Self-professed "gun nut" on gun control

[GMDino]

(07-02-2016, 08:44 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: What's to understand?  It's a persons natural selection.  I mean, by that logic, what is the need for an attractive wife with big tits?  A homely, fat, flat chested woman is equally capable of producing offspring, right?

(07-02-2016, 09:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: No. Physiologically speaking there are body types more capable of breeding and child rearing. It's why our lust is, in general, triggered by similar things across mankind.

Bingo.

Its ego...not need.

That's why guys like Trump trade in wives when they get older looking.  Its not natural selection...its ego.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-02-2016, 10:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: We've hashed this out before and we will not agree this time either. Something designed to kill other humans is not equatable to a sports car.

Edit: to be quite frank, though, I would shed no tears if they did make sports cars illegal, or mandated governors. People are far to dangerous on the roads these days and speed plays no small part in that.

I'm honestly surprised by this as, iirc, you lean heavily libertarian.  For someone of that persuasion you lean heavily, at least on these issues, to "the government knows best" line of thinking.  I'm personally of the opinion that adults should be treated like adults until they prove they aren't capable of functioning like adults.  As long as there are freedoms there will be those who abuse them.  I'll take that over not having the freedoms in the first place any day and I think most of the framers would be in lock step with me on that one.

(07-02-2016, 10:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I could make the argument for lever actions in that situation. And yes, it is an endless debate. One I know I am a bit old fashioned on.

You are indeed.  

Without getting into many specifics, as there were minors involved, there was recently a burglary of an occupied dwelling in the middle of the night here in LA.  The occupant is an LEO.  He confronted the suspects, again I'll only say it was much more than one, and fired on them after they made a threatening move.  He used his entire normal capacity (10 rounds is not normal capacity   ) magazine.  Luckily, for the criminals, no one was killed but I fear that a normal civilian, without much training and range time, would likely have hit no one and may very well have been killed in response.  Honestly, and speaking as one in the profession, a civilian is in more need of a normal capacity magazine than an LEO.  LEO's have training, back up, body armor, so much more going for them than your typical civilian.  I can reload any of my firearms without quickly and without conscious thought, I've trained on them that often.  How many civilians with normal day jobs, kids and so many other responsibilities do you think can say the same?  I'd venture very few.  

The anti-gun side likes to waive the bloody shirt and chant the mantra of "if only one life is saved".  I think that slogan can easily be co-opted for gun rights proponents.  I firmly believe that the right of any citizen to be able to adequately defend themselves from some POS criminal is more important than the lives lost due to the comparatively small fraction of homicides that don't involve criminal on criminal violence, especially in the area of long guns, which are used in so few homicides that the efforts to ban them border on the ********.  You want to make a significant dent in gun related homicides then raise the penalty for illegal carrying of a firearm, using a firearm in the commission of an offense or any other such crime.  No plea bargains (believe me some of the deals I've seen, if I could relate them to you, would make you want to vomit) for gun related offenses for defendants with a criminal record.  In short, target criminals instead of the millions of responsible gun owners who will never commit a gun related crime.

[Rotobeast]

(07-02-2016, 10:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Every gun is designed to kill other humans.  

This....
I may end the statement at "kill", but humans are included by stopping there.

Here's the thing about weapon choice for defense.....
A firearm is a tool.
Any firearm you use should feel like an extension of your own body.
You and your family's lives depend on your performance and safety with that weapon.
A lot of people who have served our country are extremely comfortable with an M-4 carbine.
They should be able to use that tool.

I really don't understand how the AR received this mantle of the ultimate killing machine.
I'm sure there is more than a couple of military guys here that can tell stories about an enemy taking a couple of 5.56 rounds to the chest and continued to advance.

[Belsnickel]

(07-02-2016, 10:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Every gun is designed to kill other humans.  

No. Every firearm is capable of killing a human, but not every one is designed for killing them.

(07-03-2016, 12:21 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'm honestly surprised by this as, iirc, you lean heavily libertarian.  For someone of that persuasion you lean heavily, at least on these issues, to "the government knows best" line of thinking.  I'm personally of the opinion that adults should be treated like adults until they prove they aren't capable of functioning like adults.  As long as there are freedoms there will be those who abuse them.  I'll take that over not having the freedoms in the first place any day and I think most of the framers would be in lock step with me on that one.

My political ideologies are a hodgepodge these days. I became a bit disillusioned with the libertarian movement for a number of reasons. Gun control has always been something I have differed with the small-government types, though. If you notice, however, I often phrase things as having not heard a convincing argument for the need, etc. This is because as much as I feel there is no need for these weapons and based on my own collection would not be missing any if they did ban them, I still don't feel 100% in favor of doing so. It's a 50/50 thing.

(07-03-2016, 12:21 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You are indeed.  

Yeah, people I have hunted with give me a hard time. I take a single shot rifle and three rounds. I am also the guy you will see in the woods in jeans and a flannel shirt.

I also won't use an inline muzzle loader or a compound bow. Flintlock and recurve.

(07-03-2016, 12:21 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Without getting into many specifics, as there were minors involved, there was recently a burglary of an occupied dwelling in the middle of the night here in LA.  The occupant is an LEO.  He confronted the suspects, again I'll only say it was much more than one, and fired on them after they made a threatening move.  He used his entire normal capacity (10 rounds is not normal capacity   ) magazine.  Luckily, for the criminals, no one was killed but I fear that a normal civilian, without much training and range time, would likely have hit no one and may very well have been killed in response.  Honestly, and speaking as one in the profession, a civilian is in more need of a normal capacity magazine than an LEO.  LEO's have training, back up, body armor, so much more going for them than your typical civilian.  I can reload any of my firearms without quickly and without conscious thought, I've trained on them that often.  How many civilians with normal day jobs, kids and so many other responsibilities do you think can say the same?  I'd venture very few.  

There is information missing there, though. Were the rounds fired in rapid succession? Would the criminals have fled after an initial one-two rounds? The statistics show that the vast majority of times, that is the case. They also show that this scenario was an anomaly in other ways as well. The number of assailants is very rarely more than two. I am working off of memory here because I can't remember it all. It was some NRA statistics on home defense IIRC.

(07-03-2016, 12:21 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The anti-gun side likes to waive the bloody shirt and chant the mantra of "if only one life is saved".  I think that slogan can easily be co-opted for gun rights proponents.  I firmly believe that the right of any citizen to be able to adequately defend themselves from some POS criminal is more important than the lives lost due to the comparatively small fraction of homicides that don't involve criminal on criminal violence, especially in the area of long guns, which are used in so few homicides that the efforts to ban them border on the ********.  You want to make a significant dent in gun related homicides then raise the penalty for illegal carrying of a firearm, using a firearm in the commission of an offense or any other such crime.  No plea bargains (believe me some of the deals I've seen, if I could relate them to you, would make you want to vomit) for gun related offenses for defendants with a criminal record.  In short, target criminals instead of the millions of responsible gun owners who will never commit a gun related crime.

I'm in greatly in favor of stiffer penalties. I'd also like to see universal background checks and a standard decided upon for a level of training for someone to carry their firearm on their person outside their home, open or concealed. The prohibition of firearms, as I mentioned earlier, is something I am not dead set in favor of, but I am concerned about people with zero training being able to legally carry a firearm anywhere as is the case in my state.

[fredtoast]

(06-30-2016, 11:35 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

?

[fredtoast]

(07-02-2016, 06:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I consider you a good dude so please understand what I mean when I say that this is the exact type of thinking that will lead to almost total civilian disarmament.  It's Fudd thinking at level red.  I'm sure someone reading this will think that I'm a "typical gun owner" prone to hysterics and overly paranoid about confiscation.  One need look no further than the travesty that just occurred yesterday in my state to see that this is not paranoia, that confiscation is the ultimate goal of the current left side of this issue and that the argument is really boiling down to being pro gun ownership or pro confiscation.  Governor Brown created millions of felons with a signature and I don't know any person who will be complying with a single one of these new laws.

It is crazy to oppose good laws just because you think there will later be bad laws.

There is no other way to describe that type pf thinking than "overly paranoid and prone to hysterics".

The only logical thing to do is support good laws and oppose bad laws.

[fredtoast]

(07-02-2016, 09:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Should high performance sports cars be illegal? 

They are.  You can not drive a rail dragster on the road.

[Rotobeast]

(07-03-2016, 10:17 AM)fredtoast Wrote: They are.  You can not drive a rail dragster on the road.

Well....you COULD.
But of course, not legally.

I will admit, I have driven a drag car on the street. (slicks & open header/exhaust)

[fredtoast]

(07-03-2016, 12:21 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   I'm personally of the opinion that adults should be treated like adults until they prove they aren't capable of functioning like adults.  As long as there are freedoms there will be those who abuse them.  I'll take that over not having the freedoms in the first place any day and I think most of the framers would be in lock step with me on that one.

The framers believed in laws.  They were not anarchists. 

And our lack of gun control and regulation is a big problem.  All people who can get guns right now are not "acting like adults", so we need to limit gunownership to those who have proven that they can.  Right now it is perfectly legal for a private seller to sell a gun to a convicted killer. 

[*bfine32*]

(07-03-2016, 10:17 AM)fredtoast Wrote: They are.  You can not drive a rail dragster on the road.

Yes,just with  firearms many modifications are illegal. Thanks for helping out with the point, maybe Matt will now start to see the correlation. 

[*Nately120*]

Did anyone tell this idgit that gun control doesn't work? Check mate.

[*bfine32*]

(07-03-2016, 08:47 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: No. Every firearm is capable of killing a human, but not every one is designed for killing them.

Please provide list of firearms that you feel are not designed for killing humans.

You originally said you have never seen a good argument for private citizens to own AR-15 (type?) weapons. I think what you meant to say is I refuse to accept a good argument for private citizens to own AR-13 weapons; which is totally your right.   

[*bfine32*]

(07-03-2016, 12:29 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Did anyone tell this idgit that gun control doesn't work?  Check mate.

I have always said that  the answer is in the punishment. As long as you are responsible, then the government should not restrict what you can own. For instance yesterday we went out shooting. My brother-in-law had a .44 Magnum was an eight inch barrel (never seen such a huge handgun). Of course I had to cycle a cylinder through it. We were responsible; however, some would have frown upon it because that 44 is designed to put a hole through a man. 

[Rotobeast]

(07-03-2016, 12:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have always said that  the answer is in the punishment. As long as you are responsible, then the government should not restrict what you can own. For instance yesterday we went out shooting. My brother-in-law had a .44 Magnum was an eight inch barrel (never seen such a huge handgun). Of course I had to cycle a cylinder through it. We were responsible; however, some would have frown upon it because that 44 is designed to put a hole through a man. 

I'm guessing you'd drop a brick over this then.
http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Category4_750001_750051_775664_-1_775655_757896_image


I prefer the 460 though.

[*Nately120*]

(07-03-2016, 12:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have always said that  the answer is in the punishment. As long as you are responsible, then the government should not restrict what you can own. For instance yesterday we went out shooting. My brother-in-law had a .44 Magnum was an eight inch barrel (never seen such a huge handgun). Of course I had to cycle a cylinder through it. We were responsible; however, some would have frown upon it because that 44 is designed to put a hole through a man. 

Oh I agree, I just like to argue mindsets rather than policy.  A guy I worked with was telling me he had a .44 magnum specifically for home defense and when I told him that didn't seem like a good idea he just assumed I had an issue with him owning a gun at all.  I tried to explain that discharging a gun capable of firing through entire houses could do more harm than good in such a situation, but he was too busy getting a Rambo-boner over splattering a fictitious invader's guts all over the ceiling and walls to listen.

[Rotobeast]

(07-03-2016, 12:48 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Oh I agree, I just like to argue mindsets rather than policy.  A guy I worked with was telling me he had a .44 magnum specifically for home defense and when I told him that didn't seem like a good idea he just assumed I had an issue with him owning a gun at all.  I tried to explain that discharging a gun capable of firing through entire houses could do more harm than good in such a situation, but he was too busy getting a Rambo-boner over splattering a fictitious invader's guts all over the ceiling and walls to listen.

I agree with you.
A 44mag is not a good choice (apart from the sight of it scaring the intruder).
If discharged, everyone will be slightly blinded from the muzzle flash and completely deaf.
Hollow-points would cut down on penetration, but it would still reduce block walls to rubble.
And if you actually shot an intruder, be prepared to defend yourself in court for use of excessive force or murder due to the amount power it has.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-03-2016, 10:14 AM)fredtoast Wrote: It is crazy to oppose good laws just because you think there will later be bad laws.

I wish that were true.  In this instance it is not.  Every law is a step further towards the real goal and the mask has really slipped of late.  I've made this analogy before, but the anti-gun and anti-abortion politicians have the same objective and they go about it in the same way.  The ultimate goal is to eliminate the practice they oppose.  Now, if you wanted to make a constitutional amendment that had universal background checks and an owners registry but at the same time absolutely prohibited further restrictions I'd be all for it.

Quote:There is no other way to describe that type pf thinking than "overly paranoid and prone to hysterics".

Sure there is, you just prefer not to use them.

Quote:The only logical thing to do is support good laws and oppose bad laws.

Which, again, would be fine if the bad laws weren't built on the backs of the "good ones".  When the Dem candidate for president openly states that the Australian model of gun control is "something we should look into" any logical gun owner wouldn't trust a single proposed gun law originating from that person.

(07-03-2016, 11:00 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The framers believed in laws.  They were not anarchists.

Agreed.  Although I wonder why you felt the need to point that out since no claim was made that they where.  They were a mix of distrusting of central governing power and distrusting the electorate, hence the electoral college. 

Quote:And our lack of gun control and regulation is a big problem.

It becomes less of a problem every year while at the same time gun ownership increases.  That seems like a corollary that goes against the popular thinking of the day does it not?

Quote: All people who can get guns right now are not "acting like adults", so we need to limit gunownership to those who have proven that they can.

 
We already have laws in the books to address that very issue.  As you clearly feel these are inadequate would you care to explain what we don't have that we need?

Quote:Right now it is perfectly legal for a private seller to sell a gun to a convicted killer. 

I'm not familiar enough with the laws of every state to say this definitively, but I do not believe that you can knowingly sell a firearm to a convicted felon in any state.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-03-2016, 12:48 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Oh I agree, I just like to argue mindsets rather than policy.  A guy I worked with was telling me he had a .44 magnum specifically for home defense and when I told him that didn't seem like a good idea he just assumed I had an issue with him owning a gun at all.  I tried to explain that discharging a gun capable of firing through entire houses could do more harm than good in such a situation, but he was too busy getting a Rambo-boner over splattering a fictitious invader's guts all over the ceiling and walls to listen.

Over penetration is an issue with any home defense option and most people are not educated enough about guns to know this.  Modern homes have drywall so thin any round that misses a body is going through it unless you hit a stud.  I've had many people ask me for advice o this issue and I always steer them to a .380 or, at most, a 9mm with quality JHP rounds.  The ammunition used is almost more important than the caliber.  This is why the gang banging idiots get shot ten times and live because none of those morons knows the difference between a FMJ and JHP round.  A .44, even special, is an exceedingly poor choice for home defense.  Over penetration aside, it's too much gun for most people to handle properly.  Additionally, and almost no one takes this into account, you'll be firing it without ear protection in a home defense setting.  Say good bye to your hearing for a day or two.

[Belsnickel]

(07-03-2016, 12:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes,just with  firearms many modifications are illegal. Thanks for helping out with the point, maybe Matt will now start to see the correlation. 

Nope.

(07-03-2016, 12:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Please provide list of firearms that you feel are not designed for killing humans.

My SxS 16 was specifically designed for upland bird shooting. The list would be rather long, but I am not going to indulge your feigning ignorance.

(07-03-2016, 12:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You originally said you have never seen a good argument for private citizens to own AR-15 (type?) weapons. I think what you meant to say is I refuse to accept a good argument for private citizens to own AR-13 weapons; which is totally your right.   

Refusing to accept a good argument would mean acknowledging a good argument exists and not finding it to be correct, which I have yet to do, because one has never been presented before me.

[*bfine32*]

(07-03-2016, 04:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Nope.


My SxS 16 was specifically designed for upland bird shooting. The list would be rather long, but I am not going to indulge your feigning ignorance.


Refusing to accept a good argument would mean acknowledging a good argument exists and not finding it to be correct, which I have yet to do, because one has never been presented before me.

Guns by their function are designed to kill humans, just because you use it for the purpose of shooting birds doesn't mean someone else could not use the 16 gauge shotgun to kill a human. It all comes down to the intent of the user.

Same as a Kia is designed to get a person from point A to point B economically, doesn't mean you cannot drive recklessly in it, in such a manner that would be better suited for a high performance vehicle. 

As I said it is your right to ignore the point; however, just you saying so, doesn't mean one has not been made. My S&W .40 is an SD variety. The SD stands for self-defense (designed to kill somebody) do you think it should be illegal.