# "Assault" weapons



## VictoriaW

This is a deeply controversial topic. Please understand that I am trying to reach out and understand something unfamiliar to me. 

I am not looking for quotes or advocacy articles.

There are going to be loud calls for bans on assault weapons in the coming weeks and months. I am wondering why reasonable people like some of us here 8) might object to such a ban. What purpose do such weapons serve in your life or in the lives of people you know? Does anyone use such weapons to hunt? Does anyone need to?

We can kill this thread if it gets too political, though I am hoping that we can all work really hard to prevent it from getting heated by refraining from emotion/accusation/slams on politicians and lobbying organizations. 

Apologies for going off-topic.


----------



## born36

I will simple put. 

I agree.


----------



## WillowyndRanch

The simple answer is that the second amendment is for a well armed public militia, it has nothing to do with hunting, rather to protect our freedom - and if one studies the founders the primary focus of that need for protection was from our own government (tyranny). 

Ken


----------



## Mober

I don't think that helps answer the question. In 1787 its was possible to be as well-armed as the government, however in 2012 its is not possible. These notions havent applied for a long long time. However the Constitution did something else, its arranged for a frequently elected government that prevents tyranny from being a possiblility.


----------



## VictoriaW

Thanks, Ken. Just trying to be sure that I understand.

The reason that people would want to own an assault weapon (and I appreciated Gunnr's insightful comment that this term is ill-defined) has nothing to do with hunting. People should be able to own these weapons because having a well-armed citizenry protects us all from government tyranny.

Is that a decent summary?

Are there other reasons to own an advanced weapon with the ability to kill many people in a short timeframe?

I am not trying to bait. I am trying to reach outside my usual circle of friends (frankly, liberal suburban mothers) to increase my own understanding of a complex issue.

I really appreciate attempts to explain a different point of view. 

Thanks,
v.


----------



## gunnr

VictoriaW

The term "Assualt Rifle/Weapon" has no true definition. It is a term that became popular during the 80's and 90's with politicians and news reporters, generally those considered to occupy a leftist viewpoint. It really gained traction after the attempted assasination of Ronald Reagan which left James Brady paralyzed from the waist down.It was meant to evoke fear, and elicit an emotional reponse, in a broad spectrum of society that had/have no formal training, or education, in the use of firearms.
Subsequent to the failed assasination attempt, an Act, known as the Brady Act, or Bill,was passed. Banniing, by make and manufacturer, specific weapons deemed to be "Assault Weapons". This list was compiled by politicians. The list was also indicative of a frustrated position of key Congressman, and Senators, whom wanted not a list, but an expanded definition, which at the time would have essentially made it illegal to own virtually any firearm in the US. They knew it,a nd they admitted publicly that their position was to ban all gun ownership, by all citizens, of any type of firearm in the US.
Since that time, other that Roe vs. Wade,a nd Griswold vs. Connecticut, no other piece of legislation has been as controversial. 
Time and again the same politicians that wanted to ban gun ownership outright, have tried to ammend this bill to facilitate their initial objective. Each time there have been big legal fights against them led by groups that support their Second Ammendmant rights. it's a siege mentality on both sides, and neither can, or will yield.

Do I think that people really need to own high capacity autoloading pistols and rifles? No I don't . However, because of the inclusive definition some of our elected representatives want to adopt into law to define the term "Assault Weapon", I must support their right, to retain my right to own any of the shotguns I currently own, and not be made into a Felon the day the legislation is passed.
Every firearm I own is legally obtained, and registered in Connecticut. All are registered with the state. I'm not a survivalist, doomsday, whacko, or a gun nut. I'm just a guy that wants to retain his right to hunt birds with my dogs.

Ironically enough, in the Newtown tragedy, one very fundamental law was broken by the shooters own mother.
In the state of Connecticut the storage and securing of fireams inside your own home is subject to regulation All Firearms must be stored with tamper proof trigger locks, or locked, in a safe to prevent the unathorized use of the firearm. This specifically is intended for households with underage, minor, children. Anyone less than 21 years of age.


----------



## GarysApollo

The Assault weapons are not the problem, you can do just as much with a hand gun if you wanted to. And if the were not leagal I wouldn't be able to own a weapon, but I am sure some one who wanted to kill people would still be able to get one. There are a lot of things that are against the law that are very easily purchased. I like my right to own a fire arm and I hope I never loose that right.


----------



## Vida

Are our lives in the Uk any worse for not owning guns??


----------



## texasred

If your wanting to know if any members own semiautomatic firearms, and some of the reasoning for owning. We own them in pistol and rifle form. We also own a business. Nothing like having the alarm go off at 2 in the morning. Your husband puts on a ballistic vest, picks ups his gun and heads out the door into the night. 
My husband and son/daughter are avid shooters and just like to go shoot targets. Its a skill that hopefully they will never need other than for hunting.
Our guns are not just left out, they stay in a gun safe when not in use. Only my husband and I know the combination.


----------



## gunnr

Vida said:


> Are our lives in the Uk any worse for not owning guns??


 I doubt it. 
(At least you can get real malt vinegar for your fish and chips there. Our vinegar in the US sucks for fish and chips. I haven't had decent fish and chip since I left Scotland in 1984.;D)
From what little I do understand about the UK ,and guns, Gun ownership is allowed, but there are high fee's, or taxes??? associated with it?

If you feel you're not any worse off, you're not.


----------



## dmak

During hurricane Katrina, I was one of the most popular people on the block because me and my guns were able to provide protection for our lively hoods when there was no rule of law. No police, no national guard; just thugs, looters and responsibly armed citizens. For about a week and a half we had to hold down the fort until government funded assistance showed up. There were several situations were we could have and would have been run over by criminal mobs had we not been armed.


----------



## WillowyndRanch

Mober said:


> However the Constitution did something else, its arranged for a frequently elected government that prevents tyranny from being a possiblility.


History would argue with that point. History is littered with "Elected" leaders that are infamous for their tyranny and governmental powers takeover. 

Amin, Hitler, Chavez, Obote, Kaunda, Santa Anna, Castro, Hussein, Khameni, Mussolini, Franco, Tito, Lukashenko... for a few of the many examples.
Ken


----------



## Vida

Do you think you could stand against government forces turned bad?
Could you co-ordinate and consolidate all the other gun owners?
I think civil war would be the outcome..


----------



## Mober

I suppose next you will state Obama is like one of those guys on your "list" so "prepping" makes sense. Its all gun nut fantasy land - defending against the government, poking guns out your windows holding off katrina looters, teachers pulling glocks out of their desks and mowing down an armed intruder. I think this is it, you guys are right, its not the guns, its the gun culture, wild wild west, tin foil hat, john wayne paul revere crap. And then we wonder how stuff like this happens. I am having a hard time not being disgusted.


----------



## R E McCraith

Our government let the Brady bill lapse - our government put 2000 guns in the hands of cartel members - our government allows gun shows to continue when most of the guns are sold in the parking lot - I have no problem with a wait for back ground checks - I do have a problem with a government that ignores mental health issues - I do own semi automatic shotguns for hunting & a semi automatic hand gun for home & personal self defense - most of this forum are not hunters - for me it has always been upland birds ducks and geese - my family - friends & pups hunt - this small group has more respect for the environment family values & a moral commitment that we raise our family - that we are responsible for our actions - that our community is a great part of our lives -like it or not - responsible gun owners are the people I would go to in a time of crisis!


----------



## lyra

It's interesting to read the comments here which people seem to have striven hard not to make political but just express there personal viewpoint.

I think it is fair to say that a lot of people outside America don't 'get' what seems like an obsession with guns. Apart from farmers and hunters (using mostly shotguns) it is very rare for someone to own a gun or have shot in the UK.

What I really don't get is the right to protect yourself. I know if someone planning to commit a crime against me believes there is a good chance of me being armed then they are just going to make sure they are armed themselves. What could have been a crime that I could have walked away from becomes a crime where I have a much higher chance of getting killed. If it is easy for a law abiding citizen to get a gun then it is easy for a criminal to do the same (and that ignores the additional deaths from accidents).

I don't have anything against guns per se or against hunting but you will always have criminals and unstable people in society and I would rather forgo the former to protect us against the latter. This isn't about gun laws - a shooter doesn't care if he broke a law! It's about availability and culture. Massacres of innocents isn't unique to America but the world is losing its surprise (if not its shock) when it hears of another there.


----------



## redbirddog

Lively discussion and I hope we can keep our disagreements civil. 

(*post removed by RBD as being "too political".) *

May our experiment survive, and I will leave it at that. 

Rod


----------



## VictoriaW

Um, Mober...we were trying to keep this civil. 

And RBD...we were trying to refrain from being too political. 

I'll admit that I have long been in favor of more gun control (and not only to prevent mass shootings). But I have never lived in a rural area, or in a place so remote or so riddled with corruption that a 911 call wouldn't always make more sense than grabbing my own weapon.

As a young adult, I had two women from my college class (out of ~500 women) gunned down, intentionally murdered, within 3 years of graduation. At about the same time, a neighbor's daughter was shot in the head while sitting on the wrong street in the wrong part of Boston. We all have different lives and backgrounds and experiences that form our opinions. 

To be entirely honest, not too long ago I would have been one of the mothers shouting JUST TAKE AWAY THE GUNS. But since we began training Gracie to hunt, I have met hunters, and the good people on this forum, and I have gained new respect for a way of life. That is why I started this thread -- I wanted to understand, beyond the rhetoric, why certain types of guns matter to people, and to see what kinds of regulations people who own guns might support, even if the NRA doesn't.

Maybe that's all too much to divulge here, and maybe my motives are just too much at odds with the beliefs of those who fear government regulation. Maybe there is no middle ground. 

Maybe it doesn't matter if there is one, because the politicians will never find it. :'(


----------



## Lincolns Parents

We are responsible gun owners. I have my consealed weapons permit and if i choose i can conseal carry. My husband is law enforcement and he carries on/off the job. We do have one of those huge fire proof safes that ALL guns are put in when not being carried. I have and will continue to shoot upland bird with my shotguns. Its my right to own a gun and taking ALL the guns away is NOT going to stop them from falling into the hands of the criminals, who dont care about the laws period. If you unarm the public you just make it that much easier for some nut to go on a killing spree. My 2 cents worth....


----------



## OttosMama

Thank you, Victoria for opening this discussion. Although this is a Vizsla forum, personally, I think it is an appropriate venue for this type of discussion. I have very little knowledge of guns, and have only recently learned what little I know since I became more familiar with the hunting aspect of my dog. I value the opinions of gun ownership from a forum that has members with extensive knowledge of these firearms and their uses beyond these types of massacres

As far as


Mober said:


> I think this is it, you guys are right, its not the guns, its the gun culture, wild wild west, tin foil hat, john wayne paul revere crap. And then we wonder how stuff like this happens. I am having a hard time not being disgusted.


As far as this comment, I have a hard time believing that incidents such as this past Friday have anything at all to do with John Wayne or the Wild Wild West. My grandfather's generation grew up watching John Wayne and the wild wild west and, although they had their problems, I'd say his generation is far less disturbed and less disturbing than my own. 

If we are going to place blame on culture (which I believe deserves a large portion of the blame) should we not be blaming it on excessively violent video games, movies, and music that permeate our children's heads on a daily basis? For instance, back in the early part of the last decade, male friends of mine partook in playing a video game called "Grand Theft Auto". The main character of the video game (the player)has the ability to kill whoever was in his path. http://www.gta4.net/weapons/ 

As far as Hollywood, movies such as The Departed and The Town are two movies that come to mind where prominent actors are seen toting a variety of firearms and they're not all playing police officers or members of the military.

We have become a society that is absolutely obsessed with becoming famous and so many crave attention. It can be seen on numerous tv networks, from american idol to the jersey shore. Facebook is filled with young people posting their whereabouts and personal pictures - there, everyone can be famous in their own little world. 

The detachment from reality that comes from video games along with the desensitization of violence coupled with this yearning for attention is what I believe drives people to this point. That along with mental illness, lack of physical activity, and poor parenting. In my opinion, there is a whole list of problems with our culture that can be blamed - the personal possession of guns is not the problem.


----------



## Lincolns Parents

I agree with ottosmama when it comes to the violence in games, movies and music. Guns i dont believe are the problem, its lack of parenting, movies, games, ect. What was wrong with kids who were held accountable for their actions like decades ago? Kids now a days need boundaries.... my 2 cents again.


----------



## Mober

Might it not be that violent video games, movies and music mirror society? This nut's mommies' closet wasn't loaded with video games in "preparation". It is however 100% provable this guy had guns that could do massive amounts of damage. The other stuff isn't known, however I would agree its all fair game for discussion, if it were to be a real discussion, where it comes from and why it exists. Discuss it all: means, motive, opportunity. As I said IMO the "gun culture" belies these things. But because violent media exists in no way is an excuse to deny a discussion of the means. I havent seen anyone here post that no one should have guns. It does however grind my gears for people to hide the discussion behind the 2nd amendment. Its endlessly frustrating that people are out there propogating that one needs semi-automatic weapons because one should distrust the government, especially the current one.


----------



## threefsh

Guns don't kill people. PEOPLE kill people. There were 22 students stabbed recently by a crazy, knife-wielding man in china. 

http://americanlivewire.com/22-students-in-china-stabbed-in-elementary-school-attack-by-36-year-old-villager-min-yingjun/

Should we ban knives too? Anything sharp and pointy? What about bats? 

If we're comparing the UK to the US, I suggest looking at overall crime. Just because you can't get a gun doesn't mean you're safer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

It's not about weapons, it's about the people that use them.

Read this article, "I am Adam Lanza's Mother"... it was a huge eye opener for me:

http://thebluereview.org/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother/

The mental health services in this country are absolutely dismal. I just discovered today that a *Connecticut mental health bill* was defeated months before the shooting.

http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2012/12/17/connecticut-mental-health-bill-defeated-months-before-deadly-school-shooting/

These people shouldn't be on the streets in the first place! Why are they not receiving the help they need???


----------



## Mober

"None of the 22 children that were stabbed have died as a result of the attack according to the Associated Press."


Read more at http://americanlivewire.com/22-stud...old-villager-min-yingjun/#8lAzzSd5vsIT6Wch.99


----------



## threefsh

Mober said:


> "None of the 22 children that were stabbed have died as a result of the attack according to the Associated Press."
> 
> Read more at http://americanlivewire.com/22-stud...old-villager-min-yingjun/#8lAzzSd5vsIT6Wch.99


Does that make it any better? Those children will forever carry with them the physical and mental scars of being attacked by a man with a knife. :'(


----------



## OttosMama

Even if all guns were completely destroyed, there would still be the availability of other weapons. Prisoners create their own weapons everyday that they use to kill prison guards, other prisoners and themselves. What makes us believe that those capable of violent acts would not do the same if they had no other means? 

We need to deal with the underlying causes. Our children need to have consequences again. We need to teach our children respect for human life again; respect for elders and their peers. We need to get our children off the sofa away from the tv and controllers, refuse to buy them every electronic their neighbor has. Perhaps we're past that point - but I think until we can accomplish these things, society will continue to deteriorate.


----------



## Mober

the fact that there are other weapons doesn't justify cancelling out "guns" from the discussion, thats very frustrating. 

[/quote]
Does that make it any better? Those children will forever carry with them the physical and mental scars of being attacked by a man with a knife. :'(
[/quote]

stabbed and alive > shot and dead


----------



## Mober

threefsh said:


> The mental health services in this country are absolutely dismal. I just discovered today that a *Connecticut mental health bill* was defeated months before the shooting.
> 
> http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2012/12/17/connecticut-mental-health-bill-defeated-months-before-deadly-school-shooting/
> 
> These people shouldn't be on the streets in the first place! Why are they not receiving the help they need???


I find it distressing that we can't talk about regulating semi-automatic weapons, however we can talk about giving the governement the ability to lock you up for mental issues. How can you guys possibly be for giving the government that power? I am not saying that shouldn't be discussed, but it shouldn't be all that is discussed.


----------



## OttosMama

Mober said:


> the fact that there are other weapons doesn't justify cancelling out "guns" from the discussion, thats very frustrating.


The point is that guns will never be cancelled out all together. Law abiding citizens may not be able to carry, or may only be able to carry limited types of firearms, but that doesn't mean they won't be present. Instead, those who would choose to cause undue harm on others will be those that carry. To believe otherwise is foolish. 

Cocaine is not legal - yet it is present. Meth is not legal - yet it is present. Heroine is not legal - and yet it is present. I could go on. They will not go away.

I think it is apparent that certain types of populations are targeted- unassuming populations - Churches, theaters, campuses and schools. I would think that an angry, violent person would be more likely to have a grudge against authority, such as police officers for instance. So why is their violence targetted against others in society? I would think the reason is because the perpetrators know that these populations are unarmed and vulnerable. They cannot defend themselves. They are able to wreak more havoc, and then take their own lives on their terms. I think such populations will continue to be the target until they become less vulnerable.


----------



## gunnr

To all

Sensationalism and shock sell. They are the stock and trade of the journalism profession.
To the rest of the world we, Americans, probably do appear to be a group of gun nuts. The truth though is far from this reality.
It is an exceedingly small fraction of a percentage of the 300 million people in this country that ascribe to some form of Government takeover conspiracies and are preparing for the fall of civilization as they believe it to be. They are though. a very vocal minority
The greater majority are like folks here. Their firearms are kept locked up, unloaded, and are only brought out for recreational purposes. Hunting, skeet, targets, etc. In other words they are managed in their homes with the requisite degree of safety and respect.
Why do I perceive that I have a "right" to own a firearm and hunt, outside of 2nd amendment arguments? Because I have paid for them. 
Virtually every conservation and wildlife restoration project that has been carried out in the US over the last 100 years has been paid for with taxes and fees placed on firearms and ammunition, and license fees. I have bought Duck stamps, pheasant stamps, quail stamps. Paid license fees. All my firearms are legally obtained and all taxes were paid, including those earmarked for the Pitman Roberts act. 
In other words,starting with President Theodore Roosevelt, we, as a country , have entered into an agreement that as long as we wanted to continue the tradition of hunting, the government would provide the resource and manage it, but we would pay for it. Not through taxes on the majority, but with those taxes and fees earmarked for hunting, and fishing.
I have a lot of experience with firearms, including the "Art and Zen of the M-14" as taught by the US government. Combat shooting, night shooting, blind target acquisition, and other very useless skills in the civilian community. So I do know how to use them. The military does however have a way of taking the fun out of things. My enamor and fascination with guns was cured many years ago. They hold no more mystique for me than a garden hoe. They also cured me in bomb school of making my own bombs as a kid. They made it very much unfun. 
Being involved in the Nuclear Weapons program, with a top secret clearance, believe me when I say that the US government can exercise quite a bit of paranoia related to specific weapons arenas. 
Am I paranoid that the government is watching and monitoring me? Nope, they told me they were going to do it when I left the military. It's not paranoia, I believe them, but I just live my life. I'm pretty boring.
If push came to shove, yes, I would use a firearm to protect myself and my family, specifically a shotgun, for many, many reasons. But if I have a chance I'm jumping out the window, with my wife, and calling the police and the fire department.


----------



## Mober

OttosMama said:


> Mober said:
> 
> 
> 
> the fact that there are other weapons doesn't justify cancelling out "guns" from the discussion, thats very frustrating.
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that guns will never be cancelled out all together. Law abiding citizens may not be able to carry, or may only be able to carry limited types of firearms, but that doesn't mean they won't be present. Instead, those who would choose to cause undue harm on others will be those that carry. To believe otherwise is foolish.
> 
> Cocaine is not legal - yet it is present. Meth is not legal - yet it is present. Heroine is not legal - and yet it is present. I could go on. They will not go away.
> 
> I think it is apparent that certain types of populations are targeted- unassuming populations - Churches, theaters, campuses and schools. I would think that an angry, violent person would be more likely to have a grudge against authority, such as police officers for instance. So why is their violence targetted against others in society? I would think the reason is because the perpetrators know that these populations are unarmed and vulnerable. They cannot defend themselves. They are able to wreak more havoc, and then take their own lives on their terms. I think such populations will continue to be the target until they become less vulnerable.
Click to expand...

Why target a mass population at all unless they can do damage to masses? Guns are indeed a variable in the math.


----------



## Mober

I can appreciate your viewpoint gunnr, but whose after your shotgun?!


----------



## Mober

I am going to sign off ... have fun with your dogs, hug/call your kids/grandkids/greatgrandkids/nieces/nephews/neighbors/friends ...


----------



## veifera

My 2 cents:

Attached is the Wikipedia list of causes of death in the US by frequency. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate

If I'm reading this list correctly, deaths caused by violence (like the shooting in CT) account for 0.98% of all deaths in the US. Deaths caused by cardiovascular disease account for 30%. Deaths as a result of road accidents account for almost 3%. 

I think that any number of things can cause mass deaths. If guns are banned outright, like in Japan, then people who are determined to kill will use other means (like the release of the nervous gas on a subway - in Japan). If that's not possible, they will ram trucks into school buses or into store fronts. They will try to poison water supplies, throw objects from the bridge into moving cars (like the infamous German incident). And of course making a Molotov cocktail or some other explosive device and killing a lot of people is only marginally more difficult than breaking a law and stealing someone's legally owned gun. 

The point I want to make is that there is a culture of sensationalizing violent death by guns, that has political origins on the left and which leads to perceptions that this country is still a Wild Wild West and anyone with a gun is potential killer. 

I live not far from Newtown and we were near that school just a week ago to meet with a trainer. Like everyone, I feel terrible about the loss of life, especially such young life, full of possibility. But I also feel it's inappropriate to have non-stop live TV coverage for 4 days in a row and to have 5 year old kids interviewed about the shooting on CNN. To die as a result of being hit by a drunk driver is just as senseless and yet we seem to assign a different value to life lost as a result of gun violence. 

The second point I want to make is I disagree with the claim that the reason to let people own guns is so that they can resist the government. I think it's not going to be possible for anyone to resist the US Government in 2012. It sounds good, especially for those people who believe that government outside of clearly set limits is an infringement on personal liberty. But it's simply not real - no amount of guns in one's personal collection will make a difference when confronted with our police force, army, unmanned drones and so on. 

I consider calls to pass stricter gun laws to be motivated by (a) desire for a quick emotional fix without an introspection and understanding and (b) ideology. That's it. 

And my own view is shocking to a lot of people, but I think people should be able to own guns just because they like to. Perhaps they are collectors or hunters - it doesn't matter. In a free country, there shouldn't be a need to justify doing what you want - as long as you don't hurt other people. 

If there is an intent to kill, there will be a weapon. The keyword here is intent to hurt others. It's interesting that every single mass shooting in the US has taken place in locations where the killer will never encounter an armed bystander. The killer is breaking the law by carrying the gun into such locations and yet he expects others to obey it, effectively becoming his sitting ducks. 

Obviously, past criminal behavior and mental issues are red flags for gun ownership - but passing more restrictive laws will simply mean a few more laws Adam Lanza broke because he was determined to hurt people. 

Thanks for reading.


----------



## dmak

Amen


----------



## gunnr

Mober said:


> I can appreciate your viewpoint gunnr, but whose after your shotgun?!



No one is after the shotgun. It's just my personal weapon of choice. Always has been. There was a reason it was banned by the Geneva Convention post WWI.
It's ironic that a very specific type of firearm, called out by design and manufacturer, that was banned world wide for use in war, is generally not even considered, nor part of "Assault Rifle" debates.


----------



## zigzag

I like Morgan Freeman's take on this. I think police and society should treat these individuals as serial killers. Just release minimal information and let the family's grieve on there own terms.


----------



## redbirddog

> I consider calls to pass stricter gun laws to be motivated by (a) desire for a quick emotional fix without an introspection and understanding and (b) ideology. That's it.


Veifera, your whole post was well thought and written. Perfect 20/20 vision.

RBD


----------



## Mober

Some cancers are listed below voilence (and BTW intentional violence is a higher % than your comment). Airline crashes arent even on the list, so let's forgo airline safety? Fires are pretty low too, the heck with fire safety!?

It is absolutely preposterous to presume these killers would have killed anyway. What is known 100% is they killed the way they killed because they could, because they had the idea, because they had the capability provided by weapons available to them.

This is all distraction. The idealogues are the ones who won't even debate guns role in this disaster.


----------



## Mober

Gunnr said:


> Mober said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can appreciate your viewpoint gunnr, but whose after your shotgun?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is after the shotgun. ...
Click to expand...

So then its OK to discuss assault weapons and their role in voilence?


----------



## gunnr

Mober said:


> Gunnr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mober said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can appreciate your viewpoint gunnr, but whose after your shotgun?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is after the shotgun. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then its OK to discuss assault weapons and their role in voilence?
Click to expand...

 Sure, but I would like you to articulate your actual position on the subject. Gun ownership that is. 
You seem to be latching onto esoteric concepts, and trying to present a theoretical argument, but I'm not sure exactly to what end?

There really is no discussion on the violence aspect of any weapon that can be colloquially called an "Assault Weapon". Since virtually every firearm, of any type, can be called an "Assault Weapon" within the context of an individual myopic vernacular, dependent on an a point of view, or political agenda. 
You need to define for us exactly what physical designs and functional mechanics you believe constitutes an "Assault Weapon".

Violence is visited in many forms on people, and not always with firearms. Look to the Mideast and Africa. It's done there with rocks, burning tires, machetes, and of course home made bombs. And it is done by the dozen score on occasion.
A firearm, any firearm, by design can extend a great amount of violence.There is no debate here. It is the nature, and purpose, of the tool. 
Simply because a firearm can be be preconfigured with large capacity magazines does not make it any more, or less,suited to accomplish violence. It just facilitates ease by an untrained user. In the right hands a bolt action rifle, or one with smaller magazine capacity can be just as effective as a semiautomatic with a large capacity magazine.

I would ask you to please define your position.


----------



## Mober

I do seem to be stuck in a rat hole discussion with those that categorically won't discuss guns' role in violence at all and try very hard to justify why. You appeared to throw down with your comment, which is why I asked why the concern over your shotgun. 

It is indeed true one could drop ricin in a subway or knife kids in China or machete enemies in their sleep in Africa. However none of those happened in Newtown, or in Aurora, or in Arizona. If it did, we would and should be discussing why and how something like that happened.

Your point about the bolt action rifle seems sensible, however the fact that it has to be in the right hands shrinks the pool of crazy idiots out there that can pull off a mass killing. And seems to reinforce there should be restrictions on large capacity magazines as it increases the pool of crazies that can use it effectively.

But I am not proposing I know the answer. I am not proposing I know the exact definition of an assault weapon that would have the right impact on violence, if at all. I am not an anti-gun advocate. I support sensible gun ownership. And I think we all should be willing to discuss the role of guns in violence. I am proposing that folks don't dig into gun defense mode and refuse dialogue. Seems to me gun experts would play an important role in the dialogue, if they would be willing to participate.


----------



## texasred

Mober said:


> I suppose next you will state Obama is like one of those guys on your "list" so "prepping" makes sense. Its all gun nut fantasy land - defending against the government, poking guns out your windows holding off katrina looters, teachers pulling glocks out of their desks and mowing down an armed intruder. I think this is it, you guys are right, its not the guns, its the gun culture, wild wild west, tin foil hat, john wayne paul revere crap. And then we wonder how stuff like this happens. *I am having a hard time not being disgusted*.


Me too, but for different reasons.
I think its time for me to walk away from this thread.
Due to age and wisdom, I don't care to stoop to your level.


----------



## WillowyndRanch

Mober said:


> I suppose next you will state Obama is like one of those guys on your "list" so "prepping" makes sense. Its all gun nut fantasy land - defending against the government, poking guns out your windows holding off katrina looters, teachers pulling glocks out of their desks and mowing down an armed intruder. I think this is it, you guys are right, its not the guns, its the gun culture, wild wild west, tin foil hat, john wayne paul revere crap. And then we wonder how stuff like this happens. I am having a hard time not being disgusted.


I think that is quite unjust, Attacking me for merely reciting history and knowing that history repeats itself. I said nothing about our current administration. I am not so naive to think that there is no evil and corruption in the world around us. To the contrary, blindly believing that everything will be fine because whichever government one is subject to says so is naive at best, dangerous at worst. To blindly believe that putting up a sign that says Gun free zone, Drug free Zone keeps Guns or Drugs out is naive. What might the toll have been had one of those teachers been able to return fire? We'll never know. 

To those who think small arms can have no impact in a conflict in 2012, pshaw. One rifle shot can and has changed history. Literally Millions of Americans are armed. In most cases in history, the government is not overthrown by the people, but by the military which are further supported by the populous. Study History. It's amazing to see correlations again and again.

Mober, since you seem bent on the attack, whilst deceptively promulgating that you are not anti-gun, I gather you've never served in action in unstable regions brought about by tyrannical governments, or your viewpoint would be different. I've had military service abroad in a hot zone as a member of a tactical Unit.

I gather you've never been on even a "ride-along" with law enforcement, or your viewpoint would likely be different. I know from several years firsthand experience as a Deputy Sheriff that as hard as the police try, we are rarely, very rarely able to stop violence, only instead hunt down the perpetrators after the crime has occurred. 

I know that I'm responsible for my own defense. I know how long it takes for help to arrive after that dispatch call. I want as much firepower at my disposal as I need to defend myself and my family from evil. Say what you will about your perception of this "gun fanatic, wild west, tinfoil crapper". I've walked that mile. Have you?

Ken


----------



## threefsh

Mober, it looks like you're just wanting to pick a fight and not have a civil discussion, so in that case I'm done.


----------



## redbirddog

Emotions are raw. For the most part the posts lately have been articulate and intelligent. Much beyond cute puppy pictures. 

I admit to falling into the ideological pull. Right now I am watching, on Netflix, the last episode of the first season of "The Boss". A fictionalized story of a current mayor of Chicago and politics of Illinois. Ugly really. How us, normal citizens, filter the facts from the manufactured stories, is getting tough. Political Science has gotten REALLY GOOD.

Proud of those who can see past the emotional pictures painted and who can articulate it better than me. We can't bury our head in the dirt.


----------



## Mober

@ threeshf
You couldnt possibly have read posts then.


----------



## datacan

In any case, guns don't kill. 

People on drugs, just might use guns in ways that were never intended to be used  Friend worked for the coroner's office, they see violent crime as a drug and alcohol related problem, for the most part.


----------



## harrigab

Mober said:


> @ threeshf
> You couldnt possibly have read posts then.


Maybe not,,,,but I have.
keep it civil or I'll lock the thread.


----------



## Mober

WillowyndRanch said:


> Mober said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose next you will state Obama is like one of those guys on your "list" so "prepping" makes sense. Its all gun nut fantasy land - defending against the government, poking guns out your windows holding off katrina looters, teachers pulling glocks out of their desks and mowing down an armed intruder. I think this is it, you guys are right, its not the guns, its the gun culture, wild wild west, tin foil hat, john wayne paul revere crap. And then we wonder how stuff like this happens. I am having a hard time not being disgusted.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is quite unjust, Attacking me for merely reciting history and knowing that history repeats itself. I said nothing about our current administration. I am not so naive to think that there is no evil and corruption in the world around us. To the contrary, blindly believing that everything will be fine because whichever government one is subject to says so is naive at best, dangerous at worst. To blindly believe that putting up a sign that says Gun free zone, Drug free Zone keeps Guns or Drugs out is naive. What might the toll have been had one of those teachers been able to return fire? We'll never know.
> 
> To those who think small arms can have no impact in a conflict in 2012, pshaw. One rifle shot can and has changed history. Literally Millions of Americans are armed. In most cases in history, the government is not overthrown by the people, but by the military which are further supported by the populous. Study History. It's amazing to see correlations again and again.
> 
> Mober, since you seem bent on the attack, whilst deceptively promulgating that you are not anti-gun, I gather you've never served in action in unstable regions brought about by tyrannical governments, or your viewpoint would be different. I've had military service abroad in a hot zone as a member of a tactical Unit.
> 
> I gather you've never been on even a "ride-along" with law enforcement, or your viewpoint would likely be different. I know from several years firsthand experience as a Deputy Sheriff that as hard as the police try, we are rarely, very rarely able to stop violence, only instead hunt down the perpetrators after the crime has occurred.
> 
> I know that I'm responsible for my own defense. I know how long it takes for help to arrive after that dispatch call. I want as much firepower at my disposal as I need to defend myself and my family from evil. Say what you will about your perception of this "gun fanatic, wild west, tinfoil crapper". I've walked that mile. Have you?
> 
> Ken
Click to expand...

My "attack" is asking you to consider a dialogue on weapons in the context of the recent shootings? Being offended that you will not because in 2012 America you are protecting the country from tyranny? Psshaw? Psshaw alright! I have never stated I want guns to be banned. I have never stated you shouldn't be able to defend your home. In fact I feel strongly that in many cases its a necessity. I don't believe one needs an arsenal of semi-automatic weapons to defend themselves against the likliest threats to safety, however. But haven't even stated I want assault guns banned. I am taking offense that to secure your piece of mind, to indulge your views, we cannot even discuss guns and what might be able to be done about the means to these kinds of incidents like Newtown.


----------



## harrigab

This thread is going nowhere apart from cat-calling...Thread closed


----------

