Let's talk about guns

[ABikerSailor]

That woman is 43 times more likely to be injured by her own gun than use it to kill an attacker.

Sorry guns in the house do not make you safer.

Personally, I'm not looking to be safer. I have guns in my house because I want them and can afford them. If that makes it more likely for me to get hurt, I'm ok with that. That's a decision I make for myself.

I have no problem with that.

As long as you realize it's a privilage and not a right.

How do you feel about gun owners having magazines they can fire 100 rounds out of before reloading?

 

[JoeB131]

Oh, so you believe a woman being raped and murdered is morally superior to a woman who defends herself with a firearm.

That woman is 43 times more likely to be injured by her own gun than use it to kill an attacker.

Sorry guns in the house do not make you safer.

You keep posting stats...without citations.

The Kellerman study is well known and documented.

And I don't do cites unless I feel like it. Because when I prove my case wingnuts- left or right, and I've argued with both - will either pretend they didn't see it, or they will claim it was "biased" or "untrue".

 

[signelect]

This is a tragidy for sure but banning guns is not the answer. There are so guns we just don't need but where do you stop. I have a right to own a gun. I do not have a right to use that gun irresponsibily. Taking a gun to the movie so I can protect my sellf is as insame as the kid in Auroa. Getting involved in a gun fight in a dark therater is not responsbile.

 

[ABikerSailor]

This is a tragidy for sure but banning guns is not the answer. There are so guns we just don't need but where do you stop. I have a right to own a gun. I do not have a right to use that gun irresponsibily. Taking a gun to the movie so I can protect my sellf is as insame as the kid in Auroa. Getting involved in a gun fight in a dark therater is not responsbile.

I'm not arguing that your guns should be taken away.........matter of fact, I'm FOR gun ownership.

But tell me............do you REALLY need 30 rounds in a 9mm pistol, or 100 rounds for your rifle?

 

[daveman]

That woman is 43 times more likely to be injured by her own gun than use it to kill an attacker.

Sorry guns in the house do not make you safer.

You keep posting stats...without citations.

The Kellerman study is well known and documented.

And I don't do cites unless I feel like it. Because when I prove my case wingnuts- left or right, and I've argued with both - will either pretend they didn't see it, or they will claim it was "biased" or "untrue".

Then don't whine when your claims are dismissed.

 

[PratchettFan]

That woman is 43 times more likely to be injured by her own gun than use it to kill an attacker.

Sorry guns in the house do not make you safer.

Personally, I'm not looking to be safer. I have guns in my house because I want them and can afford them. If that makes it more likely for me to get hurt, I'm ok with that. That's a decision I make for myself.

I have no problem with that.

As long as you realize it's a privilage and not a right.

The SC would disagree with you on that point.

 

[PratchettFan]

That woman is 43 times more likely to be injured by her own gun than use it to kill an attacker.

Sorry guns in the house do not make you safer.

Personally, I'm not looking to be safer. I have guns in my house because I want them and can afford them. If that makes it more likely for me to get hurt, I'm ok with that. That's a decision I make for myself.

You know................it's not so much the guns that I have a problem with, it's the amount of ammo you can carry in that gun before reloading.

I'm pretty sure when the Founding Fathers wrote our Constitution, they were thinking about muzzle loading rifles that took anywhere from 1 min to 1 1/2 min to reload. If they had AR-15's with 100 round magazines (like what the person in CO had), I'm pretty sure they would have made limits on what the citizens could and couldn't have, because back then, all gun technology was pretty much the same.

Things didn't change until almost 100 years later with Remington and Winchester, but there was still a long way to go before they got to the AR-15.

I've said it before..........magazines and clips should be limited to NO MORE than 15 rounds. If you can't hit your target by then, you need to practice more, because the guns of today have a much larger penetration than the muskets of old, which means that not only should you be thinking about your target, but also where the stray shots can go.

Besides..............do you really NEED an assault rifle with 30 round clips to hunt a deer? I did pretty well with just a regular bolt action rifle.

But then again, I'm from Montana where we actually know how to shoot and hunt.

I don't hunt. I just enjoy shooting. Do I need a 100 round clip? No.

The 2nd amendment is about a well-regulated militia. It was the intent of the FFs to provide the ability of the states to regulate and I have no problem with regulations. Certainly there are types of weaponry which are just not safe to posess. I don't want my neighbor storing a 500 lb pound bomb.

However, this argument that I am safer without a gun than with simply does not hold water. I am not asking to be safe. If there is a chance I will injure myself or my family with it, that is my problem. It only becomes the state's problem if it can be demonstrated that I will injure my neighbor, or at least create an unreasonable hazard to my neighbor.

 

[Russel]

I am an aussie and find it hard to understand how with 10s of thousands of deaths each year related to guns you can still scream the 'right to bear arms' quote. What about the right to live in a society where to you don't fear being shot be a psycho maniac while watching a movie, or where you can send you kids to school without metal detectors and knowing they will come home after school.
In 2011 in Australia there was approx. 18 gun related deaths. Why do you think that is?
We don't need the right to bear arms because no one has one to bear against!!!!!

 

[AquaAthena]

Pros of empowering citizenry to keep and bear arms anywhere they go:

-Criminals deterred from the planned crime out of fear of retaliation and being killed.
-If criminal decides he is not afraid of dying, someone will quickly and efficiently eliminate them.


Cons: of empowering citizenry to keep and bear arms anywhere they go:
-Yes, someone trying to be a hero MIGHT be a bad shot. Maybe.

Feel free to add your own pro and/or con to the list and I will add them via edit. Emotional hyperbole or conjecture will NOT be added.

Yes, to the 2nd amendment. Blue and red alike, stand behind it. It won't be messed with.

 

[PratchettFan]

I am an aussie and find it hard to understand how with 10s of thousands of deaths each year related to guns you can still scream the 'right to bear arms' quote. What about the right to live in a society where to you don't fear being shot be a psycho maniac while watching a movie, or where you can send you kids to school without metal detectors and knowing they will come home after school.
In 2011 in Australia there was approx. 18 gun related deaths. Why do you think that is?
We don't need the right to bear arms because no one has one to bear against!!!!!

It's ok for you not to understand.

 

[daveman]

I am an aussie and find it hard to understand how with 10s of thousands of deaths each year related to guns you can still scream the 'right to bear arms' quote. What about the right to live in a society where to you don't fear being shot be a psycho maniac while watching a movie, or where you can send you kids to school without metal detectors and knowing they will come home after school.
In 2011 in Australia there was approx. 18 gun related deaths. Why do you think that is?
We don't need the right to bear arms because no one has one to bear against!!!!!

Really?

AUSTRALIA: MORE VIOLENT CRIME DESPITE GUN BAN

 

[hortysir]

This is a tragidy for sure but banning guns is not the answer. There are so guns we just don't need but where do you stop. I have a right to own a gun. I do not have a right to use that gun irresponsibily. Taking a gun to the movie so I can protect my sellf is as insame as the kid in Auroa. Getting involved in a gun fight in a dark therater is not responsbile.

I'm not arguing that your guns should be taken away.........matter of fact, I'm FOR gun ownership.

But tell me............do you REALLY need 30 rounds in a 9mm pistol, or 100 rounds for your rifle?

Depends on how many rounds are in the magazine of the person moving in to harm me or my family, or attempting to take my gun away.

 

[ABikerSailor]

This is a tragidy for sure but banning guns is not the answer. There are so guns we just don't need but where do you stop. I have a right to own a gun. I do not have a right to use that gun irresponsibily. Taking a gun to the movie so I can protect my sellf is as insame as the kid in Auroa. Getting involved in a gun fight in a dark therater is not responsbile.

I'm not arguing that your guns should be taken away.........matter of fact, I'm FOR gun ownership.

But tell me............do you REALLY need 30 rounds in a 9mm pistol, or 100 rounds for your rifle?

Depends on how many rounds are in the magazine of the person moving in to harm me or my family, or attempting to take my gun away.

So, in other words, you're such a crappy shot that you can't get the job done in 15 rounds, so you have to have just one more round than the person shooting you?

Sounds like you need to spend time at the range. And yes, I earned my Sharpshooter designation in the Navy, so I know approximately how many rounds it takes me to hit my target.

I'll give you a hint.................it's less than 5, which means I could take on at least 2 more attackers.

 

[hortysir]

I'm not arguing that your guns should be taken away.........matter of fact, I'm FOR gun ownership.

But tell me............do you REALLY need 30 rounds in a 9mm pistol, or 100 rounds for your rifle?

Depends on how many rounds are in the magazine of the person moving in to harm me or my family, or attempting to take my gun away.

So, in other words, you're such a crappy shot that you can't get the job done in 15 rounds, so you have to have just one more round than the person shooting you?

Sounds like you need to spend time at the range. And yes, I earned my Sharpshooter designation in the Navy, so I know approximately how many rounds it takes me to hit my target.

I'll give you a hint.................it's less than 5, which means I could take on at least 2 more attackers.

Got mine in Basic, too

Not that I HAVE to.....but it is so much more fun to have "superior fire power"

 

[ABikerSailor]

Depends on how many rounds are in the magazine of the person moving in to harm me or my family, or attempting to take my gun away.

So, in other words, you're such a crappy shot that you can't get the job done in 15 rounds, so you have to have just one more round than the person shooting you?

Sounds like you need to spend time at the range. And yes, I earned my Sharpshooter designation in the Navy, so I know approximately how many rounds it takes me to hit my target.

I'll give you a hint.................it's less than 5, which means I could take on at least 2 more attackers.

Got mine in Basic, too

Not that I HAVE to.....but it is so much more fun to have "superior fire power"

Yeah..........I understand that superior firepower is nice..........but you being military trained are much more responsible with your weapons than the average civilian.

Me personally? I think a 15 round limit on ALL clips and magazines is the only viable option, because you've got a chance when they have to reload.

Anything above that? Strictly military and police use only, because they're the only ones who generally go into combat and war zones.

The civilians don't need it, because the military and police are already supposed to be defending them.

 

[hortysir]

So, in other words, you're such a crappy shot that you can't get the job done in 15 rounds, so you have to have just one more round than the person shooting you?

Sounds like you need to spend time at the range. And yes, I earned my Sharpshooter designation in the Navy, so I know approximately how many rounds it takes me to hit my target.

I'll give you a hint.................it's less than 5, which means I could take on at least 2 more attackers.

Got mine in Basic, too

Not that I HAVE to.....but it is so much more fun to have "superior fire power"

Yeah..........I understand that superior firepower is nice..........but you being military trained are much more responsible with your weapons than the average civilian.

Me personally? I think a 15 round limit on ALL clips and magazines is the only viable option, because you've got a chance when they have to reload.

Anything above that? Strictly military and police use only, because they're the only ones who generally go into combat and war zones.

The civilians don't need it, because the military and police are already supposed to be defending them.

Call me paranoid......and I know the whole argument about missiles, tanks, and A-bombs.....I don't trust a police force that's more heavily armed than I am.

 

[ABikerSailor]

To tell the truth hortysir, most police forces only have 15 round clips in their weapons.

Anything above that? They call SWAT.

 

[daveman]

The civilians don't need it, because the military and police are already supposed to be defending them.

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The civilians don't need it, because the military and police are already supposed to be defending them.

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

Quick question, do you think the body count (12 dead) and wounded count (59) would have been the same if he had to reload every 15 rounds?

I don't.

 

[daveman]

The civilians don't need it, because the military and police are already supposed to be defending them.

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

Quick question, do you think the body count (12 dead) and wounded count (59) would have been the same if he had to reload every 15 rounds?

I don't.

It would have been far less had a responsible gun owner with a CCW been in the theater.

Body armor does nothing against two in the head.