quote Originally posted by Khw: Prove he wouldn't have done those other things or found another way. Recently there was an attack at a school in China. Did the guy use a gun? Nope a knife. http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/...fe-attack/index.html How about this for a idea. No gun? I'll just drive my car into a preschool. http://articles.latimes.com...aug/12/local/me-3379 If someone wants to kill or injure people they will find a way. If guns aren't available to them, well there are other things they could do instead. To beleive taking guns away diffuses the problem is just not true.

Worst ever mass murder at a US school...NO gun used and it happened in 1927.

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

[This message has been edited by Bullet (edited 12-18-2012).]

quote Originally posted by TXGOOD: edit: I stand informed. I talked to a hunting buddy of mine and apparently here in Texas and probably other parts of the country something like an AK-47 is good for hunting wild hogs.

I have actually used semi auto versions of an AK 47 as well as an AR 15 for hog hunting in Florida. There are often opportunities involving multiple pigs at relatively short ranges (less than 100 yards). If you have a larger magazine, it may be possible to kill a number of "nuisance" animals before they get out of practical range and prevent additional crop damage. Most of my hog hunting has been in rural areas associated with producing citrus trees (mostly orange trees for commercial crops). The wild pigs strip/damage the trees as high as they can reach and the owners encourage qualified people to eliminate these pests as quickly as possible.

Nelson

quote Originally posted by TXGOOD: an AK-47 which I consider to be an assault rifle.

Thank you for your reply. Yes, some people do hunt with AK-47s, and AR-15's, etc. But, I wanted to explore this statement a bit further. I'm not trying to nit pick, but want to explain why I think there's a lot of misinformation out there.

The first question I have is why do you consider an AK-47 an assault rifle? I'm not trying to play gotcha or change your mind. I just want to know where your decision came from.

It's worth pointing out there are both military and civilian versions of the AK-47, and both go by the name AK-47. That in itself leads to some confusion.

A military AK-47 is fully automatic.
A civilian AK-47 is semi-automatic.
Both look virtually identical and fire the same ammo, but are totally different in how they operate.

It's a bit easier with the M16. The civilian version of the M16 is called an AR15, so having a different name makes it easier to differentiate. Just like the AK47, the military version is fully-automatic (or some models fire 3-round bursts), while the civilian AR15 is semi-automatic only.

So what criteria do you use to decide a rifle is an assault weapon? If we got rid of names completely and I just told you rifle A and rifle B, what type of specification would there need to be for you to say one was an assault rifle and the other wasn't?

The second question is, how do you feel about hunting rifles?

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 12-18-2012).]

the dependance rate is way to high for any of this to even be a discussion.

dont like guns - dont get a gun.
dont like abortions - dont get an abortion
dont like euthanasia - dont kill old people
dont like drugs - dont do drugs
dont like churches - dont go to church
dont like prostitution - dont hire/sell sex

these are not items for the g'ment to even stick its fingers in
these are personal choice items which do not affect others

there is no right or wrong answer with gun control. because they are both right, and they are both wrong.
people DO need to be able to take action when needed. but, in between them needed times - they endanger themselves & others.
guns will ALWAYS be available. they are way to simple a machine.
2 wrongs dont make a right.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: but, in between them needed times - they endanger themselves & others.

Just as you endanger yourself and others every time you drive your car. Stop paying attention or do something stupid and you could injure or kill yourself or others.

quote Originally posted by AusFiero: A very flawed argument Old Lar. I expected better from someone with so much life experience. Latvia had no hope again'st Nazi Germany. In fact show me the proof to back up that argument. An enemy has invaded, lets stay home and wait for them to round up our guns. Bullshit. .

Nice to know that some Aussies would just rollover againt poor odds. The story was from someone who lived there at the time.

quote Originally posted by Rickady88GT: Who are yuo responding too? My form of gun controle is punishing the user, NOT the gun? In other words the person that misuses the gun pays the ultimate price so those that do use guns lawfully do not pay any toll for the crimes of others.

No. Unfortunatly their victim paid the ultimate price. Ideally, you would keep the gun out of the hands of somebody that would misuse it. I don't know if that can ever be done.

I am a gun/guns owner. How about controlling the guns like they do vehicles. Yearly inspections (headlights/non fully auto) registration. I would have NO problem with bringing my guns in yearly for registration. So as long as I can keep them. If a gun is sold, Handle it like a car. You have to register it. Hell, you cant drive a car with out a license but you can buy a rifle. Now I realize there are people driving with no license.

Something is going to change with the gun laws. If the politicians do nothing, there will be an uproar. This one wont fade like the past killings.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: these are personal choice items which do not affect others .

Drugs, abortion, do not affect others, wow is that debatable! Not in this thread though.

quote Originally posted by bonzo: I am a gun/guns owner. How about controlling the guns like they do vehicles. Yearly inspections (headlights/non fully auto) registration. I would have NO problem with bringing my guns in yearly for registration. So as long as I can keep them. If a gun is sold, Handle it like a car. You have to register it. Hell, you cant drive a car with out a license but you can buy a rifle. Now I realize there are people driving with no license.

And what would this accomplish? I'm not trying to start anything I just want to understand how doing this will keep a lunatic from killing problem with a gun if that's what he/she wants to do.

Fair enough Formula88
I admit I am educated in that regard by the media as I don`t really know what constitutes an assault rifle.
The hunting I was exposed to as a kid was with my dad and I think he used a 308 rifle which I believe was a single shot.
Of course, then hunting, as my dad did it, consisted of actually going around trying to sneak up on a deer to get a good shot, as opposed to a lot of hunters now who sit in a climate controlled blind with a corn feeder nearby and waiting for the deer to come to you.

quote Originally posted by Bullet: And what would this accomplish? I'm not trying to start anything I just want to understand how doing this will keep a lunatic from killing people with a gun if that's what he/she wants to do.

I'm just going to throw out a couple ideas that need to be brought out.

* If you favor gun control because you think it will save lives, you're misguided. Guns didn't even rate among the top 15 causes of death in the US in 2011. If you really want to help stop deaths; become a suicide hotline worker, a Parkinson's activist, or take someone to get a flu shot. All those things rate higher than firearm related deaths.

* You can't compare the US to other countries firearm laws. They're completely different cultures and laws. Most of those countries never had any kind of right to bear arms provisions to begin with. Most still have prayer and other religious activities in their schools. Some (if not most) are monarchies, which the Constitution was established to prevent us from becoming. That's why the 2nd Amendment exists, to liberate us from a tyrannical government should the need arise. Again.

* It could be argued that much of what is troubling this country right now could be directly traced back to various "it's not your fault" legislation and laws initiated by liberals. The same group that now wants to limit gun ownership.

quote Originally posted by bonzo: No. Unfortunatly their victim paid the ultimate price. Ideally, you would keep the gun out of the hands of somebody that would misuse it. I don't know if that can ever be done. I am a gun/guns owner. How about controlling the guns like they do vehicles. Yearly inspections (headlights/non fully auto) registration. I would have NO problem with bringing my guns in yearly for registration. So as long as I can keep them. If a gun is sold, Handle it like a car. You have to register it. Hell, you cant drive a car with out a license but you can buy a rifle. Now I realize there are people driving with no license. Something is going to change with the gun laws. If the politicians do nothing, there will be an uproar. This one wont fade like the past killings.

You are not required to get a license for one of your rights. As it should be.

I think there will be no uproar, in fact unfortunately most likely forgotton like other atrocities. The number of guns owned compared to the number of guns used in slaughters like this last school shooting or crime in general is not even a tangible number. That is a guess on my part but feel free to take a stab at it.

Some things in life are plane out of our contro, there is no garauntee of safety. Laws are only followed by lawful people. I have no problem with harsh punishment laws for offenders but that too is not going to stop anything, only something to do after.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: ...... That's why the 2nd Amendment exists, to liberate us from a tyrannical government should the need arise. Again.

trying to picture how this would work. I agree with the sentiment - but - I do not see how this would actually work.

Not so much as gun control but society as a whole is at fault.

More and more you hear of events like this happening and in most cases it involves a person coming from a broken/troubled home or the parents are too busy just trying to make ends meet by working all the time that they don't have time for the kids.

Family values it seems have gone the way of the dodo bird. Kids today have/are growing up with no respect for 'elders' or their fellow 'man'. It has become a "ME" world and everyone else be dammed. There is a growing population that no longer does the family outings like they use to. All you have to do is look at pictures of malls/etc 30 years ago vs. today. Back then you seemed to see a lot more families spending time together and people socializing. Now days people are adsorbed by the internet, texting, etc that they have no real social skills when dealing with other people face to face.

We have also become pretty desensitized to violence through tv, video games, etc and kids are being exposed to it at a much younger age.

Of course bad cops and other authority figures don't help the matter and just create a larger issue of mistrust.

Now, I also don't see a need for anyone to own a full auto rifle, even if all hell was to break loose in the world. After all wouldn't a semi-auto be more effective as in terms that you would have limited ammo and you would have to make every shot count? Perhaps rules in place that all guns in a home should be kept in a gun safe and the key kept with a parent - basically limiting access to them by kids. I see nothing wrong with the parent in this last tragic event from owning guns, but it could have been prevented if he didn't have access to them, especially since I have read that he had some 'issues'.

[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 12-18-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: trying to picture how this would work. I agree with the sentiment - but - I do not see how this would actually work.

I know. Probably the military is what comes in as the wildcard, such as it is. My thoughts are that it's made up of people just like us, most of them anyway are patriots. I doubt it would be so cut and dried as to have tanks rolling down the streets and having it be "us" against the military. It would be split, and it's probably fair to guess that at least half of the military would take up arms with those rebelling, maybe even more, as they can see what's happening, and they aren't the robots you might think they are. They are sworn to protect the Constitution, and defend it from all enemies foreign and domestic, even if that enemy is Obama. (most of 'em don't like his ass anyway)
It would be ugly, that's all I can say.

quote Originally posted by TXGOOD: Fair enough Formula88 I admit I am educated in that regard by the media as I don`t really know what constitutes an assault rifle. The hunting I was exposed to as a kid was with my dad and I think he used a 308 rifle which I believe was a single shot. Of course, then hunting, as my dad did it, consisted of actually going around trying to sneak up on a deer to get a good shot, as opposed to a lot of hunters now who sit in a climate controlled blind with a corn feeder nearby and waiting for the deer to come to you.

Not pointing fingers, but that's what I'm driving at. Without some kind of definition of what makes an assault rifle an assault rifle, any talk about legislation, regulation or banning is pretty useless.

The military term "assault rifle" is a rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge and has fully automatic capability. (paraphrasing)
The two keys are selectable automatic fire and the intermediate cartridge. The 308 hunting rifle you and your dad used was much more powerful than even a military assault rifle. The military M4 used a .308 (actually it's the 7.62x51) round. It's called a "battle rifle" since it fires higher power ammo and has a longer range.

Many hunting rifles are MUCH more powerful than the military assault rifles. The military moved away from higher power to lower power rounds so they would be lighter and soldiers could carry more. Most hunters have more firepower than your typical soldier - other than the fact that the soldier's weapon is fully automatic.

Your .22 rifle would be considered an assault rifle if you added a pistol grip to it, or put a heat shield over the barrel. That's why it's so important to understand what we mean by assault rifle. There's a lot of misinformation out there. A civilian, semi-automatic AK-47 is a medium powered hunting rifle that happens to be styled to look like the military rifle. You can even get them in .22LR. The same with the AR-15. So while it looks like you have a miltary weapon fresh off the battle field - you're shooting a .22LR with the same power as the .22 rifle you have.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Not pointing fingers, but that's what I'm driving at. Without some kind of definition of what makes an assault rifle an assault rifle, any talk about legislation, regulation or banning is pretty useless. The military term "assault rifle" is a rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge and has fully automatic capability. (paraphrasing) The two keys are selectable automatic fire and the intermediate cartridge. The 308 hunting rifle you and your dad used was much more powerful than even a military assault rifle. The military M4 used a .308 (actually it's the 7.62x51) round. It's called a "battle rifle" since it fires higher power ammo and has a longer range. Many hunting rifles are MUCH more powerful than the military assault rifles. The military moved away from higher power to lower power rounds so they would be lighter and soldiers could carry more. Most hunters have more firepower than your typical soldier - other than the fact that the soldier's weapon is fully automatic. Your .22 rifle would be considered an assault rifle if you added a pistol grip to it, or put a heat shield over the barrel. That's why it's so important to understand what we mean by assault rifle. There's a lot of misinformation out there. A civilian, semi-automatic AK-47 is a medium powered hunting rifle that happens to be styled to look like the military rifle. You can even get them in .22LR. The same with the AR-15. So while it looks like you have a miltary weapon fresh off the battle field - you're shooting a .22LR with the same power as the .22 rifle you have.

I think if we called them what they actually are WASR-10 this would help in identifying the AK-47 variants.

quote Originally posted by ls3mach: I think if we called them what they actually are WASR-10 this would help in identifying the AK-47 variants.

That still doesn't address what defines an "assault weapon" for the purposes of civilian regulation. A real military "assault rifle" is already a Class III weapon and heavily regulated. Assault weapon is the legal term used for the ban, and assault rifle is the military term. The military term has a specific definition. The political term, not so much.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: That still doesn't address what defines an "assault weapon" for the purposes of civilian regulation. A real military "assault rifle" is already a Class III weapon and heavily regulated. Assault weapon is the legal term used for the ban, and assault rifle is the military term. The military term has a specific definition. The political term, not so much.

A weapon you assault someone with. I.E.
Gun, knife, bomb, bat, stick, fist, foot, brick, rock, car, pen, laptop...

I am just throwing some suggestions out there. Something is going to give. I feel if you have a complaint, at least offer a solution.

Something will change. What are you willing to do? Any suggestions?

I personally consider it an assault weapon (gun) if you only have to pull the trigger for many times to fire a large amount of ammunition. I consider large anything over 5-6 rounds. It applies equally to me if its a 30 round rifle or a 10 round handgun. My shotgun holds 8 rounds, so it also fits my own definition of an 'assault' gun loosely....you do have to manually reload each shot.

quote Originally posted by bonzo: I am just throwing some suggestions out there. Something is going to give. I feel if you have a complaint, at least offer a solution. Something will change. What are you willing to do? Any suggestions?

Allow lawfully armed citizens to conceal or open carry wherever practical. Instead of demonizing it, encourage it.
Where it's undesireable for whatever reason, then armed security should be present.

A criminal should know there is no place where he can count on not running into armed resistance. Police cannot be everywhere, but good people are. Let them have the legal means to help in a horrible situation.

We also need to address the mental illness issue. I don't have any simple suggestions for that other than if someone is deemed a threat to themself or others, they should be locked up. Jail shouldn't be a storage facility for the mentaly ill. If that means bringing back asylums, that may be what we have to do. It's not pretty, but it's better than them comitting suicide or going on a killing rampage.

We need to change how the culture and media views violence. That's MUCH harder to do. We see news reports of mass killings and the body count is talked about like it's a high score to be beat.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 12-18-2012).]

Well said.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: We need to change how the culture and media views violence. That's MUCH harder to do. We see news reports of mass killings and the body count is talked about like it's a high score to be beat.

People who only see a gun in video games and movies deciding guns are bad, and people shouldnt have them.

quote Originally posted by AusFiero: Everywhere in your head.

Ya, sure, whatever. i can see there is no point to continue. Besides, you have no bearing on what happens here in this country so your opinion really doesn't count. ( no more than my opinion counts on how you run your country )

[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 12-18-2012).]

quote Originally posted by User00013170: Lets create a 'lucid citizen' registration system where like with your drivers license, you go in every 4 years to get evaluated, along with anonymous 'tip' lines so we can report anyone doing something suspicious.

Hey sounds awsome! sighail brother, I have the utmost confidence in the government to asses my mental health and dictate what rights I have left based solely on their evaluation.

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: Hey sounds awsome! sighail brother, I have the utmost confidence in the government to asses my mental health and dictate what rights I have left based solely on their evaluation.

( i was being sarcastic btw.. )

quote Originally posted by User00013170: Lets create a 'lucid citizen' registration system where like with your drivers license, you go in every 4 years to get evaluated, along with anonymous 'tip' lines so we can report anyone doing something suspicious.

All these shooters are known to have mental problems. They do screwy stuff well before they go on a shooting spree. No one ever points out the problems and parents are always in self denial that their kid is crazy. Aquaintences always point out AFTER the fact, that so and so was always acting weird or doing things they didnt like or approve of. Friends (if they had any) and parents are always quick to say he never could do that, hes such a good boy and he gets good grades. He loves little animals ....and all the other BS they can think up.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: Lets create a 'lucid citizen' registration system where like with your drivers license, you go in every 4 years to get evaluated, along with anonymous 'tip' lines so we can report anyone doing something suspicious.

Oh yes, THAT will work.

quote Originally posted by ls3mach: I think if we called them what they actually are WASR-10 this would help in identifying the AK-47 variants.

The news i heard kept saying ' automatic rifle they call a bushman ' ( i know its a bushmaster.. but they mangled it, not me ) But that really didn't serve any practical purpose to the general public, other than giving them another 'scary name' with no technical knowledge being imparted, even if they were accurate

I did not write this but I think it makes the point clear:


A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million 'dissidents', unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
If you value your freedom, please spread this antigun-control message to all of your friends.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER!
DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.
Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!

It's time to speak loud before they try to silence and disarm us.
You're not imagining it, history shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people~

quote Originally posted by User00013170: Sorry, that was intended to be sarcasm. Figured everyone would get it, especially coming fro me, but i can tell several didn't..

We really do need a sarcasm font.

I guess that makes it sarchasm? "The gulf that exists between the author of sarcastic wit and the reader who doesn't get it."
What's sad is, I could easily see that idea being floated and receiving a LOT of support. That's why it's so believable.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 12-18-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: That's why it's so believable.

That's the best kind of sarcasm

Let me sum it up. Continue doing what we're doing and getting the same if not more lethal results, or start doing something to reduce the body count at the next school shooting.