(07-01-2016, 01:55 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I like the direction of monitoring the ownership, but he overlooks a few things.

For example we don't really know how much crime has been deterred by a CC person simply because a criminal is not going to call the Police and tell them that someone pulled a gun on them while they were attempting to rob someone.

Their is no way to really tell if it's helping or not, all we have to go by is stats prior to a passing of a CC Law to a year or two later after it's been passed and a suitable amount of people have CC licenses.

(07-01-2016, 02:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I wouldn't say he overlooked this, mainly because it does nothing against his argument. What he advocates would not prohibit concealed carry.

(07-01-2016, 03:14 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I get the AR-15 part as too much firepower for civilians and it just feeds the gun enthusiast's ego and Rambo Fantasy.

Guns like that, I have no problems with restricting/limiting ownership or possibly flat out prohibiting the ownership of them. The problem with restricting is that, if I can get one and you can't, you will be offering me a lot of money so you can get one. And where do we go from there? Do we limit me from the ability to purchase a new one every 10 years or so? How do I find out of I can sell it to you legally? How do I transfer ownership? So many problems created need to be resolved.

(07-01-2016, 04:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Personally, and I have said this a number of times, is that I have never seen a convincing argument that civilian ownership of semi-automatic weapons is necessary and should not be prohibited if we are discussing the prohibition of ownership of particular firearms.

Quote:I say that as someone that loves shooting, including semis, but all legal uses for firearms can be accomplished with the same degree of effectiveness with actions other than autoloaders.

(07-01-2016, 04:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Personally, and I have said this a number of times, is that I have never seen a convincing argument that civilian ownership of semi-automatic weapons is necessary and should not be prohibited if we are discussing the prohibition of ownership of particular firearms. I say that as someone that loves shooting, including semis, but all legal uses for firearms can be accomplished with the same degree of effectiveness with actions other than autoloaders.

(07-02-2016, 06:57 PM)GMDino Wrote: I've never seen where it was used in defense of anything.  Always in attacks.

Defense stories seem to always be shotguns, handguns, etc.

Quote:And I'm with you in allowing people to own weapons.  Heck I really don't even care if they want the biggest baddest they can get...I just don't understand the need for it.

(07-02-2016, 06:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll give you one right now.  The guy, or guys, who will be invading your home, sticking a gun in your face or otherwise using a firearm to commit a crime sure as hell won't restrict themselves to revolvers and lever/pump action firearms.  The semi-automatic firearm isn't exactly a new phenomenon either, it's technology around a century old. 

(07-02-2016, 06:57 PM)GMDino Wrote: I've never seen where it was used in defense of anything.  Always in attacks.

Defense stories seem to always be shotguns, handguns, etc.

I'm sure someone will find one now that I said that though. 

And I'm with you in allowing people to own weapons.  Heck I really don't even care if they want the biggest baddest they can get...I just don't understand the need for it.

(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.

(07-02-2016, 09:18 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Exactly, so why wouldn't most gun owners want the most powerful, efficient tool to defend or take down prey?

(07-02-2016, 09:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I find my .270 single shot to be the most efficient for hunting deer and bear, my SxS 16 ga for most birds, my Remington 870 for turkey and home defense.

I get what you are saying, and I could understand it being applied for pistols (though I don't agree), but not rifles. The long guns often brought up are not the best weapons for hunting or home defense.

(07-01-2016, 04:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Personally, and I have said this a number of times, is that I have never seen a convincing argument that civilian ownership of semi-automatic weapons is necessary and should not be prohibited if we are discussing the prohibition of ownership of particular firearms. I say that as someone that loves shooting, including semis, but all legal uses for firearms can be accomplished with the same degree of effectiveness with actions other than autoloaders.

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


I mean a Kia can get you to the store as effectively as a Ferrari. It's just that the Ferrari has much more potential to be dangerous

(07-02-2016, 09:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I know numerous people who use AR15's to hunt, especially coyotes.  Varmint control is just as important as hunting to cull numbers in some areas.  Besides, what firearm is "the best" or "better" for hunting is the source of endless arguments to which there is no consensus.

(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.