Carrying Guns

[LSUmiss]

Lol! Well, of course, that’s different.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

One person competently carrying an M60 is a movie fantasy. Why not a minigun if you're going to give fantasy examples?

Mass shootings with Kalashnikovs and AR-15 style weapons are a reality.

Now you're just deflecting.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

To that end, money controls most things...see NRA/lobbyists. IMO, that is the problem I have with all of it. There will never be any real independent non-biased research into what is or isn’t harmful/dangerous. If laws/regulations do happen or do exist, there will always loopholes. There will only be thoughts & prayers.

$$$ matters, but not as much as votes.

 

[LSUmiss]

$$$ matters, but not as much as votes.

I wish I could believe that’s true, but that’s a whole other topic. That $$$ backs the campaigns that serve their agenda.

 

[bcla]

Here's the thing though - an AR15 functions EXACTLY like a handgun. At the same time, the round it fires is significantly LESS powerful than a typical deer rifle.

Really? It's a far different method of operation than a handgun, just from a mechanical perspective.

A deer rifle is supposed to fire a round that should reliably take down a deer in one shot. I wouldn't say it wouldn't make a difference in a mass shooting, but in a mass shooting they're obviously looking to put out a lot of lead quickly and easily. That's why AR-15 style weapons seem to be pretty common, although I remember the genesis for the 1994 assault weapons ban came after a incidents with a smaller weapons like the TEC-9. I was working in San Francisco on the day of the 101 California shooting, and the perp had a couple of TEC-9s. I could actually see the cops assembling from the window of our building. Apparently a mass school shooting with a Kalashnikov clone was also cited.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I wish I could believe that’s true, but that’s a whole other topic. That $$$ backs the campaigns that serve their agenda.

The two go hand in hand in this case. 5 million members at $35/year each plus millions more in donation $. Yes, it's a lot of $$$, but the key is those 5 million members (and millions more who vote similarly) have the numbers to sway election results.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Really? It's a far different method of operation than a handgun, just from a mechanical perspective.

A deer rifle is supposed to fire a round that should reliably take down a deer in one shot. I wouldn't say it wouldn't make a difference in a mass shooting, but in a mass shooting they're obviously looking to put out a lot of lead quickly and easily. That's why AR-15 style weapons seem to be pretty common, although I remember the genesis for the 1994 assault weapons ban came after a incidents with a smaller weapons like the TEC-9. I was working in San Francisco on the day of the 101 California shooting, and the perp had a couple of TEC-9s. I could actually see the cops assembling from the window of our building. Apparently a mass school shooting with a Kalashnikov clone was also cited.

Don't be obtuse. Of course there are numerous variations on the semi-auto cycling action, but that isn't the point and you know it. The point is both are magazine fed semi-autos.

AR style weapons are common because they're the most popular rifle in America. And that's driven by cheap surplus ammo.

 

[bcla]

Don't be obtuse. Of course there are numerous variations on the semi-auto cycling action, but that isn't the point and you know it. The point is both are magazine fed semi-autos.

AR style weapons are common because they're the most popular rifle in America. And that's driven by cheap surplus ammo.

The point? I had no idea what you meant. You said they function the same. Certainly not the same as most blowback handguns where one is looking at injuries if one attempts to fire with the weapon against a shoulder.

The AR-15 type weapon certainly isn't limited to .223/5.56 type ammo. And I thought that 9mm is still the most common in the US, to the point where there are revolvers and rifles. I've never really heard of one being used in a mass shooting. They're usually smaller weapons that are easier to use in confined areas, and seem to be the most common when there's something like an office shooting.

 

[LSUmiss]

The two go hand in hand in this case. 5 million members at $35/year each plus millions more in donation $. Yes, it's a lot of $$$, but the key is those 5 million members (and millions more who vote similarly) have the numbers to sway election results.

But that’s not a significant amount of votes. That’s roughly 1.5% of the US population. The rest of the $ comes from manufacturers, big business, etc. So 1.5% of the US population is by far the majority of Americans voting for these laws.

 

[dreiwhit]

But, many laws don’t allow ppl to have other things that could be dangerous to the public b/c we can’t always trust ppl will act responsibly.

One could argue the same things about vehicles (we just saw a terrorist attack with a rented truck), alcohol, axes, baseball bats and many other inanimate objects. Any inanimate object can be misused for evil.

You can’t have a nuclear bomb.

As another poster commented, that is reaching. The subject is not about nuclear weapons, but firearms.

 

[ronandannette]

Well, we have recently seen that it's not safe to be in church so why would a public campground be any different?

You're not obligated to answer me, but what you've said here is pretty rhetorical. Is what @Hikergirl says below a reasonably close expression of your views?

Maybe she means on the matter of principal that they always have their gun with them so even if they got in with it in their camper they would be breaking the law. So instead they choose not to go, as in not to break the law.

I think you've given a good and very likely explanation. Thanks.

Should be, the Calgary Stampede is a pretty expensive festival! Going for several days during the week can get close to spending Disney-dollar-spending levels!

Nice one!! It's funny because it's true...

 

[bcla]

As another poster commented, that is reaching. The subject is not about nuclear weapons, but firearms.

There are legitimate questions about whether or not those who drafted the 2nd Amendment might have been able to foresee the types of firearms that are available today. Repeating firearms (perhaps just early poor-performing revolvers) were rarely available at the time when "arms" meant flintlocks and muskets that were accurate to maybe 100 feet and where a fast loader might be able to get off two shots a minute.

There are also no rights that come without limits. I can't own military artillery, and that's really all that different in principle than a handgun or rifle.

 

[LSUmiss]

One could argue the same things about vehicles (we just saw a terrorist attack with a rented truck), alcohol, axes, baseball bats and many other inanimate objects. Any inanimate object can be misused for evil.



As another poster commented, that is reaching. The subject is not about nuclear weapons, but firearms.

Vehicle ownership & ability to operate one are government regulated. I’m only for regulation not prohibition. The rest do not have the power to inflict mass casualties relatively quickly & the main purpose of the object is not to kill. Also, the value/use they provide to the general public supercedes their potential for abuse.

It is about firearms, but ppl have argued that objects aren’t dangerous by themselves so you should be allowed to legally own whatever you would like...e.g. any type of firearm. My response to that is that bombs are “just” objects also & not capable of harm by themselves, but it’s illegal b/c of the potential to inflict mass harm in the hands of the wrong person. I honestly don’t see this as a stretch.

 

[LYSE]

But that’s not a significant amount of votes. That’s roughly 1.5% of the US population. The rest of the $ comes from manufacturers, big business, etc. So 1.5% of the US population is by far the majority of Americans voting for these laws.

Here's where the money comes from: http://money.cnn.com/news/cnnmoney-investigates/nra-funding-donors/index.html

And actually with enough money know how and patience you would be surprised how much military hardware you can actually own.

 

[LSUmiss]

Here's where the money comes from: http://money.cnn.com/news/cnnmoney-investigates/nra-funding-donors/index.html

And actually with enough money know how and patience you would be surprised how much military hardware you can actually owm.

I still read this a handful of wealthy and/or passionate ppl. So it’s a well funded special interest. That doesn’t equate to a lot of actual votes or voters like the pp said.

 

[LSUmiss]

Here's where the money comes from: http://money.cnn.com/news/cnnmoney-investigates/nra-funding-donors/index.html

And actually with enough money know how and patience you would be surprised how much military hardware you can actually own.

And, as far as how much you can own, it’s already been said that it’s regulated. I have no problem with that.

 

[LYSE]

I still read this a handful of wealthy and/or passionate ppl. So it’s a well funded special interest. That doesn’t equate to a lot of actual votes or voters like the pp said.

Well, they are representing the largest group of voters of any special interest/ lobbying group.

The math works out to approx 3 percent of the voting population (that actually voted) + others who support the 2a but are not members for whatever reason or who vote with other 2a organizations

 

[LSUmiss]

Well, they are representing the largest group of voters of any special interest/ lobbying group.

The math works our to over 3 percent of the voting population + others who support the 2a but are not members for whatever reason or who vote with other 2a organizations

Ok so even if you tripled it, that’s 9% of the population. My opinion is that there is a lot of fear mongering & propaganda that plays into it. I’m talking specifically about ppl’s hesitation to support what many consider to be reasonable but tighter regulations.

 

[LYSE]

Ok so even if you tripled it, that’s 9% of the population. My opinion is that there is a lot of fear mongering & propaganda that plays into it. I’m talking specifically about ppl’s hesitation to support what many consider to be reasonable but tighter regulations.

There is fear mongering on both sides of the debate for sure, as for the 3+ percent you have to consider that not all voters are equal, NRA members and other 2a supporters are a loud voice that tend to be much more politically active than those on the opposite side of the coin, the NRA money is used to bolster campaigns and that of course helps get votes.

All this does only add up to a small impact on elections (but largest of its kind) ...the rest really is left up to those passionate enough to show at the polls.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

The point? I had no idea what you meant. You said they function the same. Certainly not the same as most blowback handguns where one is looking at injuries if one attempts to fire with the weapon against a shoulder.

The AR-15 type weapon certainly isn't limited to .223/5.56 type ammo. And I thought that 9mm is still the most common in the US, to the point where there are revolvers and rifles. I've never really heard of one being used in a mass shooting. They're usually smaller weapons that are easier to use in confined areas, and seem to be the most common when there's something like an office shooting.

You really thought I was discussing the inner workings of a gun with someone who isn't a gun person? Context, man.

Yes, AR-types can be had in numerous calibers, but there are far more .223 & 5.56/.223 variants in circulation than all the rest combined.

9mm is the most popular handgun caliber and it was used at Va Tech, Columbine, and Arizona (Giffords).