U.S. Gun Violence

Post Reply New Topic

I don't want to rehash everything in that thread, so I will just remind you of a few things that I was forced to type over and over after you continued to misunderstand/misinterpret me:

I said that the percentage of responsible and safe gun owners at a range is significantly higher than the safe gun owners who DO NOT go to a range. I have been around more gun owners who avoid the range than I have those who frequent the range, and have found that there are way too many people who think that getting really drunk is the first step in the hunting process or that shooting into the air repeatedly is fun. I have always lived in poor/poverty-stricken neighborhoods with plenty of people who have firearm(s) for protection (which I approve of), but know nothing about the weapon other than which end the bullets come out of (which I do not approve of). You have plenty of experience with certain types of gun owners, but that to say you know most gun owners act responsibly because you are often at the range is almost like saying that you know most people are health-concious because you often work in preventive care clinic.

I most certainly did say that in my experience there are too many angry extremists that visit the range for my taste, and openly admitted that I stopped going a while back for precisely that reason. If I want to go to a range, it is to shoot, not to listen to a bunch of NRA extremists talk about shooting down black helicopters when they come to take away all the guns. It is for a similar reason that I dropped out of the NRA after Heston was gone. The NRA prior to that was in favor of assisting in crafting limited but reasonable firearm regulation, but after Heston, it turned into an "any compromise is complete defeat" extremist attitude. It is only a matter of time before an extensive gun control bill gets shoved through, and if gun advocacy groups don't participate, it will only end up much worse for gun rights than otherwise.

Completely irrelevant to my point



It makes perfect sense to me that shooting a person when the threat is over and the shooter is on the ground wouldn't be something you'd want to do. In fact, that would be excessive force and the guy likely would have ended up in jail. My point is if the circumstances were different, the circumstances would be different. There's no way you nor anyone else can say whether they would be better or worse.



Security staff for, say, a US legislator, would probably be trained to do just that.



Not useless, just not more useful than the equivalent number of smaller magazines.



And you conveniently left out my very next statement, where I dealt with that exact point:



Nice try, though.

This is really the nightmare scenario for anyone with a three round hunting rifle. Once someone starts shooting at you the amount of ammo needed increases exponentially. He's shooting at you, while you try not to get shot, which means your accuracy is going to be piss poor. In that kind of situation it is not improbable to expend more than 30 rounds.

I would say the whole situation is becoming "hard line". When was the last time politicians asked gun owners if the legislation had common sense. Instead, we are supposed to listen to politicians on what gun laws are right, when they are the very last person in the room who should ever be near a gun. Even the average American citizens are woefully ignorant about guns and could not tell you even basic things about them or the rights we have to them. One has to admit that in recent years gun owners and supporters have been vilified, ridiculed, and treated as pariahs in the very discussion which they should be most heard. I ask you, where is the common sense in passing laws, when we are uninformed on the issue and have ignored voices that challenge ignorance?

I can't really argue with this. The big problem is that the extremists (on both sides) are the most vocal and in the positions with the most power. Instead of a reasonable discussion, it has become a 100% victory or 100% failure mindset. An absolute refusal to consider any type of regulation whatsoever for all times present and future have stripped one side of logical legitimacy, while the take away every gun and guns will never harm people crowd is equally out of touch with reality. Those who have knowledge should be sharing it instead of focusing all attention on paranoid weapon seizure plots and fighting just because it is the enemy. And the anti-gun crowd should start paying attention to (or at least make some effort at) understanding that gun ownership is not inherently evil.

It seems unlikely that either side will budge in the near future, though, which likely means driving both sides even further out of touch with reality. But I suppose that is par for the course on any political issue these days. Reality takes a backseat to party loyalty.

I think guns have been branded by the media and some of the public as hickish, angry, and phallic specific ( never have been able to understand that). This is compounded by the notion that woman are somehow weak and too emotional to handle weapons. All of this is obvious bull and I think some woman are starting to reject it.

I swore off party loyalty years ago. The trouble is that there is no one to vote for, so I think next election I will vote for my dog rather than a political rat.

Why would we be compromising and what would we get out of it in exchange? We don’t have nearly the gun related crime issues you wish we had in order to make a point. You can’t just get “rid” of things like drum magazines because of what someone might use them for. If serious legislation were introduced tomorrow to ban drum mags there would be a buying surge the same as there has been for 20 and 30 round mags. The effect: Thousands more drum mags in circulation than there would have been without trying to pass laws against them. Hell, I don’t even like them but I’d be tempted to grab up a few just for the investment value. If you train yourself enough you can do mag changes damn near reflexively the same as defensive driving techniques. Really, bringing COD into this is childish.


I don’t know where you’re getting this notion that my gun buying should be subject to my fellow citizens approval but it’s not and I can’t see it ever being. Could it be that you’re actually referring to legislators and/or voters but, for whatever reason, are tap-dancing around it? Grenade launchers fall under destructive devices and are governed by the National Firearms Act. I’d scrub the NFA off the books in a skinny minute since it serves no purpose but to expand the powers of government were government has no business.
A mere grenade launcher? I’d honestly be okay with someone owning an operational 105mm howitzer as long as they take it shooting somewhere were they can do so safely.
And before we go there, I would draw the line at NBC weapons for reasons I shouldn’t have to explain to you.


The fact that you even think that someone showing up at the shooting range with a gun you think is icky and wearing BDU’s should be booted out of there says a lot. And when I said I cannot send someone packing I meant that I cannot justify it to myself without a sound reason. I’m an RSO not a thought policeman. The fact is that I can boot anyone out of there for any reason, good or bad. In my case, I have good enough judgment to exercise my authority responsibly and in good character.


Lame social-economic excuses aside, if it’s not your country or your laws you have nothing to trust, willful ignorance or not. I haven’t a care in the world what you all do in Australia. If your gun crimes are, in fact, much lower it has nothing to do with Australia’s draconian, knee jerk inspired gun laws that many of your fellow countrymen strongly oppose.



I doubt you could find and remove the bolt carrier from an M4 without watching a Youtube video. Condescension? You seem to be dishing out more of it but in your mind I’m sure it’s all justified.


I don’t remember anyone, inclining me, saying they needed an AR-15 with a 30 rounder for deer hunting. Why would I even want to? But why am I asking you when you’ve already made your mind up that I hunt squirrels with an MG-42.


You didn’t stop anything from happening in Australia except possibly for the means to stop an active shooter. Become at least somewhat familiar with terminology and human nature as it applies to this subject before embarrassing yourself further. Do you actually think some law has put a total or even near total end to illegal gun transfers in Australia? Yeah, I guess you would.


Sorry, but your having visited the Old Dominion and shook hands with a few hillbillies along the way doesn’t give you a stake or a vote in the USA. With that fact out on the table, you have nothing of value to offer us since your solution would only bring more of what you claim to be trying to fix for us.
You seem to put a lot of stock in social contracts. Well, I don’t believe I’ll be pounding my swords into plowshares in the good faith that all others will do the same and all will be well. I like my swords just the way they are. I put only limited value and faith in social contracts.

Really, the fact that you actually believe all of what you’ve said here and expect others to take it to heart speaks volumes. Truthfully, the words in those volumes are not flattering toward you.

You did a lot of typing without ever actually justifying your fears, desires, and claims.


You seemed to personally have an issue with shooting ranges in our other discussion. But I don't feel like going back and doing copy & pastes from there to here.


Funny that at our facilities and the others I've shot at, including in other states, we don't hear much if anything about black helicopters. All your doing here is just repeating hyperbole. You dropped out of the NRA just because old man Heston retired or croaked? So what exactly were these "limited but reasonable" firearm regulations supposed to actually supposed to accomplish? Personally, I don't see much in the way of anti-gun legislation going anywhere other than a few states and big cities. Not without repercussions at the polls come next election.

I've never heard of anyone trying to shoot a black helicopter.But when former drug czar Ed Meese flee over the county in a helicopter,someone did try to shot it down.No joke.They said they were shooting at a snake,I don't think anyone bought the story

Supposedly, a long time ago some militiamen were carrying on about black UN (or whoever) helicopters flying around spying on people or whatever. The antis and the so called "responsible and mature" gun owners , who would never lower themselves to something as base as NRA membership or ownership of a dangerous assault rifle, have been using the black helicopter excuse to distance themselves from icky guns and their icky owners.

I've mentioned before that I've seen a black helicopter,I think it was DEA most likely.This area used to be really hot.I've had three national guard helicopters circle my property and practically squat over my garden.Big waste of their time.Two years ago they got the neighbor boy,he was stupid.They did the death circle and he just left the big plants there,anyone with any sense would have jerked them.
My ex went overboard,had to get a copy of the Black Helicopters over America book,then he never shut up about it.His thoughts were of they are going to take your guns,you should sell them all quick.He did,all he kept was an antique single shot 22 that had been his dads.It didn't help matters any that we saw a white Humvee with UN on the side in Green Forest.This area was also under consideration by the UN as a biosphere reserve and that really stirred things up.Nothing rattles hillbillies like the thought of a land grab.It gave the codgers in the coffee shops endless pleasure to talk about what they would do to anyone who tried to take their land.Never happened.
Anyway,Randy Weaver lives in the county above.Claims the Feds are still spying on him.Who knows?

That's overly harsh. I think he knows that the reality of the situation means that he doesn't have a say in US politics - not being a citizen at all. However, he's more than entitled to his opinion, and his insight into how things "really work" in the US as well as abroad gives him a relatively unique and completely valid perspective.

It doubled the number of bullets fired by that madman in that crime; 3 people dead instead of six? 9 injured instead of 18? That's the only instance that I know of, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are more; however, even if it isn't statistically significant, I still think that it's important enough, especially given sliqua-jcooter's statements that these magazines aren't all that much fun anyway, to limit their use for civilians.

I want to see a discussion between you and Raptor about "And all of my magazines work fine. It's very rare that they don't."

He already hit the nail square on the head - there's nothing extended about a 30rd AR mag. Like he said "'helps to know a little first"

Last edited by sliqua-jcooter on 22 Jan 2014, 7:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.