Originally Posted by Yanks_Todd

Alcohol is designed to be consumed in moderation responsibly. Absolut does not bottle vodka for you to Amy Winehouse it. Why? Because they lose a customer if you do. An AR-15 with a 30rd or 100rd clip if used AS DESIGNED is meant to dispense 30 or 100 bullets as fast as you can pull the trigger. Those bullets are not intended for deer or targets, they are intended for humans. It's that simple.

Self-inflicted? alcohol Homicide? guns The harm to society cannot be compared like that. If I drink myself to death, so what? If I shoot people at the mall that is an issue.



If you have $1000 cash and go to a gun show it is no harder then you having $20 and going to the grocery store. Comparing a consumable product to a discretionary one is impossible.



Then why not shoot with rubber bullets? Why does the projectile have to be deadly for you to prove you can aim? Why do you need 30rd or 100rds at the range? To answer you question I would say you going to the gun range and shooting and you drinking Vodka at home are both 99.99% safe. What is your point?



No, I think it pretty much has to do with not having your 5 year old shot at school dude. I want to stop your fun???, seriously, that was weak. This is an emotional argument, but it has nothing to do with me limiting your fun factor.



Ok, I don't think that all gun peeps are hicks. Not at all. On a note I worked for the NRA for a year, so I have some pretty deep insight into this.

BTW, I am ok with CCW and I don't have a problem with hand guns, I have a problem with large capacity clips and loopholes in gun registration. I understand that banning "assault weapons" is really just take scary looking guns out of the equation. However it also begins to change the Rambo culture of this country which is half the problem in my opinion.

Keep reasonable guns in reasonable people's hands.

Originally Posted by Robbie

I always wonder about all this "training".

Here's all you need to know:
1. Don't ever point it at anybody.

2. Keep it somewhere safe.

3. Make sure the safety is on when not in use.

4. Practice your aim (unless you own a shotgun like me, then all you have to do is point it in the general direction)

What else is there to be "trained" for? It ain't brain surgery. It's just a gun, very simple to use and common sense dictates most of what you need to know.

It ain't like anybody is being "trained" for black ops or the navy seals. My shotgun required no "training". My grandfather showed me everything I need to know when he and I would go shooting in the woods starting at around age 6.

Originally Posted by Lester Burnham

I give you kudos for attempting make a rationale argument, but it fails on many levels.

.......defense when alcohol destroys and maims more than guns by a long shot, with less redeeming qualities (and regardless of your opinion of the second amendment, we can all agree that there isn't anything in the constitution about the right to drink alcohol).

Originally Posted by JoshGirls Josh

the sleazydream wont buy this idea. but here goes.

life does not always exist in the 1st world. as far-L correctly points out, natural disasters like hurricane katrina can almost instantly convert a city from an orderly society to savagery. Here in NY, in august 2003 a power glitch caused power to be lost to the entire northeastern USA. Just hours of power outage made traveling home dangerous. i witnessed 3 car accidents as morons flew through dead stoplights in a 30 minute span. I went to my local bar & it was cash only. I could only imagine 3 weeks of power being out. anarchy as long as the feds cant bring in the cavalry.

imagine our country if there was no 2008 bailout, & the banks all crashed & nobody could withdraw money, nobody could do shit without cash in hand. anarchy. nothing less.

people who want guns banned forget humans are still in the animal kingdom, & all the fruits of our intelligent designs can die almost instantly & without prediction.

so owning a semi-auto is essential to beat back the roving savages that will inevitably accompany the loose nukes that take out manhattan & DC, & gives our economy a heart attack not seen since the 1907 panic. guaranteed that the anti-gun crowd will be wishing for a gun when jonny law is not there in a state of disorder.

Originally Posted by Yanks_Todd

I don't believe you can compare alcohol to guns. You just can't, they are two different animals.

Originally Posted by Yanks_Todd

I don't believe you can compare alcohol to guns. You just can't, they are two different animals. The CEO of Absolut does not send out a bottle of Vodka with the intention that if that one single bottle is used correctly with complimentary products someone will die. The collective manufactures of an AR-15, hollow point round and 100rd clip send those products out knowing that if their products are combined and used correctly someone will die. And in the U.S. more then likely that person is not a criminal.

At the end of the day, I have two gun control issues that I believe need to be enforced better and you share one of those. I don't shoot guns and based on what you have said your certainly not the problem. So I think we need to agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by Yanks_Todd

The problem with this theory is that the more guns you pump into the system the higher the chance is that those roving groups of thugs are armed to the teeth. And the "if you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns" theory doesn't work here as you are talking about opportunistic people in that situation.

The other problem is that you want to set daily U.S. policy based on a nuclear attack on two U.S. metropolises. Serious question, what if all policy was set that way? That would be really odd don't you think?

Originally Posted by Yanks_Todd

I don't believe you can compare alcohol to guns. You just can't, they are two different animals. The CEO of Absolut does not send out a bottle of Vodka with the intention that if that one single bottle is used correctly with complimentary products someone will die. The collective manufactures of an AR-15, hollow point round and 100rd clip send those products out knowing that if their products are combined and used correctly someone will die. And in the U.S. more then likely that person is not a criminal.

At the end of the day, I have two gun control issues that I believe need to be enforced better and you share one of those. I don't shoot guns and based on what you have said your certainly not the problem. So I think we need to agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by PornoMonster

WHAT???? LOL

The Collective Manufactures know someone will die? What the Fuck? They know it will be used for target practice. Ha, yep someone might die also, not very common, but yes.

I know WAY more people die from something related to Alcohol than ar-15s. The Collective Manufactures of Alcohol Know someone will die...

Originally Posted by JoshGirls Josh

the sleazydream wont buy this idea. but here goes.

life does not always exist in the 1st world. as far-L correctly points out, natural disasters like hurricane katrina can almost instantly convert a city from an orderly society to savagery. Here in NY, in august 2003 a power glitch caused power to be lost to the entire northeastern USA. Just hours of power outage made traveling home dangerous. i witnessed 3 car accidents as morons flew through dead stoplights in a 30 minute span. I went to my local bar & it was cash only. I could only imagine 3 weeks of power being out. anarchy as long as the feds cant bring in the cavalry.

imagine our country if there was no 2008 bailout, & the banks all crashed & nobody could withdraw money, nobody could do shit without cash in hand. anarchy. nothing less.

people who want guns banned forget humans are still in the animal kingdom, & all the fruits of our intelligent designs can die almost instantly & without prediction.

so owning a semi-auto is essential to beat back the roving savages that will inevitably accompany the loose nukes that take out manhattan & DC, & gives our economy a heart attack not seen since the 1907 panic. guaranteed that the anti-gun crowd will be wishing for a gun when jonny law is not there in a state of disorder.

Originally Posted by Rochard

I lived through the same earth quake. Odd, I never heard of groups of armed people rolling around looking for food.

Originally Posted by Yanks_Todd

So instead of changing out a mag, you NEED to fire 100 rounds at a target IN succession?

Are you lining up your shot for each of those or are you just squeezing off rounds?

If your just squeezing off rounds, then fine, lets manufacture a gun range mag that accommodate rubber bullets for that purpose. The accuracy issue in then negated if you want to Rambo it.

If you are lining up your shots for accuracy then change out your magazines every ten shots. No problem, you don't need 30rds or 100rds.

If you NEED to hone your skills of firing off 100 real rounds with accuracy without changing out your mag, unless you are in law enforcement or the military I don't want you to have a gun. ;)

So tell me your target shooting 100rd necessity story.

Originally Posted by CyberHustler

Originally Posted by grzepa

because handguns and rifles are NOT ENOUGH these days.

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Wtf? What fucking 3rd world shithole you live in? Iraq?

Originally Posted by Dirty F

I'm not the one who needs a gun to defend myself.

Originally Posted by CyberHustler

Originally Posted by Lester Burnham

Fair enough, but that is a cop out IMHO. We can learn from prohibition and alcohol when discussing gun regulations. But don't even think that an alcohol company executive or tobacco executive is any more less culpable than a gun manufacturer. At the end of the day, alcohol and tobacco executives market and distribute products that are designed to hurt people, and they know they kill people in spades. But people don't want to talk about it because, "hey everyone is doing it." That is why you can kill someone while driving drunk and not see more than 5 years in prison (or no prison at all). Why? Because lawmakers, judges, jurors, politicians, soccer moms, etc. drink, and many of them drink irresponsibly. But the aforementioned folks may not shoot guns, so it is very easy for them to regulate and talk "bans" because it doesn't impact "their hobbies." Straight up hypocricy (sp) in its purest form.

Originally Posted by CyberHustler

Originally Posted by dgraves

It's a lot easier when you have some experience with a gun but quite a bit different when someone wants a gun that has absolutely no knowledge. It's kind of like telling a 16 year old kid that they don't need training to drive a car. After all, it's just a steering wheel, gas pedal and brake. How hard can it be? We grow up watching people drive so we should automatically know how to operate a car by the time we're of age.

I bought several guns at the local gun club in minutes but when I went to use their range, I had to watch a ridiculous 30 minute training video and complete a written test. Find the logic in that. It was basically "You can accidentally shoot yourself or someone else with the gun we just sold you, we just don't want you doing it here".

Originally Posted by bl4h

multiple targets. long mags arent for shitty shooting, its for multiple targets. say you get home invaded. or some sort of civil war happens and you need to defend yourself. simply.............you dont have to change the mag every 10 rounds. look i dont care about those mags because I dont even own one or need it right now. Its just the antigun, or those for gun control have the dumbest questions ever. You automatically think its to commit a crime

Originally Posted by baddog

Intents and purposes.

Originally Posted by Rochard

Yet it's amazing that we require three tests to get a driver's license - written test, eye test, and a road test - and we require nothing to purchase a firearm.

Sounds to me like your shooting range has better controls than our government does.

Originally Posted by JP-pornshooter

that is not true, you are in california..as i am.
here you need to study and pass a short test
mostly related to how a gun should be safely stored but also covering other aspects.
while since i took it, but there is a test.. (on par with the written dmv test but shorter)

Originally Posted by Rochard

Yes. Because we are all James Bond. And in the middle of the night, in the dark, surrounded by your family, from a deep sleep, you are going to pick up your assault rifle and engage an unknown number of people in your house.

You guys are comical.

Originally Posted by Dirty F

Huh? stop smoking man. Seriously, it makes you dumb as fuck.

Originally Posted by bl4h

it happens all the time. home invasions involve a gang many of times. The point is though, youre all up in arms over maybe 2 or three incidents out of how many people who own magazines like that. youre irrational, and its annoying

Originally Posted by Rochard

I lived through the same earth quake. Odd, I never heard of groups of armed people rolling around looking for food.

Originally Posted by JoshGirls Josh

your right. alcohol kills many more thousands of people every year then guns

Originally Posted by tony286

Of course, they know that. lol When people talk why they need to them its not target shooting. Its all the movie fantasies. Overthrowing the government , after a nuclear apocalypse and when the money becomes useless. They will hold the hordes back.You don't make hollow points to fuck up targets or watermelons. lol

Originally Posted by 12clicks

you're the one eating horse meat

Originally Posted by Rochard

Yet it's amazing that we require three tests to get a driver's license - written test, eye test, and a road test - and we require nothing to purchase a firearm.

Originally Posted by Far-L

Damn. I think you have corrected me on that before. Holy crap, when will I learn?

Originally Posted by JP-pornshooter

that is not true, you are in california..as i am.
here you need to study and pass a short test
mostly related to how a gun should be safely stored but also covering other aspects.
while since i took it, but there is a test.. (on par with the written dmv test but shorter)

Originally Posted by Rochard

I don't recall taking a test at all. The only requirement was knowing how to chamber a round, and to ensure there was no round in the chamber.

Originally Posted by Rochard

I'm the most rational person in the world.

I'm not up in arms about anything. Anyone can get a firearm, and instantly this makes people think they are James Bond. Use common sense here - The last thing in the world you want is a gun battle in your house surrounded by your family, your children....

That person coming through the door, in the dark - Is that your child or a robber? You better be two thousand percent sure, because if you are wrong you just shot and most likely killed your own child.

I am all for firearms, I really am. But I don't think just anyone should be able to own them. It should be a lot tougher to get firearms.

Originally Posted by bl4h

why dont you talk about people owning knifes then in america. Do you not understand that its not the tool that does the deed, but the person behind the tool. it may be a knife, if may be a hammer, it may be a gun. Ive seen videos of people stabbing people to death on the streets of the Netherlands, china, Britain. you anti gun nuts are morans

Originally Posted by slapass

Gun murders out number other murders by 5 times. And um it is moron.

Originally Posted by bl4h

I dunno bro, you seem to be projecting your stupidity on others. First of all, I got my concealed weapons permit because I wanted to go about my city with expensive equipment and be a photographer, without being robbed. I never felt, and still dont feel like james bond. I feel like its a requirement amongst a city full of criminals looking for easy money. without guns.

second, there's no way i would shoot someone i recognize, and i wouldnt pull a trigger on anyone without getting myself together and recognizing who it was that i was facing. AS DOES 98% of the US population. you are projecting your own idiocy

Originally Posted by bl4h

do knife murders out number gun muders in the uk by 5x? what is your point. where are you from? also, its moran

Originally Posted by bl4h

also, its moran

Originally Posted by bl4h

why dont you talk about people owning knifes then in america. Do you not understand that its not the tool that does the deed, but the person behind the tool. it may be a knife, if may be a hammer, it may be a gun. Ive seen videos of people stabbing people to death on the streets of the Netherlands, china, Britain. you anti gun nuts are morans

Originally Posted by bl4h

also, its moran

Originally Posted by baddog

Originally Posted by Far-L

I have two good reasons.

One, when the big earthquake hit California, I was in a place called Santa Cruz very close to the epicenter. It is a coastal town with really only one highway going in and out of it. That, plus many other roads around it were destroyed. That meant a run on grocery stores and basic necessities became scarce fast. That coupled with the fact that people were dying under rubble and people were upset more could not be done faster to save or find them meant agitation set in very quickly.

That meant the threat of violence set in very quickly. Society was upended and you would be amazed how fast even a town of mellow affluent old hippies and young surfers and university students becomes so feral. Ready to fight. Ready to rape. Ready to kill. Humanity can be more beastly than any beast. Think of what went down during Katrina, much of which is still not published.

Then I was living in downtown LA when the LA riots hit. At least 50 People were circling our building as a pack behind a slow moving van yelling, "we know you're in there! We're coming to get you!". Later we drove, heavily armed to the closest police station, forget using 911, and we asked the riot geared-up cop what to do. He said very matter of factly, "Don't just start shooting people, but if someone crosses your threshold... unload your clip." At that point I knew, once again, society had completely upended in a matter of hours.

Traffic signals may have been working, but no one was paying attention to them if you understand my drift, and that makes the road a very dangerous place. Guns are like cars, the faster they go, the more rounds they shoot, yes, the more dangerous they are, but not necessarily in the hands of someone safe and respectful of the laws of the road.

As Sun Tzu once said, "In times of peace, the gentleman will carry the sword at his side".

Originally Posted by 12clicks

Thank god you're not American.
I think your lack of intelligence has been on display for years. Toss this post on that pile

Originally Posted by bl4h

dumb question. why wouldnt you want a semi automatic. i guess youd rather load a musket when someone is breaking into your home

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Can someone give me a valid reason why I should care what someone from another country thinks about my countries laws?

.

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

I would like to inject some facts into this debate, if I may...


http://www.policymic.com/articles/24...-debunked-asap




.

Since the tragedy at Sandy Hook elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, America has been embroiled in a renewed gun control debate. In the Information Age there can be a lot of misinformation, and gun control is unfortunately no exception. Here are some of the ways you are being misled.

1. "Assault Weapons"

AR-15 vs M4 rifles

The term "assault weapon" is a made-up political term. AR-15's are not military rifles; so unscrupulous politicians refer to them as "military-style assault weapons." 'Style' ? as in cosmetic appearance ? is the only true word in that description. The Military uses the M4A1 carbine rifle, which looks outwardly very much like an AR-15, but they do not have the same functionality; AR-15s are not machine guns, though the terminology used is meant to imply they are. Senator Diane Feinstein (R-Calif.) says AR-15's are designed for killing as many people in close quarters combat as possible, when in fact the AR-15 is an intermediate to distance rifle with a range of 400-600m. Feinstein and others claim AR-15's are not used for hunting; but in fact there are dozens of varieties of AR-15 used for hunting everything from varmint/small game to deer, elk, and dangerous game. The AR-15 is not the weapon of choice for most mass shooters according to James Alan Fox, a highly respected criminologist from Northeastern University in Boston; handguns are. In fact, rifle homicides comprise a very small amount of homicides, accounting for less than 3% of homicides (323 out of 12,664 in 2011) mass shootings or otherwise.

2. "High Capacity Magazines"

Magazine

Some politicians would have us believe that so-called "high capacity" magazines are responsible for a wave of death sweeping the nation. Academic, scholarly research shows the vast majority of homicides average four shots with less than 10 shots fired. While the Aurora shooter infamously used a 100-round magazine drum, these are novelty items that are prone to jam. In fact, it did jam probably saving lives. But mass shooters don't need 100-round magazines to commit atrocity ? the shooters at Virginia Tech and Columbine used 10-round magazines, they just brought a lot of them (17 and 13 respectively). James Alan Fox states mass shooters often meticulously plan their attacks in advance; a high capacity magazine ban will not deter them as Virginia Tech and Columbine illustrate.

3. Gun Show "Loophole"

Gun Show Loophole

Several people, including President Obama have stated that 40% of guns were bought via "gun show loopholes." This is not true. For one, the term "gun show loophole" implies that people are deviously getting around something when in actuality; it is just selling personal private property and is not illegal or nefarious. Additionally, private sales may not actually occur at a gun show at all. More important than loose terminology is that this claim is based on a study from 1994 of 251 people. The Washington Post evaluated this claim with the study's original authors and says the president distorted the truth. The actual range is 14%-22% with a plus or minus error margin of 6%. This means the final accurate range of this study is as low as 8%, but no more than 28%; neither figure is 40%. Further, it's implied that closing private sales would solve the issue of criminals obtaining guns; it doesn't. It fails to address illegal trafficking and straw man purchases. A Department of Justice study indicates that 78.8% of criminals get guns from friends or family (39.6%) or from the street/illegally (39.2%). To this point, the FBI states there are 1.2 million gang members in U.S. and that gangs illegally traffic guns as addition to narcotics.

4. Mass Shootings Are Not Increasing:

Mass shootings 1976-2011

Former President Bill Clinton, Mother Jones and others have claimed that mass shootings are increasing. Once again not true. James Alan Fox's analysis of the Mother Jones' study indicates they left out mass murders which made it seem there was an increase after the Federal assault weapon ban expired (they've updated their story since). Some mass murders receive more media attention than others, however the number has been consistently about 20 annually since 1976. The number dead from these mass shootings fluctuates from about 25 to 150, depending on the year (Fox's chart is shown above). In 2012, it was less than 100. Though tragic, this represents a fraction of 1% of homicides. In recent years, homicides by raw number peaked in 1991 at 24,700; it's dropped in half since, and the homicide rate per 100,000 people today is less than it was even in 1900 (see below).

5. Anti-Gun Organizations Lump in Suicide & Injuries With Crime Data:

Brady Campaign

After a mass murder shooting anti-gun organizations like the Brady campaign inevitably call for gun restrictions; these organizations also cite gun violence data other than crime data to include suicides and injuries. This is misleading. Although accidents and suicide are public health concerns, it is disingenuous to include them with homicide in response to a horrific crime. According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), suicide rates have crept up slightly 2000-2009, but are still lower than the rate per 100,000 from 1950-1990. It's not accurate to say guns contribute to suicide causal factors since the rate is lower now. And ultimately, legislation aimed to prevent crime by banning weapons and limiting magazine capacity has no reasonable connection to either suicide or accidents. We ought to compare apples to apples: suicide with suicide prevention, accidents with safety programs, and homicide with policy that would realistically reduce homicide.

6. Too Many Are Being Killed:

Murder per 100,000 - 1900-2010

This statement is political gaming and wordplay. How many dead would be okay? Who wouldn't want less murder? Ideally, zero would be the goal, but that begs the question of how to prevent any tendency of violence in humans. This phrase is not only meaningless in terms of contributing to policy that achieves a positive end result, but also dangerous in that the appeal to emotion runs the risk of circumventing genuine solution in favor of sound byte. It makes sense to try to achieve goals with policies other than those proven to be ineffective, as the previous Federal assault weapons ban was. Lastly, homicides are at an all time low.

7. False Zero-Sum Dichotomy - "Either/Or":

Michael Bloomberg

Famous anti-gun rights advocate New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said, "I want the Congress to have to stand up and say 'I'm with the NRA and support killing our children', or 'No'" (Time magazine, January 28, 2013, p.30). On CNN's Piers Morgan, Congressman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) said, "the NRA is enablers of mass murder." This overly simplistic incendiary rhetoric does nothing to further our national discussion, and falsely frames the debate as a zero-sum, winner-take-all, 'either/or' proposition ? either you hug a gun or hug a kid, but you couldn't possibly be for both gun rights and your child's safety. That is preposterous. The NRA is not "the gun industry," and preservation of the Second Amendment is not of interest only to gun manufacturers. Nearly half of NRA funding comes from individual donors. The NRA is comprised of average people who want safe neighborhoods, schools, and streets. Rather than offer ridiculous false dichotomy and grandstanding, we should be looking for genuine solutions.

BONUS: We Need More Laws:

NICS

This is the granddaddy lie. We already have a lot of laws. It's illegal to kill your mom, steal a gun, take that gun onto school property, forcibly break and enter, and murder kids. We already have laws preventing mentally ill & felons from obtaining guns, and we have a background check system (NICS). The Sandy Hook shooter was denied to legally purchase a gun because of the NICS system. We tried a federal assault weapons ban (AWB) before. What we do need is better enforcement of existing laws. Congress has not fully funded NICS. Many states do not fully report felony and mental health data to NICS. The Justice Department only prosecutes a fraction of those who criminally falsify background check forms. We desperately need to engage in genuine discussion about real solutions to the violence problem. These solutions are not likely to yield instantaneous results, or win the next election cycle; yet it is what we would do if we were serious about addressing the issue. The underlying causes include: gang activity, which accounts for 48-90% of violent crime depending on jurisdiction; drug abuse, the single biggest predictor of violence with-or-without mental illness; concentrated urban population and poverty; and mental illness, including de-institutionalization, treatment and intervention, and other facets of mental health.

Originally Posted by Robbie

I have a lot of buddies who are cops...here in Vegas, over in South Carolina, and several members of my family back in Florida.

Rochard, you BETTER be in fear of the police! lol

Every cop I know LIVES for the possibility of confrontation. And they will beat your ass to the ground over nothing.

It's just human nature. The courts have given the cops unlimited power on the scene (yeah, you can "win" in court...but you still got your ass beaten and sometimes KILLED on the scene), and that kind of power just naturally goes to your head.

Hell, I'd like to say that I would be a "good" cop and never do that. But I'd probably put that uniform on, realize I could get away with damn near anything...and then be just like the rest of them.

Originally Posted by vvvvv

Have you ever tried shooting three times at a duck with pump action? Sure it can be done. But semi-auto is so much easier.

Why do people think I don't need a semi-auto gun? Why do people want to take away my freedom of choice?

Why do you think you can pay 1 cop to police 1,000 citizens and everything is going to be hunky dory?