Gun Control

[knapplc]

Where does it end??

 

What? The thousands of gun deaths in America each year? That's a good question.

[Junior]

Where does it end??

 

Why not ban hammers, knives and other weapons that kill more than AR-15's (it's not an assault weapon)??

 

Why not address handguns? Why, cause you fight the fight you can win. Not the fight that needs fighting. Partisanship at it's best.

 

 

Let's put some limits on the 1st Amendment while we're at it. Take away all privacy on the internet. Pedophiles beware. The FEDS be watching. But it's only to combat child molestation and other heinous crimes. But will it stop those crimes you ask! Maybe.

Don't worry they won't do anything about all your pirated material. Oh no.

 

 

Where does it stop?

 

Oh goodie! We are back to the hammer comparisons again.

[rawhide]

Nope, the sequestration of the Bill of Rights.

 

So, by instituting another "AR15B" that's gonna stop thousands of deaths every year? Why is it that after the AR-15 ban expired (2004)that "mass massacre's" didn't escalate? And gun deaths are actually decreasing every year, wth

 

The truth is: The AR15B will have minimal effect on gun violence in the 5 largest venues in the USA. Semi-auto rifles only constitute approx 3% of gun homicides. What about the other 97%

 

And of course everyone reads my diatribes about how many deaths are attributed to long weapons vs. handguns vs knives vs blunt objects. How about all the weapons that make up the thousands not the hundreds of deaths each year? WHY NOT START THERE?

 

Geez, ain't even had my coffee yet. Ohh, maybe that's why

[carlfense]

You two understand that I can kill A LOT of people with a 12-gauge shotgun loaded with buckshot right? So.................do we outlaw those? I can shoot into a crowd with a loaded 12-gauge and probably kill at least 10 to 15 people with those rounds. A Mossberg 590 with an extended magazine tube holds 7 shells in the magazine and 1 in the chamber.

Yeah . . . but it'll take you 10+ seconds to reload compared to 1-2 seconds to pop another 30 round magazine into your AR.

 

With each 00 buckshot having 9 pellets, federal 00 buckshot, that's a total of 72 .33 caliber pellets. All I have to do is aim at the head area of the crowd and start firing, in less than 10 seconds I could have that shotgun completely empty and I'm sure there would be several folks dead or dying from their injuries.

If the choice is between "several" and "dozens" I'd prefer the "several."

 

Those rounds were designed for hunting, that weapon was designed for hunting and could be argued that it was designed for home defense, so do we outlaw it?

Ehhhhh . . . 00 buck was designed for hunting but do you know many people who actually still use it for hunting? There might be a few . . . but my understanding is that most people prefer slugs in the shotgun states. The 7 round magazine makes the "hunting weapon" aspect a bit of a stretch. If you're hunting waterfowl (in NE at least) your total capacity is limited to 3 rounds by law. Additionally, I've never met anyone who hunts upland birds or deer with a 7 round extended magazine.

 

Home defense? Sure.

 

I think that it's a strange argument because it makes it awfully easy for someone to step in and say . . . OK . . . so let's get rid of the guns that were designed for killing people. There go the so called assault rifles.

 

The weapon, the caliber, the science behind the round...................none of it matters! I can kill someone with a well placed .22 as easily as I can with a .223 round so trying to say this or that should be banned is laughable at best.

I actually laughed out loud reading this. You're LE, right? You know better than this and I honestly doubt that you can make this argument with a straight face. Sure a "well placed" round from a .22lr might kill someone . . . but it is completely false to say that it's as easy as killing with a .223. It's simple physics and it still applies even in the highly emotional gun debates.

 

You know this and I'm not sure why you'd try to say otherwise.

[knapplc]

Where does it end??

 

Why not ban hammers, knives and other weapons that kill more than AR-15's (it's not an assault weapon)??

 

Why not address handguns? Why, cause you fight the fight you can win. Not the fight that needs fighting. Partisanship at it's best.

 

 

Let's put some limits on the 1st Amendment while we're at it. Take away all privacy on the internet. Pedophiles beware. The FEDS be watching. But it's only to combat child molestation and other heinous crimes. But will it stop those crimes you ask! Maybe.

Don't worry they won't do anything about all your pirated material. Oh no.

 

 

Where does it stop?

 

 

This is exactly the kind of wild overreaction that kills rational discussion in this topic.

 

There ARE limits on the 1st Amendment. You know very well people cannot say whatever they like, wherever they like right here on HuskerBoard. You can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, you can't slander, libel or lie under oath. ALL speech is not free, and the 1st Amendment doesn't guarantee that it is. Privacy on the internet is dubious at best, as we've witnessed with ISPs rolling over on their customers in piracy investigations.

 

The argument of "Where will it end" has more holes than a sieve. If we're so worried about "where will it end," we should abolish all laws and live in anarchy. Clearly that's impractical, so we have laws. Arguing against laws and limits makes no sense in this society.

[knapplc]

Nope, the sequestration of the Bill of Rights.

 

So, by instituting another "AR15B" that's gonna stop thousands of deaths every year? Why is it that after the AR-15 ban expired (2004)that "mass massacre's" didn't escalate? And gun deaths are actually decreasing every year, wth

 

The truth is: The AR15B will have minimal effect on gun violence in the 5 largest venues in the USA. Semi-auto rifles only constitute approx 3% of gun homicides. What about the other 97%

 

And of course everyone reads my diatribes about how many deaths are attributed to long weapons vs. handguns vs knives vs blunt objects. How about all the weapons that make up the thousands not the hundreds of deaths each year? WHY NOT START THERE?

 

Geez, ain't even had my coffee yet. Ohh, maybe that's why

 

Again with the overreactions. The argument you're positing here is, "Since there will still be deaths/gun deaths with another AR15B, let's not have any gun legislation." You know better than this, so why even try with this tactic?

 

This ridiculous straw man of "Gun Laws are trying to stop all gun deaths" needs to stop. Nobody believes this, nobody advocates this, nobody has claimed this. Nobody not on the fringe of the debate, anyway. So why even go there? It puts the discussion back.

 

We don't start with all those other weapons you describe because nobody is walking into malls, schools and movie theaters killing dozens of people with knives and blunt objects. They're using guns. So let's start with guns and continue the debate on other weapons when we've made some progress here, first.

[carlfense]

Let's put some limits on the 1st Amendment while we're at it.

. . . there are limits on the 1st Amendment.

[knapplc]

Let's put some limits on the 1st Amendment while we're at it.

. . . there are limits on the 1st Amendment.

There are limits on the 1st Amendment that rawhide himself enforces right here on HuskerBoard. That's what makes me wonder about the rationality of the claims being made here.

[rawhide]

Sure, I'm using the 'ol hammer analogy again. And knives, too.

 

Are you trying to say that people killed by semi-auto rifles are more psychosocially traumatic than the people being bludgeoned to death? And there were many more knive/blunt object deaths than rifles. jus sayin'

 

I don't really want to get shot by any weapon or beat to death either.

 

jus for carlfense: freakin' 22 man

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbQ8OBgwjfg

 

 

you guys are buzz kills

cept I don't smoke

 

Let's ban all weapons, to appease everyone, well except me

[carlfense]

Are you trying to say that people killed by semi-auto rifles are more psychosocially traumatic than the people being bludgeoned to death?

Hypothetically speaking, would more people be killed by a guy with a high capacity semi-automatic rifle firing into a crowd or by a guy hitting people with a hammer in a crowd?

 

This is so ridiculous. Gun control (like abortion and religion) seems to be one of those topics that completely blocks rationality. It's strange thinking in the abstract about this kind of emotional attachment to a hunk of metal and wood.

[knapplc]

Let's ban all weapons, to appease everyone

 

/takingrawhideseriouslyinthisthread

[carlfense]

jus for carlfense: freakin' 22 man

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbQ8OBgwjfg

 

 

Here's the almost as deadly .223.

 

 

 

 

 

(The .22lr hits the gel at about :15 in rawhide's video)

[rawhide]

Prohibition: etoh, drugs IT'S ALL WORKED SO GREAT hey, let's try guns next

 

gotta luv it.

 

here, here, here

 

[Junior]

Sure, I'm using the 'ol hammer analogy again. And knives, too.

 

Are you trying to say that people killed by semi-auto rifles are more psychosocially traumatic than the people being bludgeoned to death? And there were many more knive/blunt object deaths than rifles. jus sayin'

 

I don't really want to get shot by any weapon or beat to death either.

 

jus for carlfense: freakin' 22 man

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbQ8OBgwjfg

 

 

you guys are buzz kills

cept I don't smoke

 

Let's ban all weapons, to appease everyone, well except me

 

The next time someone can walk into a school or a mall and kill 25 people in 5 minutes with a hammer... let's talk. Until then, the argument is absurd and is simply made to deflect the real point. Sure a hammer can be used as a weapon, but the lethality of the hammer is clearly not the same as an assault rifle.

[carlfense]

Prohibition: etoh, drugs IT'S ALL WORKED SO GREAT hey, let's try guns next

 

gotta luv it.

 

here, here, here

I think that nearly everyone is calling for regulation and not prohibition. But I suppose if you want to be consistent you should argue for legalizing methamphetamine.