Gun Control

[MoValley John]

There is a longstanding debate amongst even gun advocates of the intended purpose of the ar. The family of the man that invented the gun has recently come out and said that his sole intention was a military rifle.

Unfortunately, that is not true. The gun was invented to be both a lightweight military rifle and a sporting/ hunting rifle. The proof is in the advertisement that was published simultaneous to the Air Force picking up a few AR'S to test. I'll dig up the ad and post it later.

That said, the AR has a distinctive use in hunting. I know many guys that, as youth, shot their first deer with AR's. Their dad's taught them with the gun. It was light enough, ddn't kick, had the ft lbs to drop a deer, and was adapted for them. Some still hunt with it. Wild boar hunters use this gun as the best gun for hunting.

Meanwhile, I know several guys that deer hunt with M1's and M14's. Absolutely guns built to kill people. That said, the look of a gun and original design does not define usefulness in another field. Guns are guns, they all work pretty much the same and every gun can be adapted.

[MoValley John]

b4b539b9c0a39166b6606c7d3e3668ba.jpg

AR 15 ad, prior to full adoption by US military. Intended purpose gets real fuzzy here.

[MoValley John]

1961unsinkablerifle.jpg

AR 7. Military rifle? Sporting rifle?

Oh, the AR 7 sucks. Nevermind.

[pie n eye]

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/27/151526...self-for-riots

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DtgCiC6qTtjs&ved=0ahUKEwi5w6205_rNAhVo2IMKHeCuBlQQtwIIGzAA&usg=AFQjCNFjU_xJPE2x3V20OoiqgikjmKGEVQ

There is your ****ing burden. Right the **** there. These store owners used sbotguns, rifles, handguns and yes, AR 15's. The burden is you want to deny these businessmen their right to defend themselves, their livelihoods and their property. All because guns scare you. Well guns are supposed to be scary, that's why these guys didn't get looted!

And you think we are beyond this? Remember Ferguson? Remember Dallas? Where is the next riot? Wichita or Omaha? If so, I want to be UNBURDENED enough to defend myself and my family as effectively as possible.

Did I show burden, or again are you going to dismiss? I have answered ever question you have asked. And no, this isn't fun for me, some of the sarcastic stuff is, but this is a dead serious issue that isn't fun.

We are giving up rights all because of a bunch of fearful *******. It's a huge burden.

I read this post and marvel at the sheer comedy of you calling out a "bunch of fearful ******".

[MoValley John]

2743431-zpscd04ff8f-1169-3.jpg

This is a Remington 870. Designed for small game hunting. Pheasants and the like was its original intended purpose. I own one. I'm sure a lot of people on Shockernet.net have an 870 laying around.

The above 870 has been modified just as the AR 15 can be modified. The point is, any gun can be modified. If your goal is to ban only "assault" type weapons, you have to ban them all. In fact, I'd much rather be shot in the leg with an AR 15 than with a deer slug out of a modified 870.

[MoValley John]

I read this post and marvel at the sheer comedy of you calling out a "bunch of fearful ******".

That's all it can be. Statistically, you are more likely to get struck by lightning than be shot with an "assault" weapon. You are more likely to win a lottery than be shot by an "assault" rifle. You are more likely to get killed at a train crossing than by an "assault" rifle. The list goes on.

The only rationale for wanting a ban on only these guns and no others is
A. Irrational fear.
B. You really want all guns banned and you believe this is the easiest starting point.

[MoValley John]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF&ved=0ahUKEwjWrrS9jPvNAhWD8YMKHUc8BSIQFggoMAQ&usg=AFQjCNGIqnyPOSorHj8Gyn6edHvblPI29g

Read page 6.

[Kung Wu]

Are we talking 90's Hillary opposed to guns, 08 Hillary that was pro guns or the newest version opposed again?

Well, I guess we have to go with the current decade, but knowing that come 2020 she will likely swing the other way if past performance is any indicator.

[wufan]

We haven't gotten there yet. This is ultimately the point, though. Your side's issue is with the burden vs benefit analysis, I think. Your stance might be, laws shouldn't infringe our rights, period (or close to period). Even if the actual right isn't particularly important (e.g., I have a right to guns and I like them) it's important not to infringe that right.

If true, both sides are internally consistent. This is why I hopped in in the first place. People were calling gun control defenders idiots and saying their arguments made no sense. They do make sense, they just have a different viewpoint. It's not contradictory to support a ban on assault rifles and think that trucks shouldn't be banned.

I've already drawn my line in the sand with private citizenship ownership...semi-automatic okay. Fully automatic not okay.

Why did I draw that line? First of all because it makes sense. It's not based on how scary it looks. Second is because a semi-automatic weapon is designed to kill/wound/maim in a descriminant fashion. That's the easy and obvious point for "burden" vs "advantage".

[MoValley John]

I've already drawn my line in the sand with private citizenship ownership...semi-automatic okay. Fully automatic not okay.

Why did I draw that line? First of all because it makes sense. It's not based on how scary it looks. Second is because a semi-automatic weapon is designed to kill/wound/maim in a descriminant fashion. That's the easy and obvious point for "burden" vs "advantage".

I'd agree.

Also, I'd agree to background checks if they were made easy to perform and free. Also, anything on a vackground check that would deny someone the ability to purchase a gun must be challengable. Due process is my other line in the sand.

[pie n eye]

That's all it can be. Statistically, you are more likely to get struck by lightning than be shot with an "assault" weapon. You are more likely to win a lottery than be shot by an "assault" rifle. You are more likely to get killed at a train crossing than by an "assault" rifle. The list goes on.

The only rationale for wanting a ban on only these guns and no others is
A. Irrational fear.
B. You really want all guns banned and you believe this is the easiest starting point.

I laugh because your post was full of things you're afraid of. Criminals trying to rob your store, rioters, the government taking away your rights. Yet it's irrational for others to fear a device that was created to maim or kill large amounts of people as efficiently as possible?

You hear crickets because it's not a debate. You made up your mind a long time ago on this issue, you searched the Internet for articles that confirm your beliefs, and you shout them at people as loud as you can so no one else can be heard. There is no point in trying to have an honest conversation about this because that's not what you're looking for.

[wufan]

I laugh because your post was full of things you're afraid of. Criminals trying to rob your store, rioters, the government taking away your rights. Yet it's irrational for others to fear a device that was created to maim or kill large amounts of people as efficiently as possible?

If I may, MJV has been quite consistent in that he wants to protect himself against other people, not other "devices". He believes those people should be taken to jail, and not that their "device" of choice be taken from law abiding citizens.

Second, it is irrational for people to fear devices. A device by itself is harmless. A gun wielding lunatic should be feared, just as a truck driving lunatic should be feared. The result of those two incidents is identical and tragic. The root cause, "lunatic", is also identical. The device is irrelevant, and therefore the device should not be banned, but the lunatic should be dealt with.

Finally, if you are referring to an assault rifle when you say, "a device that was created to maim or kill large amounts of people as efficiently as possible?"' then you are incorrect. An assault rifle is semi-automatic and is less efficient than a fully automatic weapon. It is illegal or Joe Public to own a fully automatic weapon in the US.

[ShockTalk]

I laugh because your post was full of things you're afraid of. Criminals trying to rob your store, rioters, the government taking away your rights. Yet it's irrational for others to fear a device that was created to maim or kill large amounts of people as efficiently as possible?

You hear crickets because it's not a debate. You made up your mind a long time ago on this issue, you searched the Internet for articles that confirm your beliefs, and you shout them at people as loud as you can so no one else can be heard. There is no point in trying to have an honest conversation about this because that's not what you're looking for.

I'm being an observer here, so I'm not getting into the debate.

That said, I do not own a gun, never have. I've never hunted. My father hunted as well as most all the males on both sides of my family and I have absolutely no problem with that. I took a sponsored rifle class when I was young and did target practice with pistols/rifles on my grandparents farm when I was younger. I enjoyed it, but that's as far as it goes for me.

An honest debate/conversation is where you have opposing view points on a subject and present reasons for your position as well as evidence to back it. I feel most here are doing that. I have seen none of this from you except: Guns were made to kill. With that reasoning, one could also say: All guns kill, ban all guns. I believe that thinking is an position many here, if not all, oppose regardless of your position. The crickets you hear come from your own made up mind and lack of offering any substance for it.

[wufan]

You hear crickets because it's not a debate. You made up your mind a long time ago on this issue, you searched the Internet for articles that confirm your beliefs, and you shout them at people as loud as you can so no one else can be heard. There is no point in trying to have an honest conversation about this because that's not what you're looking for.

It really isn't much of a debate. You either believe in the second amendment or you believe in European socialism. Neither belief is better than the other, they're just fundamentally different and can't be reconciled. The third possible belief is an irrational fear of an inanimate object.

[SHOCKvalue]

Semi-automatic, black plastic, tactical guns that fire 5.56 ammo are very scary. If I were going to be murdered or otherwise accosted I'd much rather the perpetrator utilize a semi-automatic 5.56 rifle with a pretty wood stock, attractive barrel bluing, and longer flowing lines. That way when I'm later suffering from gunshot wounds we can discuss the pleasantries associated with the aesthetics of his firearm while I'm dying or waiting for emergency medical treatment. Think gentlemanly Elizabethan.