000,000, you and your ilk would be responsible for tens of thousands more deaths. Guns do much more than kill. They protect, they even out the playing field, they deter. Are you trying to make the argument that a battered woman who left her husband has no business getting a gun? The home owner in a crime-ridden area has no business getting a gun? The business owner who was robbed twice in a month has no business getting a gun? Why do you prefer to be a victim and cater to the wants of criminals?

[rikzilla]

As a nation, America has already said that the Newtown kids are acceptable losses so people can continue to cuddle their guns. Far better that we kill hundreds of small children, far better that we arm teachers and have more gun battles in the classroom, than a single person give up a precious, precious gun. You can see the attitude well defended right here...sadly enough on a web forum dedicated to exposing BS.

Its a sick, sick culture.
-z

[Fast Eddie B]

rizkilla,

What country do you live in?

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by rikzilla

Far better that we kill hundreds of small children, far better that we arm teachers and have more gun battles in the classroom, than a single person give up a precious, precious gun.

A single gun? The politicians dancing in the blood of the victims want much more than a single gun. They want to eliminate millions of guns from the hands of law abiding owners.

Ranb

[Ferguson]

Originally Posted by rikzilla

As a nation, America has already said that the Newtown kids are acceptable losses so people can continue to cuddle their guns. Far better that we kill hundreds of small children, far better that we arm teachers and have more gun battles in the classroom, than a single person give up a precious, precious gun. You can see the attitude well defended right here...sadly enough on a web forum dedicated to exposing BS.

Its a sick, sick culture.
-z

Wait, who's the single person that has the precious, precious, hundred-child-killing gun? That sounds like an easy decision, I think we should probably take it from him!

Unless... your post is just a vapid emotional appeal...sadly enough on a web forum dedicated to exposing BS.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by Ferguson

Wait, who's the single person that has the precious, precious, hundred-child-killing gun? That sounds like an easy decision, I think we should probably take it from him!

All of you do. I still haven't said we should ban guns, but the ridiculousness of the gun nuts is amazing.

"Guns aren't for killing".
"There's zero reason to fear guns".

People are attempting to characterize a device that is very good at killing people and breaking things, and not much else, as benign. It's not. You can try and make the case that guns are a necessary evil. I may come to agree with you. But it's this crazy assertion that guns are neutral which drives me up the wall.

That's simple rationalization and has no bearing on reality, where guns are guns, and not teddy bears.

For people who "don't fear inanimate objects", if you saw your 5 year old come padding down the stairs carrying his teddy bear, would you feel differently than if he was carrying your Bushmaster? If so, why?

[shawmutt]

Originally Posted by rikzilla

As a nation, America has already said that the Newtown kids are acceptable losses so people can continue to cuddle their guns. Far better that we kill hundreds of small children, far better that we arm teachers and have more gun battles in the classroom, than a single person give up a precious, precious gun. You can see the attitude well defended right here...sadly enough on a web forum dedicated to exposing BS.

Its a sick, sick culture.
-z

Yes, I'm pro-child killing.

You have some pretty sick thoughts bub.

[Fast Eddie B]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

"Guns aren't for killing".
"There's zero reason to fear guns".

[Quad4_72]

Originally Posted by rikzilla

As a nation, America has already said that the Newtown kids are acceptable losses so people can continue to cuddle their guns. Far better that we kill hundreds of small children, far better that we arm teachers and have more gun battles in the classroom, than a single person give up a precious, precious gun. You can see the attitude well defended right here...sadly enough on a web forum dedicated to exposing BS.

Its a sick, sick culture.
-z

All of the children killed by alcohol every year in drunk driving accidents, fetal alcohol syndrome, child abuse and violence brought on by alcohol induced rages, etc. And for what? All so that people can have a little enjoyment? The lives of these children are acceptable losses so people can get drunk? It's a sick, sick culture.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by rikzilla

As a nation, America has already said that the Newtown kids are acceptable losses so people can continue to cuddle their guns. Far better that we kill hundreds of small children, far better that we arm teachers and have more gun battles in the classroom, than a single person give up a precious, precious gun. You can see the attitude well defended right here...sadly enough on a web forum dedicated to exposing BS.

Its a sick, sick culture.
-z

Has anybody actually claimed there should be no further regulations?

20 =/= hundreds.

1 shooting is singular. Battles = plural. And anyway, arming teachers is stupid.

Please explain to me how hysterics on a skeptical web forum help anything in the slightest? If I were anti-gun, I'd be embarrassed to think that your post was arguing in favor of my point.

[Nessie]

In the UK the attitude when banning guns after the Hungerford and Dumblane massacres was ban the ones which are rapid fire with the fastest reloads. That would leave plenty of guns for vermin, hunting, and targets appropriate to that role. After the Cumbria massacre there was no call to ban shotguns or .22 rifles or else you would severely restrict the actual uses of guns. There is only so far you can go.

This survey of US massacres finds that out of 70 shootings

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...-shootings-map

semi auto handguns were used in 68, assault weapons 35 times, revolvers 20 and shotguns 19.

If anything the restrictions should be on rapid fire and fast reloading. You do not need that for hunting or targets.

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by Nessie

If anything the restrictions should be on rapid fire and fast reloading. You do not need that for hunting or targets.

Wrong.
http://www.olympic.org/shooting-25m-...l-60-shots-men
http://ipsc.org/
http://www.uspsa.org/

Ranb

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Ranb

Wrong.
http://www.olympic.org/shooting-25m-...l-60-shots-men
http://ipsc.org/
http://www.uspsa.org/

Ranb

I see a desire for such events, I don't see a need. But it is unrealistic of me to suggest modifying the sport based on the actual weapon. The rapid fire weapons have created a desire for rapid fire target disciplines.

[shawmutt]

Originally Posted by Nessie

I see a desire for such events, I don't see a need. But it is unrealistic of me to suggest modifying the sport based on the actual weapon. The rapid fire weapons have created a desire for rapid fire target disciplines.

Um...what "need" is there for any sport?

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by shawmutt

Um...what "need" is there for any sport?

Activity, fitness and exercise. Camaraderie, sociability and team work. Discipline leadership and time keeping.

[Ranb]

You claimed that rapid fire firearms are not needed; but they obviously are if one is to participate in the events I linked to. The event is desired, the guns fill the requirement for the sport.

Ranb

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Is there something in this world scarier than a hunk of metal that can kill someone you love in half a second? ?

Yeah, people who would take away individual liberties in pursuit of some nebulous social goal.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by Ranb

You claimed that rapid fire firearms are not needed; but they obviously are if one is to participate in the events I linked to.

I said "If anything the restrictions should be on rapid fire and fast reloading. You do not need that for hunting or targets." Please don't quote me out of context by just saying "rapid fire firearms are not needed". The USA will not ground to a halt if there were limits put on rapid fire guns in terms of magazines and rate of fire. But it should help reduce the casualties from mass shootings.

Quote:

The event is desired, the guns fill the requirement for the sport.

Ranb

I say that the discipline of rapid fire target shooting came from rapid fire guns becoming available. I do not think rapid fire guns were invented to satisfy shooters who thought lots of shots quickly might be fun.

Anyway, it was daft of me to suggest any form of restriction on numbers and types of gun. I shall go back to arguing action to keep guns away from criminals and nuts is the only realistic course of action.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publics...people/1041591

I can't begin to get inside your head on this, but even your silly argument fails when a gun malfunctions, because they are deadly tools made for killing. Guns fire bullets, and when they do, sometimes people are in the way and they die. Even safe guns in the hands of experts like yourself, who will never, ever, EVER accidentally shoot someone or lose your **** and kill someone.

And how often does a gun legitimately malfunction and start firing on it's own?

Once in a blue moon with a pink dot in the middle.

Here's another part you missed.

From your own article "The Polk County Sheriff's Office said the gun may have been altered, leading to the malfunction."

Secondly, Jennings Firearms are garbage, especially when altered.

Laying down a loaded weapon is also not smart.

But yes, technically they do malfunction on a rare rare occasion. but yet, so do many other things.

**** happens.

Oh, btw, is it now rational to fear all guns, because one malfunctioned?

Should I fear cars the same way?

Yes, I know one is designed to kill, and one is not. That doesn't nullify my comparison.

So, are you afraid of the one in my avatar?

[thaiboxerken]

I'm concerned that I don't know if the owner of the gun in your avatar is responsible or not.

[Nessie]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

And how often does a gun legitimately malfunction and start firing on it's own?

Once in a blue moon with a pink dot in the middle.

.......

That is the same rate as a mass home invasion by armed criminals intent on rape and pillage on a law abiding citizen not involved in gangs.

Yet you say it is wise to prepare yourself for such a situation by being heavily armed. So it would therefore be wise to act against malfunctioning guns by having heavy restrictions on their use.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by rikzilla

As a nation, America has already said that the Newtown kids are acceptable losses so people can continue to cuddle their guns. Far better that we kill hundreds of small children, far better that we arm teachers and have more gun battles in the classroom, than a single person give up a precious, precious gun. You can see the attitude well defended right here...sadly enough on a web forum dedicated to exposing BS.

Its a sick, sick culture.
-z

You do realize the irony of the two hilited statements, right?

Since nobody has claimed the first hilite, I will dismiss the rest as ignorance and hyperbole.

Congratulations, you're dancing in the blood of kids to get your knee-jerk, useless laws passed. And you say OUR culture is sick?

[Fast Eddie B]

OK, since he ignored me...

...does anyone know where rizkilla is from?

[Kestrel]

Olympic rapid fire pistol matches use 5 round magazines. A ban on magazine capacities over 10 rounds would not affect this sport.

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by shawmutt

Yes, I'm pro-child killing.

You are probably also in favour of raising storms, blighting your neighbour's crops, and curdling their milk.

Your desire for power over your neighbours needs to be suppressed; which why they need to control your anti-social activities.

[triforcharity]

Nor would it do anything else. It takes about 2 seconds to drop a magazine and load a fresh one.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

I'm concerned that I don't know if the owner of the gun in your avatar is responsible or not.

He's one of the most responsible gun owners I know.

Maybe you'll answer.

Are you afraid of the gun in my avatar? Do you need to know more about it to answer the question?

[Ranb]

Originally Posted by Kestrel

Olympic rapid fire pistol matches use 5 round magazines. A ban on magazine capacities over 10 rounds would not affect this sport.

So? The SSP is still rapid fire. The 2013 AWB is supposed to be a more strict version of the 1994 version.

Quote:

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

From what I have read, only one "evil" feature is required to make the SSP an assault weapon. In this case it would be a magazine that attaches outside of the pistol grip. The SSP mag is inserted through the top of the action and rests above the pistol grip. So it appears that this pistol might be on the list.

Ranb

[shawmutt]

Originally Posted by Noztradamus

You are probably also in favour of raising storms, blighting your neighbour's crops, and curdling their milk.

Your desire for power over your neighbours needs to be suppressed; which why they need to control your anti-social activities.

I agree, we should remove suppressors from the NFA list. A quieter gun is more neighbor-friendly gun!

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by triforcharity

He's one of the most responsible gun owners I know.

Maybe you'll answer.

Are you afraid of the gun in my avatar? Do you need to know more about it to answer the question?

I'm concerned that it could kill me, yes. However, i don't know if it's functional.

Also, i don't know that you're qualified to assess the gun owners sense of responsibility.

[shawmutt]

Originally Posted by Kestrel

Olympic rapid fire pistol matches use 5 round magazines. A ban on magazine capacities over 10 rounds would not affect this sport.

It also would not reduce crime or bring down the number from mass murders. Those making this argument simply don't know enough about firearms to make an educated assertion, period.

Why ban something that wouldn't make a difference? I think we ought to ban guitars because someone might kill with one. Oh ****, too late!

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/...4411351616086/

I just find a lot of folks disingenuous or just ignorant and not bothering to learn what they are arguing for. Banning magazines based on size is just stupid. Sorry, but it is. It takes less than two seconds to press a button, drop a mag, insert a new one, and release the slide.

More information came out about the Sandy Hook shooting. Apparently the shooter thought he was playing Call of Duty and changed most of his mags before they were empty.

Quote:

He fired about 150 rounds in all during the classroom-to-classroom spree and rapidly changed clips, sometimes after firing only half of the magazine's rounds.
Privately, investigators wondered whether the reloading habit was influenced by the endless hours the quiet, withdrawn loner spent playing violent, first-person shooter video games, the Courant reported.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...#ixzz2HRPDalH4

But yeah, back to the stupid. Now, if an anti was to say "ban all firearms with detachable magazines and ban all revolvers" that would make more sense. I'd fight it tooth and nail, because it still wouldn't affect crime levels or mass murder, but at least it would make sense. But they don't say that, they won't, because then they'd poke the sleeping fudd bear, and lose. Instead they are dishonest, and people see right through it.

[thaiboxerken]

Reloading a weapon doesn't impair a mass murderer from killing more people? Are you sure about that?