Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 37 to 48 of 128

Thread: Suggs and Guns

  1. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    8,283

    Re: Suggs and Guns



    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    no. but does making it harder stop those that arent mentally stable or irresponsible gun owners that arent criminals?
    Could you rephrase that, I've read it 4 times and it just doesn't make sense (to me).
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin





  2. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Severna Park
    Posts
    3,813
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Suggs and Guns

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    The shotgun/AR was not my argument. IT was a Walmart AR btw, more accurate than an AK. Tell you what go see the ballistic from a buckshot vs a AK and tell me where you think your better chance of survival stands.

    And why should I have to pay 1,000 for a license to own an AR?
    Talking range and semantics. Fact is an assault rifle is called one for a reason. To debate the merits of why a shotgun isn't as dangerous as a machine gun is not the point. It is my opinion that military grade weaponry should be harder to acquire.

    This concept of licensing is no different from getting a CDL license, which cost more than a standard license as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    Question. Does making guns harder to get stop criminals from getting them?
    No, it doesn't. Same can be said for underage drinking too.

    Look, I am ALL for enforcing the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment and I am not even a gun owner. I simply believe that excessive firepower is just that, for real enthusiasts who are willing to pay a high price to have the hobby. I don't ever think someone owning an AR-15 saved them anymore than owning a .45, difference has always been when some nut goes off like Colmbine, or that theater in Aurora, there is usually assault weapons to be involved for killing larger number of people, like bullet capacity alone.





  3. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    8,283

    Re: Suggs and Guns

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Silver View Post
    Talking range and semantics. Fact is an assault rifle is called one for a reason.
    You can name or call anything you want to cal it, it doesn't make it true.

    I have no idea what an "assault rifle". An AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle. I can get a Remington semi-automatic hunting rifle (with better range) that will do the exact same thing. I can also hunt with an AR-15

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Silver View Post
    To debate the merits of why a shotgun isn't as dangerous as a machine gun is not the point. It is my opinion that military grade weaponry should be harder to acquire.
    A shotgun is military grade, so is a .45, so is a Remington 700 rifle (I believe that's what Marine snipers use). Point being is that the guns we're talking about are all relatively the same. If you want to start talking about a 50 caliber automatic machine gun, I might lean your way, a little.

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Silver View Post
    No, it doesn't. Same can be said for underage drinking too.
    The difference is, making it illegal for under age people to by alcohol doesn't infringe on the ability of people of age to buy alcohol.

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Silver View Post
    Look, I am ALL for enforcing the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment and I am not even a gun owner. I simply believe that excessive firepower is just that, for real enthusiasts who are willing to pay a high price to have the hobby. I don't ever think someone owning an AR-15 saved them anymore than owning a .45,
    We'll to go back to your shotgun machine gun argument, range could be why someone needs to own a AR vs a .45 (range of 30 yards, accurately anyway).

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Silver View Post
    difference has always been when some nut goes off like Colmbine, or that theater in Aurora, there is usually assault weapons to be involved for killing larger number of people, like bullet capacity alone.
    You do know one of the biggest killings in the US, Virginia Tech, the guy killed 33 people ( almost triple the Aurora, CO theater) used 2 handguns.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin





  4. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Severna Park
    Posts
    3,813
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Suggs and Guns

    NC, you can post all you like for a mile. I still am on your side, I simply think those guns need more control than other guns.

    Ask any cop and they will all say they would be more worried about any hostile situation where there are guns of that type. When common citizens have more firepower than the cops, that tells me that I am right about this. Slice it however you like, but unless the S.W.A.T. team is called in, that kind of hardware isn't even brandished by the professionals.





  5. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    8,283

    Re: Suggs and Guns

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Silver View Post
    NC, you can post all you like for a mile. I still am on your side, I simply think those guns need more control than other guns.

    Ask any cop and they will all say they would be more worried about any hostile situation where there are guns of that type. When common citizens have more firepower than the cops, that tells me that I am right about this. Slice it however you like, but unless the S.W.A.T. team is called in, that kind of hardware isn't even brandished by the professionals.
    You're still missing the point. A common citizens having more firepower than cops is irrelevant. It's the criminals, who by definition don't follow laws, that you have to worry about.

    Making it harder for a common citizen to own a gun does nothing to the criminal who already doesn't follow the law.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin





  6. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Severna Park
    Posts
    3,813
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Suggs and Guns

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    You're still missing the point. A common citizens having more firepower than cops is irrelevant. It's the criminals, who by definition don't follow laws, that you have to worry about.

    Making it harder for a common citizen to own a gun does nothing to the criminal who already doesn't follow the law.
    Two wrongs don't make a right. All I am saying is training and higher standards to own those type of weapons to me makes sense. Just because a criminal can get their hands on them easily doesn't make it any less dangerous. I could drive a big rig without a license right now, it would be a crime.

    Just a difference of opinion my friend.





  7. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    8,283

    Re: Suggs and Guns

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Silver View Post
    Two wrongs don't make a right. All I am saying is training and higher standards to own those type of weapons to me makes sense. Just because a criminal can get their hands on them easily doesn't make it any less dangerous. I could drive a big rig without a license right now, it would be a crime.

    Just a difference of opinion my friend.
    I know I am not going to change your opinion although I've shown (to which you agreed to) that your opinion will have little no affect on the people who should not have a gun.

    BTW, I did ask a Cop friend about Shotgun vs AK
    Depends on the distance. Past a certain point the buckshot would be less effective and you might catch a round or two but probably not all of them. Up close it would be a mess but typical buckshot is basically .380 rounds. Less than a complete shot and its not much stopping power.

    AR/AKs make a mess but typically people around here just spray and pray. Someone trained would be pretty dangerous but AKs are also pretty unreliable. If you did get hit they tend to bounce around and chew up your insides pretty bad. Plus a vest would be pretty worthless against a rifle.

    I'd be most afraid of a shotgun loaded with slug though.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin





  8. #44
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Severna Park
    Posts
    3,813
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Suggs and Guns

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    I know I am not going to change your opinion although I've shown (to which you agreed to) that your opinion will have little no affect on the people who should not have a gun.

    BTW, I did ask a Cop friend about Shotgun vs AK
    Yeah, I know and if it came down to it, which is the standard, err on the side of the 2nd Amendment.





  9. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    30,970

    Re: Suggs and Guns

    I think people get confused by what they think is a so called "assault weapon" and a fully automatic weapon.

    For one, except for the government definition, there is no such thing as an assault weapon. All firearms are designed for "assault". Second, full auto weapons are already banned from new purchase. If you want one, you must apply for a Federal Firearm License and Class III exemption and then have one that's already on file with the ATF transferred to you. When you do that, you give up your 5th Amendment right to search and seizure to the ATF, who can at any time, demand to see the weapon. People who take these steps are not the folks committing crimes. nor are people like myself who carry a concealed firearm on a daily basis.

    What it boils down to are guns that look and feel as if they are military issue. This is a specious argument.

    Google "Mini 14" and "HK 416". Take a long hard look at them. Tell me why one should be banned while the other should not and I will tell you whatever the reason you may have is nonsense and grounded in simply not knowing a lot about guns.

    They both do the same thing. Shoot a .223 round with one squeeze of the trigger. The only difference is one "looks" worse than the other.

    And as former LE, as well as having dozens of friends and family in and around law enforcement, I will tell you with 100% certainly the prevailing wisdom amongst the rank and file officers is NOT gun control. That line of thinking comes from the political bodies in LE such as the Chiefs of Police Association.
    Last edited by HoustonRaven; 12-07-2012 at 06:53 PM.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.





  10. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    11,283
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Suggs and Guns

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    Could you rephrase that, I've read it 4 times and it just doesn't make sense (to me).
    theres people out there that are irresponsible gun owners that still arent a criminal element either, as well as mentally unstable people that possible have not had prior issues where background and psychiatric checks would limit those while not hurting those that are capable of passing such screenings. I feel any argument for making it easier to obtain, while not limiting what you can obtain, is mostly just because its making it inconvenient for the gun owner, which is a poor argument. theres 0 disadvantage to saying you can own whatever you want, but you need to be screened first, besides the inconvenience factor unless im missing something else.

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    You're still missing the point. A common citizens having more firepower than cops is irrelevant. It's the criminals, who by definition don't follow laws, that you have to worry about.

    Making it harder for a common citizen to own a gun does nothing to the criminal who already doesn't follow the law.
    that was kind of my point as well. The criminal aspect will remain no matter what, but by making it easy for them to attain legally, theyre just not going to be called criminals any longer for illegal gun ownership, which coincidentally is pretty common charge on getting said criminals behind bars. what lowering it would do is even those that werent willing to break the law to obtain one, but not capable of being a healthy responsible gun owner, can go get a gun he wasnt going to be able to beforehand.

    Side note, Silver is correct about law enforcement. I have numerous friends that are cops ranging from small town Pa to Baltimore city/county. To my knowledge the small town actually has 1 AR for about a dozen or so cops (which is usually signed out on weekends for private use coincidentally), and my patrol officer buddy in Baltimore has only his pistol and i believe a shotgun at times but not always. However, like NC said, all guns have the ability to kill, which is why stricter background checks and required safety classes are really the only preventative measures possible, for those that arent good/healthy gun owners but dont want to be part of the criminal sect.

    Being pro-guns I can see where people take "gun control" and think its going to effect criminals but really ANY gun law is for law abiding citizens which is why I dont think there should be limits on what you can have, but there can be on if youre healthy and law abiding.
    Last edited by JAB1985; 12-11-2012 at 08:55 AM.
    -JAB





  11. #47
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    30,970

    Re: Suggs and Guns

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    theres people out there that are irresponsible gun owners that still arent a criminal element either, as well as mentally unstable people that possible have not had prior issues where background and psychiatric checks would limit those while not hurting those that are capable of passing such screenings. I feel any argument for making it easier to obtain, while not limiting what you can obtain, is mostly just because its making it inconvenient for the gun owner, which is a poor argument. theres 0 disadvantage to saying you can own whatever you want, but you need to be screened first, besides the inconvenience factor unless im missing something else.
    Aren't you and NC basically arguing the same point then?

    There's already screening mechanisms in place in most states, in some form or another, to purchase a firearm.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.





  12. #48
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    11,283
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Suggs and Guns

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Aren't you and NC basically arguing the same point then?

    There's already screening mechanisms in place in most states, in some form or another, to purchase a firearm.
    I think were pretty close on thoughts about what guns one can own and some other issues, but i get that hes not for stricter screening and ok with what we have currently, where i think its not really good enough or broad enough as is, which I think is Silvers opinion as well (although he wants to handle it another way with higher licenses fees). Any state where you can go in and just buy a gun that day, any gun, without proper background check and psychiatric screening is pretty much defeating the purpose of such things. to my knowledge, and i may be wrong, Psychiatric aspect is not currently apart of the screening process which I think would be beneficial to the purpose of such things, as we both agree these laws arent for criminals but to keep guns away from those that arent responsible or danger to themselves or others without obvious intentions of bypassing the law.

    The system im describing wouldnt change anything for criminals and would not be 100% effective for those small percentage of law abiding citizens either, but i think it would cut down on some of those crazies that go on shooting sprees, which in turn may actually lessen any gun control laws we do have over time, by limiting those instances to call for gun control.
    -JAB





Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland