One huge political difference between Dems and Reps...

[Daryl Hunt]

Yes - we can regulate his toys. You know, things like fertilizer, ammonium nitrate, fuel oil, cars, knives, swords, etc., etc., etc. - none of which will stop him. When you choose to require a background check to get a driver's license, then we can talk. It is nonsensical to punish those who don't commit a crime for the actions of those who do.

You will notice that, recently, the car bombs in Afghanistan killed 232 people -- and not a gun in sight. You will notice that crashing a truck through a crowd at a Xmas bazaar in Germany killed 13 - and not a gun in sight. You will notice that a machete wielding maniac in London killed two and wounded 6 - and not a gun in sight.

In short, "controlling guns" (which is liberal-speak for "taking guns away because we don't know what else to do, and this is the easiest activity so we can FEEL like we did something), accomplishes nothing, other than to encourage crime.

But, I disagree with your premise that we can't control the "nut case." A simple, centralized database (we already have it) expanded to include the mentally ill, those suffering mental issues, criminals, domestic abusers., etc. will provide a reasonable foundation for a permit denial program. You don't need to know where all the guns are - you need to know where all the "nut cases" are. You don't need to keep guns out of the hands of everybody - you need to keep your "nut cases" away from guns. I have absolutely no problem being required to inform the government that I take Xanax for depression, but am mightily opposed to telling them how many weapons I have.I have no problem telling all mental health providers that they are required to report their patients to the federal government, but I strongly object to requiring my weapons provider to register my purchases.

Notice how you inherently object to telling the government about an individual's health conditions - as an invasion of privacy? Now, you know how I feel about my guns. You seem to object to "throwing out the constitution" when it comes to "nut cases", but not objection whatsoever to "throwing out the constitution" when it comes to "gun owners". An interesting dichotomy, I think.

As for the issue of high-capacity magazines, that's just another "feel good" non-solution. The AVERAGE gun user can change magazines in about 3 seconds -virtually a non-stop shooting situation. Your proposal makes you FEEL like you're doing something - but it accomplishes exactly nothing.

Funny you should mention the "no fully automatic weapons" thing ----- there are, virtually, no LEGAL automatic weapons on the street. However, within the past three months, I've had the opportunity to shoot an automatic weapon at two different shooting ranges (and can testify you can't hit a damn thing with them). But, we've had two shootings in the past three months using automatic weapons here locally. Frankly, if somebody were shooting at me, I would PREFER he use an automatic weapon. They are terribly inaccurate, and my odds of survival go up - not down. Automatic fire serves no purpose other than making loud noises and lots of smoke. A great suppression tool, but pretty useless as a killing tool.es - we can regulate his toys. You know, things like fertilizer, ammonium nitrate, fuel oil, cars, knives, swords, etc., etc., etc. - none of which will stop him. When you choose to require a background check to get a driver's license, then we can talk. It is nonsensical to punish those who don't commit a crime for the actions of those who do.

Yes - we can regulate his toys. You know, things like fertilizer, ammonium nitrate, fuel oil, cars, knives, swords, etc., etc., etc. - none of which will stop him. When you choose to require a background check to get a driver's license, then we can talk. It is nonsensical to punish those who don't commit a crime for the actions of those who do.

You will notice that, recently, the car bombs in Afghanistan killed 232 people -- and not a gun in sight. You will notice that crashing a truck through a crowd at a Xmas bazaar in Germany killed 13 - and not a gun in sight. You will notice that a machete wielding maniac in London killed two and wounded 6 - and not a gun in sight.

In short, "controlling guns" (which is liberal-speak for "taking guns away because we don't know what else to do, and this is the easiest activity so we can FEEL like we did something), accomplishes nothing, other than to encourage crime.

But, I disagree with your premise that we can't control the "nut case." A simple, centralized database (we already have it) expanded to include the mentally ill, those suffering mental issues, criminals, domestic abusers., etc. will provide a reasonable foundation for a permit denial program. You don't need to know where all the guns are - you need to know where all the "nut cases" are. You don't need to keep guns out of the hands of everybody - you need to keep your "nut cases" away from guns. I have absolutely no problem being required to inform the government that I take Xanax for depression, but am mightily opposed to telling them how many weapons I have.I have no problem telling all mental health providers that they are required to report their patients to the federal government, but I strongly object to requiring my weapons provider to register my purchases.

Notice how you inherently object to telling the government about an individual's health conditions - as an invasion of privacy? Now, you know how I feel about my guns. You seem to object to "throwing out the constitution" when it comes to "nut cases", but not objection whatsoever to "throwing out the constitution" when it comes to "gun owners". An interesting dichotomy, I think.

As for the issue of high-capacity magazines, that's just another "feel good" non-solution. The AVERAGE gun user can change magazines in about 3 seconds -virtually a non-stop shooting situation. Your proposal makes you FEEL like you're doing something - but it accomplishes exactly nothing.

Funny you should mention the "no fully automatic weapons" thing ----- there are, virtually, no LEGAL automatic weapons on the street. However, within the past three months, I've had the opportunity to shoot an automatic weapon at two different shooting ranges (and can testify you can't hit a damn thing with them). But, we've had two shootings in the past three months using automatic weapons here locally. Frankly, if somebody were shooting at me, I would PREFER he use an automatic weapon. They are terribly inaccurate, and my odds of survival go up - not down. Automatic fire serves no purpose other than making loud noises and lots of smoke. A great suppression tool, but pretty useless as a killing tool.

es - we can regulate his toys. You know, things like fertilizer, ammonium nitrate, fuel oil, cars, knives, swords, etc., etc., etc. - none of which will stop him. When you choose to require a background check to get a driver's license, then we can talk. It is nonsensical to punish those who don't commit a crime for the actions of those who do.

es - we can regulate his toys. You know, things like fertilizer, ammonium nitrate, fuel oil, cars, knives, swords, etc., etc., etc. - none of which will stop him. When you choose to require a background check to get a driver's license, then we can talk. It is nonsensical to punish those who don't commit a crime for the actions of those who do.

So none of us need to purchase car insurance. Most areas, it's compulsive. Why should I pay insurance if I haven't had an accident? We don't need to register our vehicles either. I happen to be a safe driver. Why am I paying for the bad drivers. Until the day that I DO make a mistake and have an accident. It's for public safety.

You will notice that, recently, the car bombs in Afghanistan killed 232 people -- and not a gun in sight. You will notice that crashing a truck through a crowd at a Xmas bazaar in Germany killed 13 - and not a gun in sight. You will notice that a machete wielding maniac in London killed two and wounded 6 - and not a gun in sight.

And what is the first ingredient to a decent ME Car Bomb? High Explosives even if it comes out of a shell which is the favorite way of doing it. In the Middle East, those are all over the place. But in the US, they are very, very hard to get without the proper license and paperwork. Plus, in the US, it takes planning and a "Bomb Maker" usually. The Chemicals are so volatile that usually, the authorities are tipped off. We have had two in the last 20 years that fell trhough the cracks. Yes, it's possible but not the best idea to kill 100 or less people at one sitting.

As for the issue of high-capacity magazines, that's just another "feel good" non-solution. The AVERAGE gun user can change magazines in about 3 seconds -virtually a non-stop shooting situation. Your proposal makes you FEEL like you're doing something - but it accomplishes exactly nothing.

More like 2 seconds for each Mag. If it takes you 3 or more seconds just to change mags then you are just a wanna be. In my circles, I can change mages in about a second or less. If I am using a bump stock, I can go through 2 30 round mags in less than 2 seconds. You mentioned the accuracy of an full auto. You are mishandling the weapon. When I first qualified with an M-16, it was full auto. Those rounds counted against your score. If you handle the weapon, you can get all 10 into a man sized target at 100 yds. Okay, not all will be in the kill zone but you have to do at least 6 out of 10 in the kill area. If you can't then you shouldn't be handling the weapon.

Now, put yourself firing into a field full of people. Say, a person every 2 square feet for a half an acre. Even a putz like you can kill at least 50 people using 4 mags and a semi auto AR type in less than 10 seconds. A Expert Shooter can't do it any better. Maybe a bit faster but you would have to try and miss to actually miss. Each bullet has the possibility of killing or wounding 2 or 3 people. And that is without a bump stock. With a bump stock, you can unload those 4 mags in less than 7 seconds with no misses. Even a putz like you.

Using my 45ACP I can qualify as an expert or combat. They are two entirely different things. One is sight shooting and the other is spot shooting. At 20 yds, one is a nice 5 inch pattern and the other is a 1 foot pattern. Sight shooting will be done about 30 seconds while spot shooting is done in less than 3 seconds for 5 rounds. My gun holds 8 in the clip and 1 in the tube. I am NOT an average shooter. The military saw to that. And I could easily do what has been done but won't even consider it since it's extremely evil.

So it can be done just as easy with a semi auto AR as with a M-16 full auto. The last one was shooting fish in a barrel with a shotgun with double Aught Buckshot. It would take an expert to miss.

59 dead with 400 wounded for the Concert using what amounts to an automatic weapon (he didn't change mags, he emptied one and grabbed another one just chaning out the bump stock) versus the theater shooting of over 50 people dead with 200 people using a single semi auto AR (not 4 of them with a bump stock) Either one can fire every time the trigger is pulled. I can get the same fire rate using a flutter finger as I can with a bump stock if I am firing into such a target rich field of fire.

There is a reason that Full Auto WEapons were changed to needing a firearms license with the proper storage facility to own them. They aren't "Outlawed" but let a Thompson hit the streets and find out how serious the ATF is about recovering it. The Thompson and other Autos were regulated until they were no longer to be found on the streets. The reason for the "Regulation" was that the Thompson was being used for some mighty deadly wholesale killings. Sure, a lot of it was BAddies shooting Baddies but the general public was caught in the crossfire.

Where do we draw the line? Just how many St.Valentines Massecers do we need before we do the same..

 

[Spare_change]

Yes - we can regulate his toys. You know, things like fertilizer, ammonium nitrate, fuel oil, cars, knives, swords, etc., etc., etc. - none of which will stop him. When you choose to require a background check to get a driver's license, then we can talk. It is nonsensical to punish those who don't commit a crime for the actions of those who do.

You will notice that, recently, the car bombs in Afghanistan killed 232 people -- and not a gun in sight. You will notice that crashing a truck through a crowd at a Xmas bazaar in Germany killed 13 - and not a gun in sight. You will notice that a machete wielding maniac in London killed two and wounded 6 - and not a gun in sight.

In short, "controlling guns" (which is liberal-speak for "taking guns away because we don't know what else to do, and this is the easiest activity so we can FEEL like we did something), accomplishes nothing, other than to encourage crime.

But, I disagree with your premise that we can't control the "nut case." A simple, centralized database (we already have it) expanded to include the mentally ill, those suffering mental issues, criminals, domestic abusers., etc. will provide a reasonable foundation for a permit denial program. You don't need to know where all the guns are - you need to know where all the "nut cases" are. You don't need to keep guns out of the hands of everybody - you need to keep your "nut cases" away from guns. I have absolutely no problem being required to inform the government that I take Xanax for depression, but am mightily opposed to telling them how many weapons I have.I have no problem telling all mental health providers that they are required to report their patients to the federal government, but I strongly object to requiring my weapons provider to register my purchases.

Notice how you inherently object to telling the government about an individual's health conditions - as an invasion of privacy? Now, you know how I feel about my guns. You seem to object to "throwing out the constitution" when it comes to "nut cases", but not objection whatsoever to "throwing out the constitution" when it comes to "gun owners". An interesting dichotomy, I think.

As for the issue of high-capacity magazines, that's just another "feel good" non-solution. The AVERAGE gun user can change magazines in about 3 seconds -virtually a non-stop shooting situation. Your proposal makes you FEEL like you're doing something - but it accomplishes exactly nothing.

Funny you should mention the "no fully automatic weapons" thing ----- there are, virtually, no LEGAL automatic weapons on the street. However, within the past three months, I've had the opportunity to shoot an automatic weapon at two different shooting ranges (and can testify you can't hit a damn thing with them). But, we've had two shootings in the past three months using automatic weapons here locally. Frankly, if somebody were shooting at me, I would PREFER he use an automatic weapon. They are terribly inaccurate, and my odds of survival go up - not down. Automatic fire serves no purpose other than making loud noises and lots of smoke. A great suppression tool, but pretty useless as a killing tool.

And how many times does he reload? You are ignoring physics if you think magazines capacity doesn't slow a shooter. And if it doesn't then why do the gun nuts fight for high capacity magazines?

Lets slow mass shooters down.

Incompetence is its own reward. Picking an isolated failure, and projecting it onto all shooters, is both nonsensical and intellectually dishonest.

Anyone who shoots knows these things happen all the time. It is dishonest to claim they don't. And it certainly is dishonest to go against physics and claim reloading doesn't slow a shooter.

Had you bothered to actually read the post - and I'm assuming you have a 6th grade retention level - I actually was saying that changing magazines does not appreciably alter the shooter's ability because a magazine change takes about 3 seconds. Nowhere did I make the nonsensical claim you accuse me of.

Grow up.

 

[Spare_change]

Sorry ---you seem to be sadly misinformed.

So none of us need to purchase car insurance. Most areas, it's compulsive. Why should I pay insurance if I haven't had an accident? We don't need to register our vehicles either. I happen to be a safe driver. Why am I paying for the bad drivers. Until the day that I DO make a mistake and have an accident. It's for public safety.

Buying auto insurance is a fiscal decision - not a public safety decision. No amount of insurance will prevent you having an accident. In fact, in most states, you are NOT required to buy auto insurance - you are given the option of buying auto insurance or posting a "insurer's bond" of some finite amount. It's a fiscal decision.


And what is the first ingredient to a decent ME Car Bomb? High Explosives even if it comes out of a shell which is the favorite way of doing it. In the Middle East, those are all over the place. But in the US, they are very, very hard to get without the proper license and paperwork. Plus, in the US, it takes planning and a "Bomb Maker" usually. The Chemicals are so volatile that usually, the authorities are tipped off. We have had two in the last 20 years that fell trhough the cracks. Yes, it's possible but not the best idea to kill 100 or less people at one sitting.

Timothy McVey blew up the Murrah Federal Building with a load of common fertilizer (ammonium nitrate) and fuel oil - both readily available on the open market. Clearly, you know nothing about bomb making. Frankly, a truck load of fertilizer is the most efficient, and least recognizable, way to kill a group of people. Course, you could just put the stuff in a pressure cooker and leave it beside the Boston Marathon, too. Your argument makes no sense.

As for the issue of high-capacity magazines, that's just another "feel good" non-solution. The AVERAGE gun user can change magazines in about 3 seconds -virtually a non-stop shooting situation. Your proposal makes you FEEL like you're doing something - but it accomplishes exactly nothing.

More like 2 seconds for each Mag. If it takes you 3 or more seconds just to change mags then you are just a wanna be. In my circles, I can change mages in about a second or less. If I am using a bump stock, I can go through 2 30 round mags in less than 2 seconds. You mentioned the accuracy of an full auto. You are mishandling the weapon. When I first qualified with an M-16, it was full auto. Those rounds counted against your score. If you handle the weapon, you can get all 10 into a man sized target at 100 yds. Okay, not all will be in the kill zone but you have to do at least 6 out of 10 in the kill area. If you can't then you shouldn't be handling the weapon.

You know, that's interesting. I spent 20 years in the military - carrying the M-16 the whole time. In that time, I never saw an M-16 used in full auto, except in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan (even then, it was only in life-or-death situations, since full auto uses up your ammo so quickly). Your comment about qualifying on the M-16 in full auto is, simply, bullshit. As for your premise of putting half a clip in a man at 100 yards on full auto, again you expose yourself to accusations of lies. Watch this ... a pro shooting an AR-15, full auto, at about 25 yards. See how accurate he is at THAT range, and then tell me again how you can put half a mag in a man sized target at 100 yards.

Where do we draw the line? Just how many St.Valentines Massecers do we need before we do the same..

I'm going to ignore the rest of your "shooting experience" since the whole thing is so full of holes, I think that is what you're shooting at. You have clearly "demonstrated" your practical knowledge - or lack of it - in firearms.

I notice how you've conveniently decided to ignore the PROBLEM - and focused on the TOOLS. If you want nutcases to stop killing people, stop giving nutcases the capability. Focus on the disease, not the symptom.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Yes - we can regulate his toys. You know, things like fertilizer, ammonium nitrate, fuel oil, cars, knives, swords, etc., etc., etc. - none of which will stop him. When you choose to require a background check to get a driver's license, then we can talk. It is nonsensical to punish those who don't commit a crime for the actions of those who do.

You will notice that, recently, the car bombs in Afghanistan killed 232 people -- and not a gun in sight. You will notice that crashing a truck through a crowd at a Xmas bazaar in Germany killed 13 - and not a gun in sight. You will notice that a machete wielding maniac in London killed two and wounded 6 - and not a gun in sight.

In short, "controlling guns" (which is liberal-speak for "taking guns away because we don't know what else to do, and this is the easiest activity so we can FEEL like we did something), accomplishes nothing, other than to encourage crime.

But, I disagree with your premise that we can't control the "nut case." A simple, centralized database (we already have it) expanded to include the mentally ill, those suffering mental issues, criminals, domestic abusers., etc. will provide a reasonable foundation for a permit denial program. You don't need to know where all the guns are - you need to know where all the "nut cases" are. You don't need to keep guns out of the hands of everybody - you need to keep your "nut cases" away from guns. I have absolutely no problem being required to inform the government that I take Xanax for depression, but am mightily opposed to telling them how many weapons I have.I have no problem telling all mental health providers that they are required to report their patients to the federal government, but I strongly object to requiring my weapons provider to register my purchases.

Notice how you inherently object to telling the government about an individual's health conditions - as an invasion of privacy? Now, you know how I feel about my guns. You seem to object to "throwing out the constitution" when it comes to "nut cases", but not objection whatsoever to "throwing out the constitution" when it comes to "gun owners". An interesting dichotomy, I think.

As for the issue of high-capacity magazines, that's just another "feel good" non-solution. The AVERAGE gun user can change magazines in about 3 seconds -virtually a non-stop shooting situation. Your proposal makes you FEEL like you're doing something - but it accomplishes exactly nothing.

Funny you should mention the "no fully automatic weapons" thing ----- there are, virtually, no LEGAL automatic weapons on the street. However, within the past three months, I've had the opportunity to shoot an automatic weapon at two different shooting ranges (and can testify you can't hit a damn thing with them). But, we've had two shootings in the past three months using automatic weapons here locally. Frankly, if somebody were shooting at me, I would PREFER he use an automatic weapon. They are terribly inaccurate, and my odds of survival go up - not down. Automatic fire serves no purpose other than making loud noises and lots of smoke. A great suppression tool, but pretty useless as a killing tool.

And how many times does he reload? You are ignoring physics if you think magazines capacity doesn't slow a shooter. And if it doesn't then why do the gun nuts fight for high capacity magazines?

Lets slow mass shooters down.

Incompetence is its own reward. Picking an isolated failure, and projecting it onto all shooters, is both nonsensical and intellectually dishonest.

Anyone who shoots knows these things happen all the time. It is dishonest to claim they don't. And it certainly is dishonest to go against physics and claim reloading doesn't slow a shooter.

Had you bothered to actually read the post - and I'm assuming you have a 6th grade retention level - I actually was saying that changing magazines does not appreciably alter the shooter's ability because a magazine change takes about 3 seconds. Nowhere did I make the nonsensical claim you accuse me of.

Grow up.

You have any idea how long it takes to load a magazine? Or how much a couple thousand rds. of ammo weigh or how many loaded mags would would be required and how much the combined weight of the two would be?
You very much underestimate the time required to change magazines in the real world.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Sorry ---you seem to be sadly misinformed.

So none of us need to purchase car insurance. Most areas, it's compulsive. Why should I pay insurance if I haven't had an accident? We don't need to register our vehicles either. I happen to be a safe driver. Why am I paying for the bad drivers. Until the day that I DO make a mistake and have an accident. It's for public safety.

Buying auto insurance is a fiscal decision - not a public safety decision. No amount of insurance will prevent you having an accident. In fact, in most states, you are NOT required to buy auto insurance - you are given the option of buying auto insurance or posting a "insurer's bond" of some finite amount. It's a fiscal decision.


And what is the first ingredient to a decent ME Car Bomb? High Explosives even if it comes out of a shell which is the favorite way of doing it. In the Middle East, those are all over the place. But in the US, they are very, very hard to get without the proper license and paperwork. Plus, in the US, it takes planning and a "Bomb Maker" usually. The Chemicals are so volatile that usually, the authorities are tipped off. We have had two in the last 20 years that fell trhough the cracks. Yes, it's possible but not the best idea to kill 100 or less people at one sitting.

Timothy McVey blew up the Murrah Federal Building with a load of common fertilizer (ammonium nitrate) and fuel oil - both readily available on the open market. Clearly, you know nothing about bomb making. Frankly, a truck load of fertilizer is the most efficient, and least recognizable, way to kill a group of people. Course, you could just put the stuff in a pressure cooker and leave it beside the Boston Marathon, too. Your argument makes no sense.

As for the issue of high-capacity magazines, that's just another "feel good" non-solution. The AVERAGE gun user can change magazines in about 3 seconds -virtually a non-stop shooting situation. Your proposal makes you FEEL like you're doing something - but it accomplishes exactly nothing.

More like 2 seconds for each Mag. If it takes you 3 or more seconds just to change mags then you are just a wanna be. In my circles, I can change mages in about a second or less. If I am using a bump stock, I can go through 2 30 round mags in less than 2 seconds. You mentioned the accuracy of an full auto. You are mishandling the weapon. When I first qualified with an M-16, it was full auto. Those rounds counted against your score. If you handle the weapon, you can get all 10 into a man sized target at 100 yds. Okay, not all will be in the kill zone but you have to do at least 6 out of 10 in the kill area. If you can't then you shouldn't be handling the weapon.

You know, that's interesting. I spent 20 years in the military - carrying the M-16 the whole time. In that time, I never saw an M-16 used in full auto, except in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan (even then, it was only in life-or-death situations, since full auto uses up your ammo so quickly). Your comment about qualifying on the M-16 in full auto is, simply, bullshit. As for your premise of putting half a clip in a man at 100 yards on full auto, again you expose yourself to accusations of lies. Watch this ... a pro shooting an AR-15, full auto, at about 25 yards. See how accurate he is at THAT range, and then tell me again how you can put half a mag in a man sized target at 100 yards.

Where do we draw the line? Just how many St.Valentines Massecers do we need before we do the same..

I'm going to ignore the rest of your "shooting experience" since the whole thing is so full of holes, I think that is what you're shooting at. You have clearly "demonstrated" your practical knowledge - or lack of it - in firearms.

I notice how you've conveniently decided to ignore the PROBLEM - and focused on the TOOLS. If you want nutcases to stop killing people, stop giving nutcases the capability. Focus on the disease, not the symptom.

I see the problem we in the AF already knew. Anyone wearing a pickle suit with US ARMY on it is thought to be qualified as Infantry. Newsflash, until after Nam, WE, USAF, did our own base security. We were ID'd in Basic Training, went to our respective Tech Schools for various career fields and then spent time learning about weapons. After handling a M-16 for two hours, we were expected to disassemble it and reassemble it in total darkness. We spent time on the range with weapons including the Ruger Police Special, M-16, 1911A1 and M-60. Then we were shipped to SEA. We carried special identifiers as Augmentee Security Police. In the event of a possible over run, our job was to report to the Armory, pick up 6 M-16s and head for our designated parameter bunker. WE joined the M-60 crew that were full time Security Police. Why did we need so many M-16s each? You fired them until the barrel warped and then grabbed another one. Our job was to keep the intruders off the M-60. And we didn't use single shot. WE fire full Auto because you couldn't see your enemy but knew they were there. Kid, you ever seen an overrun? After the DS1 debacle with the really lousy transportation where the only one to receive anything other than a purple heart was Lynch who hid in a wheel well. That changed the AF way of thinking and we went back to handling our own defense and brought back the Augmentees. Just because it's wearing pickle green with US ARMY on it doesn't mean it is an infantry.

So you never fired a M-16 in combat in full auto, then you were never in combat. WE trained to fire it accurately in full auto as well as single shot. But in Paremeter protection, full auto was what was normally accepted. You see, we would be out numbered by at least 10 to one. And it would be in total darkness. WE already saw pictures of a successful overrun. And we were scared shitless in that bunker. I was only involved in one Overrun and it failed. We had Regular SPs and Augmentees from Aircraft Support, Cooks, Clerks, etc. manning those bunkers. But we were well trained regardless. What you think takes months, we do in weeks for training. WE were there to just buy time until the Air and Artillery could be brought on in force. One charlie got within 50 feet of our AC and a M-60 mounted on a Jeep hit the bad guys satchel charge. There was nothing left of him to pickup. These attackers weren't VC. They were well trained and equipped NVA who would sacrifice to the last man to blow up those AC. They didn't get their wish to blow up the Birds but they did get their wish to go down to the last man. I imagine quite a few bugged out but enough stayed to make it real warm. Vietnam ended and I turned in my Augmentee status.

Oh, did I mention we didn't use the same crappy ammo the Army did? Our M-16s rarely jammed in full Auto or even single fire. Your Ammo was just plain crap.

From what I can see, if someone disagrees with you and people like you you go into attacking that person on a personal level. That alone tells me that you shouldn't be around guns. You failed the mentality test.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Yes - we can regulate his toys. You know, things like fertilizer, ammonium nitrate, fuel oil, cars, knives, swords, etc., etc., etc. - none of which will stop him. When you choose to require a background check to get a driver's license, then we can talk. It is nonsensical to punish those who don't commit a crime for the actions of those who do.

You will notice that, recently, the car bombs in Afghanistan killed 232 people -- and not a gun in sight. You will notice that crashing a truck through a crowd at a Xmas bazaar in Germany killed 13 - and not a gun in sight. You will notice that a machete wielding maniac in London killed two and wounded 6 - and not a gun in sight.

In short, "controlling guns" (which is liberal-speak for "taking guns away because we don't know what else to do, and this is the easiest activity so we can FEEL like we did something), accomplishes nothing, other than to encourage crime.

But, I disagree with your premise that we can't control the "nut case." A simple, centralized database (we already have it) expanded to include the mentally ill, those suffering mental issues, criminals, domestic abusers., etc. will provide a reasonable foundation for a permit denial program. You don't need to know where all the guns are - you need to know where all the "nut cases" are. You don't need to keep guns out of the hands of everybody - you need to keep your "nut cases" away from guns. I have absolutely no problem being required to inform the government that I take Xanax for depression, but am mightily opposed to telling them how many weapons I have.I have no problem telling all mental health providers that they are required to report their patients to the federal government, but I strongly object to requiring my weapons provider to register my purchases.

Notice how you inherently object to telling the government about an individual's health conditions - as an invasion of privacy? Now, you know how I feel about my guns. You seem to object to "throwing out the constitution" when it comes to "nut cases", but not objection whatsoever to "throwing out the constitution" when it comes to "gun owners". An interesting dichotomy, I think.

As for the issue of high-capacity magazines, that's just another "feel good" non-solution. The AVERAGE gun user can change magazines in about 3 seconds -virtually a non-stop shooting situation. Your proposal makes you FEEL like you're doing something - but it accomplishes exactly nothing.

Funny you should mention the "no fully automatic weapons" thing ----- there are, virtually, no LEGAL automatic weapons on the street. However, within the past three months, I've had the opportunity to shoot an automatic weapon at two different shooting ranges (and can testify you can't hit a damn thing with them). But, we've had two shootings in the past three months using automatic weapons here locally. Frankly, if somebody were shooting at me, I would PREFER he use an automatic weapon. They are terribly inaccurate, and my odds of survival go up - not down. Automatic fire serves no purpose other than making loud noises and lots of smoke. A great suppression tool, but pretty useless as a killing tool.

And how many times does he reload? You are ignoring physics if you think magazines capacity doesn't slow a shooter. And if it doesn't then why do the gun nuts fight for high capacity magazines?

Lets slow mass shooters down.

Incompetence is its own reward. Picking an isolated failure, and projecting it onto all shooters, is both nonsensical and intellectually dishonest.

Anyone who shoots knows these things happen all the time. It is dishonest to claim they don't. And it certainly is dishonest to go against physics and claim reloading doesn't slow a shooter.

Had you bothered to actually read the post - and I'm assuming you have a 6th grade retention level - I actually was saying that changing magazines does not appreciably alter the shooter's ability because a magazine change takes about 3 seconds. Nowhere did I make the nonsensical claim you accuse me of.

Grow up.

You have any idea how long it takes to load a magazine? Or how much a couple thousand rds. of ammo weigh or how many loaded mags would would be required and how much the combined weight of the two would be?
You very much underestimate the time required to change magazines in the real world.

Actually, like we did for the bunkers, we already had the ammo mags stashed. Boxes and Boxes of them. Preloaded and ready to go. You could change out a mag in about a half second. From what I could see, the LV shooter took days to set up and brought his gear up in many many trips. I do notice that the news never covered how many mags were there, just how many guns. He was well prepared for his mission and had the money, time and training to accomplish it. There are many "Schools" throughout the US that will teach you this type of mission. Mostly taught by gun nuts who have large guns and small genitals.

 

[cnelsen]

1. People get put on that list simply because of their name
2. Questionable? lol.. there you go
3. Suppressors do protect ear drums. At least a little bit. Some say it eliminates the need to use ear protection which leaves your hearing open to everything around you.

Instead of being a knee-jerk hack, we could come up with solutions for number one or two. Instead, you statists throw out more emotion than a woman that is 9 months pregnant with quadruplets.

No, no......keep shoving that 2 amendment up your ass and keep your kids from walking out in the open streets.......there's LOTS of 2nd amendment proponents out there who need to arm themselves to ward off moose and deer attacks.

The 2nd Amendment is a protection against tyranny. One of the first things the Bolsheviks did after they made anti-Semitism a capital offense was to ban guns. Then 66 million white Christians died.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

1. People get put on that list simply because of their name
2. Questionable? lol.. there you go
3. Suppressors do protect ear drums. At least a little bit. Some say it eliminates the need to use ear protection which leaves your hearing open to everything around you.

Instead of being a knee-jerk hack, we could come up with solutions for number one or two. Instead, you statists throw out more emotion than a woman that is 9 months pregnant with quadruplets.

No, no......keep shoving that 2 amendment up your ass and keep your kids from walking out in the open streets.......there's LOTS of 2nd amendment proponents out there who need to arm themselves to ward off moose and deer attacks.

The 2nd Amendment is a protection against tyranny. One of the first things the Bolsheviks did after they made anti-Semitism a capital offense was to ban guns. Then 66 million white Christians died.

I don't suggest that the various gun laws should be done by the Feds since the 2nd amendment clearly voids that. But the various states have that right. Utah is one of the loosest gun law states there is. Even Alabama has stricter laws. So stop with the preaching that the Feds want to take your guns. The States have the right and the obligation and are not hampered by the 2nd amendment so much.

 

[Brain357]

Yes - we can regulate his toys. You know, things like fertilizer, ammonium nitrate, fuel oil, cars, knives, swords, etc., etc., etc. - none of which will stop him. When you choose to require a background check to get a driver's license, then we can talk. It is nonsensical to punish those who don't commit a crime for the actions of those who do.

You will notice that, recently, the car bombs in Afghanistan killed 232 people -- and not a gun in sight. You will notice that crashing a truck through a crowd at a Xmas bazaar in Germany killed 13 - and not a gun in sight. You will notice that a machete wielding maniac in London killed two and wounded 6 - and not a gun in sight.

In short, "controlling guns" (which is liberal-speak for "taking guns away because we don't know what else to do, and this is the easiest activity so we can FEEL like we did something), accomplishes nothing, other than to encourage crime.

But, I disagree with your premise that we can't control the "nut case." A simple, centralized database (we already have it) expanded to include the mentally ill, those suffering mental issues, criminals, domestic abusers., etc. will provide a reasonable foundation for a permit denial program. You don't need to know where all the guns are - you need to know where all the "nut cases" are. You don't need to keep guns out of the hands of everybody - you need to keep your "nut cases" away from guns. I have absolutely no problem being required to inform the government that I take Xanax for depression, but am mightily opposed to telling them how many weapons I have.I have no problem telling all mental health providers that they are required to report their patients to the federal government, but I strongly object to requiring my weapons provider to register my purchases.

Notice how you inherently object to telling the government about an individual's health conditions - as an invasion of privacy? Now, you know how I feel about my guns. You seem to object to "throwing out the constitution" when it comes to "nut cases", but not objection whatsoever to "throwing out the constitution" when it comes to "gun owners". An interesting dichotomy, I think.

As for the issue of high-capacity magazines, that's just another "feel good" non-solution. The AVERAGE gun user can change magazines in about 3 seconds -virtually a non-stop shooting situation. Your proposal makes you FEEL like you're doing something - but it accomplishes exactly nothing.

Funny you should mention the "no fully automatic weapons" thing ----- there are, virtually, no LEGAL automatic weapons on the street. However, within the past three months, I've had the opportunity to shoot an automatic weapon at two different shooting ranges (and can testify you can't hit a damn thing with them). But, we've had two shootings in the past three months using automatic weapons here locally. Frankly, if somebody were shooting at me, I would PREFER he use an automatic weapon. They are terribly inaccurate, and my odds of survival go up - not down. Automatic fire serves no purpose other than making loud noises and lots of smoke. A great suppression tool, but pretty useless as a killing tool.

And how many times does he reload? You are ignoring physics if you think magazines capacity doesn't slow a shooter. And if it doesn't then why do the gun nuts fight for high capacity magazines?

Lets slow mass shooters down.

Incompetence is its own reward. Picking an isolated failure, and projecting it onto all shooters, is both nonsensical and intellectually dishonest.

Anyone who shoots knows these things happen all the time. It is dishonest to claim they don't. And it certainly is dishonest to go against physics and claim reloading doesn't slow a shooter.

Had you bothered to actually read the post - and I'm assuming you have a 6th grade retention level - I actually was saying that changing magazines does not appreciably alter the shooter's ability because a magazine change takes about 3 seconds. Nowhere did I make the nonsensical claim you accuse me of.

Grow up.

So if it does slow the shooter, mag capacity should be limited. Nobody is firing that much for defense. Heck people who have fired at all are extremely rare.

 

[Dale Smith]

1. People get put on that list simply because of their name
2. Questionable? lol.. there you go
3. Suppressors do protect ear drums. At least a little bit. Some say it eliminates the need to use ear protection which leaves your hearing open to everything around you.

Instead of being a knee-jerk hack, we could come up with solutions for number one or two. Instead, you statists throw out more emotion than a woman that is 9 months pregnant with quadruplets.

No, no......keep shoving that 2 amendment up your ass and keep your kids from walking out in the open streets.......there's LOTS of 2nd amendment proponents out there who need to arm themselves to ward off moose and deer attacks.

The 2nd Amendment is a protection against tyranny. One of the first things the Bolsheviks did after they made anti-Semitism a capital offense was to ban guns. Then 66 million white Christians died.

I don't suggest that the various gun laws should be done by the Feds since the 2nd amendment clearly voids that. But the various states have that right. Utah is one of the loosest gun law states there is. Even Alabama has stricter laws. So stop with the preaching that the Feds want to take your guns. The States have the right and the obligation and are not hampered by the 2nd amendment so much.

They must want to do just that due to this staged and Operation Gladio type shooting events. If you can't see how badly the Vegas "shooting" reeks then you are not paying attention.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Sorry ---you seem to be sadly misinformed.

So none of us need to purchase car insurance. Most areas, it's compulsive. Why should I pay insurance if I haven't had an accident? We don't need to register our vehicles either. I happen to be a safe driver. Why am I paying for the bad drivers. Until the day that I DO make a mistake and have an accident. It's for public safety.

Buying auto insurance is a fiscal decision - not a public safety decision. No amount of insurance will prevent you having an accident. In fact, in most states, you are NOT required to buy auto insurance - you are given the option of buying auto insurance or posting a "insurer's bond" of some finite amount. It's a fiscal decision.


And what is the first ingredient to a decent ME Car Bomb? High Explosives even if it comes out of a shell which is the favorite way of doing it. In the Middle East, those are all over the place. But in the US, they are very, very hard to get without the proper license and paperwork. Plus, in the US, it takes planning and a "Bomb Maker" usually. The Chemicals are so volatile that usually, the authorities are tipped off. We have had two in the last 20 years that fell trhough the cracks. Yes, it's possible but not the best idea to kill 100 or less people at one sitting.

Timothy McVey blew up the Murrah Federal Building with a load of common fertilizer (ammonium nitrate) and fuel oil - both readily available on the open market. Clearly, you know nothing about bomb making. Frankly, a truck load of fertilizer is the most efficient, and least recognizable, way to kill a group of people. Course, you could just put the stuff in a pressure cooker and leave it beside the Boston Marathon, too. Your argument makes no sense.

As for the issue of high-capacity magazines, that's just another "feel good" non-solution. The AVERAGE gun user can change magazines in about 3 seconds -virtually a non-stop shooting situation. Your proposal makes you FEEL like you're doing something - but it accomplishes exactly nothing.

More like 2 seconds for each Mag. If it takes you 3 or more seconds just to change mags then you are just a wanna be. In my circles, I can change mages in about a second or less. If I am using a bump stock, I can go through 2 30 round mags in less than 2 seconds. You mentioned the accuracy of an full auto. You are mishandling the weapon. When I first qualified with an M-16, it was full auto. Those rounds counted against your score. If you handle the weapon, you can get all 10 into a man sized target at 100 yds. Okay, not all will be in the kill zone but you have to do at least 6 out of 10 in the kill area. If you can't then you shouldn't be handling the weapon.

You know, that's interesting. I spent 20 years in the military - carrying the M-16 the whole time. In that time, I never saw an M-16 used in full auto, except in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan (even then, it was only in life-or-death situations, since full auto uses up your ammo so quickly). Your comment about qualifying on the M-16 in full auto is, simply, bullshit. As for your premise of putting half a clip in a man at 100 yards on full auto, again you expose yourself to accusations of lies. Watch this ... a pro shooting an AR-15, full auto, at about 25 yards. See how accurate he is at THAT range, and then tell me again how you can put half a mag in a man sized target at 100 yards.

Where do we draw the line? Just how many St.Valentines Massecers do we need before we do the same..

I'm going to ignore the rest of your "shooting experience" since the whole thing is so full of holes, I think that is what you're shooting at. You have clearly "demonstrated" your practical knowledge - or lack of it - in firearms.

I notice how you've conveniently decided to ignore the PROBLEM - and focused on the TOOLS. If you want nutcases to stop killing people, stop giving nutcases the capability. Focus on the disease, not the symptom.

I see the problem we in the AF already knew. Anyone wearing a pickle suit with US ARMY on it is thought to be qualified as Infantry. Newsflash, until after Nam, WE, USAF, did our own base security. We were ID'd in Basic Training, went to our respective Tech Schools for various career fields and then spent time learning about weapons. After handling a M-16 for two hours, we were expected to disassemble it and reassemble it in total darkness. We spent time on the range with weapons including the Ruger Police Special, M-16, 1911A1 and M-60. Then we were shipped to SEA. We carried special identifiers as Augmentee Security Police. In the event of a possible over run, our job was to report to the Armory, pick up 6 M-16s and head for our designated parameter bunker. WE joined the M-60 crew that were full time Security Police. Why did we need so many M-16s each? You fired them until the barrel warped and then grabbed another one. Our job was to keep the intruders off the M-60. And we didn't use single shot. WE fire full Auto because you couldn't see your enemy but knew they were there. Kid, you ever seen an overrun? After the DS1 debacle with the really lousy transportation where the only one to receive anything other than a purple heart was Lynch who hid in a wheel well. That changed the AF way of thinking and we went back to handling our own defense and brought back the Augmentees. Just because it's wearing pickle green with US ARMY on it doesn't mean it is an infantry.

So you never fired a M-16 in combat in full auto, then you were never in combat. WE trained to fire it accurately in full auto as well as single shot. But in Paremeter protection, full auto was what was normally accepted. You see, we would be out numbered by at least 10 to one. And it would be in total darkness. WE already saw pictures of a successful overrun. And we were scared shitless in that bunker. I was only involved in one Overrun and it failed. We had Regular SPs and Augmentees from Aircraft Support, Cooks, Clerks, etc. manning those bunkers. But we were well trained regardless. What you think takes months, we do in weeks for training. WE were there to just buy time until the Air and Artillery could be brought on in force. One charlie got within 50 feet of our AC and a M-60 mounted on a Jeep hit the bad guys satchel charge. There was nothing left of him to pickup. These attackers weren't VC. They were well trained and equipped NVA who would sacrifice to the last man to blow up those AC. They didn't get their wish to blow up the Birds but they did get their wish to go down to the last man. I imagine quite a few bugged out but enough stayed to make it real warm. Vietnam ended and I turned in my Augmentee status.

Oh, did I mention we didn't use the same crappy ammo the Army did? Our M-16s rarely jammed in full Auto or even single fire. Your Ammo was just plain crap.

From what I can see, if someone disagrees with you and people like you you go into attacking that person on a personal level. That alone tells me that you shouldn't be around guns. You failed the mentality test.

And how many times does he reload? You are ignoring physics if you think magazines capacity doesn't slow a shooter. And if it doesn't then why do the gun nuts fight for high capacity magazines?

Lets slow mass shooters down.

Incompetence is its own reward. Picking an isolated failure, and projecting it onto all shooters, is both nonsensical and intellectually dishonest.

Anyone who shoots knows these things happen all the time. It is dishonest to claim they don't. And it certainly is dishonest to go against physics and claim reloading doesn't slow a shooter.

Had you bothered to actually read the post - and I'm assuming you have a 6th grade retention level - I actually was saying that changing magazines does not appreciably alter the shooter's ability because a magazine change takes about 3 seconds. Nowhere did I make the nonsensical claim you accuse me of.

Grow up.

You have any idea how long it takes to load a magazine? Or how much a couple thousand rds. of ammo weigh or how many loaded mags would would be required and how much the combined weight of the two would be?
You very much underestimate the time required to change magazines in the real world.

Actually, like we did for the bunkers, we already had the ammo mags stashed. Boxes and Boxes of them. Preloaded and ready to go. You could change out a mag in about a half second. From what I could see, the LV shooter took days to set up and brought his gear up in many many trips. I do notice that the news never covered how many mags were there, just how many guns. He was well prepared for his mission and had the money, time and training to accomplish it. There are many "Schools" throughout the US that will teach you this type of mission. Mostly taught by gun nuts who have large guns and small genitals.

Sorry, but you are full of shit.
Perimeter guard in a bunker is choice duty especially compared with service with a combat unit.
AF security almost never saw combat. The tiny percentage that did saw very little.
Each man picked up 6 M-16s? Bullshit!
I was with a ground combat unit during a period for which it was awarded a Valorous Unit Citation. I never saw anybody empty a full mag. in one go firing full auto much less warp a barrel. And I'm pretty sure that the Army would make them pay for a replacement if they did. A great way to run out of ammo and/or screw up your weapon.
An "overrun" that fails is known as an "attack".
In order to change magazines the shooter must recognize that he has expended the loaded mag., change his hold on the rifle to drop the empty, find and check to make sure the replacement is loaded and properly oriented, insert the fresh mag.making sure it locks in and the bolt goes forward on a fresh rd.and locks, then the shooter must change his hold to reacquire the target. Half a second? Bullshit.
The civilian training schools teach defense; not mass murder like the LV shooter is said to have carried out.
Learning how to gas up aircraft in no way qualifies you as some kind of flying Rambo. Nor does it indicate you know a damn thing about infantry weapons.
Frankly I simply don't believe the LV incident involved a single shooter. More likely one shooter per weapon with many extra loaded magazines. I seriously doubt that that many people could have been killed and wounded by a single shooter with an actual belt-fed machinegun.

 

[9thIDdoc]

1. People get put on that list simply because of their name
2. Questionable? lol.. there you go
3. Suppressors do protect ear drums. At least a little bit. Some say it eliminates the need to use ear protection which leaves your hearing open to everything around you.

Instead of being a knee-jerk hack, we could come up with solutions for number one or two. Instead, you statists throw out more emotion than a woman that is 9 months pregnant with quadruplets.

No, no......keep shoving that 2 amendment up your ass and keep your kids from walking out in the open streets.......there's LOTS of 2nd amendment proponents out there who need to arm themselves to ward off moose and deer attacks.

The 2nd Amendment is a protection against tyranny. One of the first things the Bolsheviks did after they made anti-Semitism a capital offense was to ban guns. Then 66 million white Christians died.

I don't suggest that the various gun laws should be done by the Feds since the 2nd amendment clearly voids that. But the various states have that right. Utah is one of the loosest gun law states there is. Even Alabama has stricter laws. So stop with the preaching that the Feds want to take your guns. The States have the right and the obligation and are not hampered by the 2nd amendment so much.

Wrong. As has been proven over and over in court the Federal Constitution trumps State Constitutions. The States have no more authority to deny Constitution rights to the People than the US Constitution.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Yes - we can regulate his toys. You know, things like fertilizer, ammonium nitrate, fuel oil, cars, knives, swords, etc., etc., etc. - none of which will stop him. When you choose to require a background check to get a driver's license, then we can talk. It is nonsensical to punish those who don't commit a crime for the actions of those who do.

You will notice that, recently, the car bombs in Afghanistan killed 232 people -- and not a gun in sight. You will notice that crashing a truck through a crowd at a Xmas bazaar in Germany killed 13 - and not a gun in sight. You will notice that a machete wielding maniac in London killed two and wounded 6 - and not a gun in sight.

In short, "controlling guns" (which is liberal-speak for "taking guns away because we don't know what else to do, and this is the easiest activity so we can FEEL like we did something), accomplishes nothing, other than to encourage crime.

But, I disagree with your premise that we can't control the "nut case." A simple, centralized database (we already have it) expanded to include the mentally ill, those suffering mental issues, criminals, domestic abusers., etc. will provide a reasonable foundation for a permit denial program. You don't need to know where all the guns are - you need to know where all the "nut cases" are. You don't need to keep guns out of the hands of everybody - you need to keep your "nut cases" away from guns. I have absolutely no problem being required to inform the government that I take Xanax for depression, but am mightily opposed to telling them how many weapons I have.I have no problem telling all mental health providers that they are required to report their patients to the federal government, but I strongly object to requiring my weapons provider to register my purchases.

Notice how you inherently object to telling the government about an individual's health conditions - as an invasion of privacy? Now, you know how I feel about my guns. You seem to object to "throwing out the constitution" when it comes to "nut cases", but not objection whatsoever to "throwing out the constitution" when it comes to "gun owners". An interesting dichotomy, I think.

As for the issue of high-capacity magazines, that's just another "feel good" non-solution. The AVERAGE gun user can change magazines in about 3 seconds -virtually a non-stop shooting situation. Your proposal makes you FEEL like you're doing something - but it accomplishes exactly nothing.

Funny you should mention the "no fully automatic weapons" thing ----- there are, virtually, no LEGAL automatic weapons on the street. However, within the past three months, I've had the opportunity to shoot an automatic weapon at two different shooting ranges (and can testify you can't hit a damn thing with them). But, we've had two shootings in the past three months using automatic weapons here locally. Frankly, if somebody were shooting at me, I would PREFER he use an automatic weapon. They are terribly inaccurate, and my odds of survival go up - not down. Automatic fire serves no purpose other than making loud noises and lots of smoke. A great suppression tool, but pretty useless as a killing tool.

And how many times does he reload? You are ignoring physics if you think magazines capacity doesn't slow a shooter. And if it doesn't then why do the gun nuts fight for high capacity magazines?

Lets slow mass shooters down.

Incompetence is its own reward. Picking an isolated failure, and projecting it onto all shooters, is both nonsensical and intellectually dishonest.

Anyone who shoots knows these things happen all the time. It is dishonest to claim they don't. And it certainly is dishonest to go against physics and claim reloading doesn't slow a shooter.

Had you bothered to actually read the post - and I'm assuming you have a 6th grade retention level - I actually was saying that changing magazines does not appreciably alter the shooter's ability because a magazine change takes about 3 seconds. Nowhere did I make the nonsensical claim you accuse me of.

Grow up.

So if it does slow the shooter, mag capacity should be limited. Nobody is firing that much for defense. Heck people who have fired at all are extremely rare.

Would you also deny or limit fire extinguishers because house fires are rare? Firearms are simply emergency equipment, among other things. If you wait until there is an emergency it is too late to acquire one.

 

[Spare_change]

Yes - we can regulate his toys. You know, things like fertilizer, ammonium nitrate, fuel oil, cars, knives, swords, etc., etc., etc. - none of which will stop him. When you choose to require a background check to get a driver's license, then we can talk. It is nonsensical to punish those who don't commit a crime for the actions of those who do.

You will notice that, recently, the car bombs in Afghanistan killed 232 people -- and not a gun in sight. You will notice that crashing a truck through a crowd at a Xmas bazaar in Germany killed 13 - and not a gun in sight. You will notice that a machete wielding maniac in London killed two and wounded 6 - and not a gun in sight.

In short, "controlling guns" (which is liberal-speak for "taking guns away because we don't know what else to do, and this is the easiest activity so we can FEEL like we did something), accomplishes nothing, other than to encourage crime.

But, I disagree with your premise that we can't control the "nut case." A simple, centralized database (we already have it) expanded to include the mentally ill, those suffering mental issues, criminals, domestic abusers., etc. will provide a reasonable foundation for a permit denial program. You don't need to know where all the guns are - you need to know where all the "nut cases" are. You don't need to keep guns out of the hands of everybody - you need to keep your "nut cases" away from guns. I have absolutely no problem being required to inform the government that I take Xanax for depression, but am mightily opposed to telling them how many weapons I have.I have no problem telling all mental health providers that they are required to report their patients to the federal government, but I strongly object to requiring my weapons provider to register my purchases.

Notice how you inherently object to telling the government about an individual's health conditions - as an invasion of privacy? Now, you know how I feel about my guns. You seem to object to "throwing out the constitution" when it comes to "nut cases", but not objection whatsoever to "throwing out the constitution" when it comes to "gun owners". An interesting dichotomy, I think.

As for the issue of high-capacity magazines, that's just another "feel good" non-solution. The AVERAGE gun user can change magazines in about 3 seconds -virtually a non-stop shooting situation. Your proposal makes you FEEL like you're doing something - but it accomplishes exactly nothing.

Funny you should mention the "no fully automatic weapons" thing ----- there are, virtually, no LEGAL automatic weapons on the street. However, within the past three months, I've had the opportunity to shoot an automatic weapon at two different shooting ranges (and can testify you can't hit a damn thing with them). But, we've had two shootings in the past three months using automatic weapons here locally. Frankly, if somebody were shooting at me, I would PREFER he use an automatic weapon. They are terribly inaccurate, and my odds of survival go up - not down. Automatic fire serves no purpose other than making loud noises and lots of smoke. A great suppression tool, but pretty useless as a killing tool.

And how many times does he reload? You are ignoring physics if you think magazines capacity doesn't slow a shooter. And if it doesn't then why do the gun nuts fight for high capacity magazines?

Lets slow mass shooters down.

Incompetence is its own reward. Picking an isolated failure, and projecting it onto all shooters, is both nonsensical and intellectually dishonest.

Anyone who shoots knows these things happen all the time. It is dishonest to claim they don't. And it certainly is dishonest to go against physics and claim reloading doesn't slow a shooter.

Had you bothered to actually read the post - and I'm assuming you have a 6th grade retention level - I actually was saying that changing magazines does not appreciably alter the shooter's ability because a magazine change takes about 3 seconds. Nowhere did I make the nonsensical claim you accuse me of.

Grow up.

You have any idea how long it takes to load a magazine? Or how much a couple thousand rds. of ammo weigh or how many loaded mags would would be required and how much the combined weight of the two would be?
You very much underestimate the time required to change magazines in the real world.

The discussion of time to change mags was merely used as an example to expose the poster's lack of knowledge. Changing a clip in an AR-15 takes about 2-3 seconds for the reasonably competent. His discussion about thousands of rounds and magazines holding hundreds of cartridges, etc., etc., etc. was nothing more than further proof of his ignorance. If you like, I'll be happy to post a video of mag change, and you can measure the time.

 

[Brain357]

And how many times does he reload? You are ignoring physics if you think magazines capacity doesn't slow a shooter. And if it doesn't then why do the gun nuts fight for high capacity magazines?

Lets slow mass shooters down.

Incompetence is its own reward. Picking an isolated failure, and projecting it onto all shooters, is both nonsensical and intellectually dishonest.

Anyone who shoots knows these things happen all the time. It is dishonest to claim they don't. And it certainly is dishonest to go against physics and claim reloading doesn't slow a shooter.

Had you bothered to actually read the post - and I'm assuming you have a 6th grade retention level - I actually was saying that changing magazines does not appreciably alter the shooter's ability because a magazine change takes about 3 seconds. Nowhere did I make the nonsensical claim you accuse me of.

Grow up.

So if it does slow the shooter, mag capacity should be limited. Nobody is firing that much for defense. Heck people who have fired at all are extremely rare.

Would you also deny or limit fire extinguishers because house fires are rare? Firearms are simply emergency equipment, among other things. If you wait until there is an emergency it is too late to acquire one.

When was the last mass killing with a fire extinguisher as the weapon? Get real.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Incompetence is its own reward. Picking an isolated failure, and projecting it onto all shooters, is both nonsensical and intellectually dishonest.

Anyone who shoots knows these things happen all the time. It is dishonest to claim they don't. And it certainly is dishonest to go against physics and claim reloading doesn't slow a shooter.

Had you bothered to actually read the post - and I'm assuming you have a 6th grade retention level - I actually was saying that changing magazines does not appreciably alter the shooter's ability because a magazine change takes about 3 seconds. Nowhere did I make the nonsensical claim you accuse me of.

Grow up.

So if it does slow the shooter, mag capacity should be limited. Nobody is firing that much for defense. Heck people who have fired at all are extremely rare.

Would you also deny or limit fire extinguishers because house fires are rare? Firearms are simply emergency equipment, among other things. If you wait until there is an emergency it is too late to acquire one.

When was the last mass killing with a fire extinguisher as the weapon? Get real.

When was the last time an AR-15 was used to put out a house fire? Read.

 

[Brain357]

Anyone who shoots knows these things happen all the time. It is dishonest to claim they don't. And it certainly is dishonest to go against physics and claim reloading doesn't slow a shooter.

Had you bothered to actually read the post - and I'm assuming you have a 6th grade retention level - I actually was saying that changing magazines does not appreciably alter the shooter's ability because a magazine change takes about 3 seconds. Nowhere did I make the nonsensical claim you accuse me of.

Grow up.

So if it does slow the shooter, mag capacity should be limited. Nobody is firing that much for defense. Heck people who have fired at all are extremely rare.

Would you also deny or limit fire extinguishers because house fires are rare? Firearms are simply emergency equipment, among other things. If you wait until there is an emergency it is too late to acquire one.

When was the last mass killing with a fire extinguisher as the weapon? Get real.

When was the last time an AR-15 was used to put out a house fire? Read.

It hasn't. But we've seen what a semi auto rifle with high capacity mags can do for killing. See Orlando and Vegas. When somebody does that with a fire extinguisher you might have a point.

 

[charwin95]

Ignorance really? Let me get this straight. If a lunatic use a gun fitted with silencers to kill innocent people—— Is that acceptable? Just imagine a lunatic shooting people without hearing a gun shot. How will others determine there is a shooting going on? Instead of running or ducking —— they just sit still.

Of how convenient.

C'mon .... you seriously think perverting the intent of somebody's post is going to further your argument??

Just grow up ....

As for the inelegant naivete of your argument against silencers - they don't silence. At best, they reduce the sound marginally (from about 160 dB to 120-130 dB), and do now address the "crack of the shot" - the sound made as the bullet travels its route breaking the sound barrier. I can't imagine a "lunatic shooting people without hearing a gun shot" - probably because it is physically impossible (the movies notwithstanding)

Really? WATCH THIS EVERYONE.

Show me a facts or a link that a silencer will reduce from 160db to 120-130dB.
I AM WAITING.


If a lunatic person want to fit his gun with a silencer. Shooting his gun at distance of 600 feet. How much noise is that for others as a warning to run?

So using a silencer is that supposed to be acceptable?

Are you waiting????

ARE YOU READY??

SURE YOU CAN HANDLE THIS?

GONNA 'HURT YOUR FEELINGS !!

From a thread posted on this site yesterday
------------------------------------------------------
Let's just go ahead and put another nonsensical liberal diatribe to bed ....

Hillary Clinton claimed Monday that even more people would have been killed in the recent Las Vegas massacre if the shooter had used a “silencer.”

“The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots,” she tweeted. “Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get.”

2 Oct
Hillary Clinton

[emoji818]@HillaryClinton
Las Vegas, we are grieving with you—the victims, those who lost loved ones, the responders, & all affected by this cold-blooded massacre.

Follow
Hillary Clinton

[emoji818]@HillaryClinton
The crowd fled at the sound of gunshots.

Imagine the deaths if the shooter had a silencer, which the NRA wants to make easier to get.

Clinton was making a pointed reference to a bill Congress is considering to ease restrictions on the sale and purchase of firearm suppressors.

Verdict: False

Clinton’s claim implies that gun “silencers” reduce the noise made by the shooting of the bullet and the bullet’s flight and impact to a point of near inaudibility. Neither implication holds up to the facts.

Fact Check:

A gun “silencer” or suppressor operates by “containing” the gases and fiery exhaust that are released upon the firing of a bullet. This release of high pressure gas and exhaust results in the loud sound associated with gunshots.

How loud a gunshot is depends on what gun and bullet are being fired. An average gunshot is around 140 decibels (dB), a unit that measures sound. Gun experts told The Daily Caller News Foundation that gunshots from assault rifles and automatic firearms, such as those used in the Las Vegas shooting, measure around 150 to 160 dB.

(For perspective, a busy city street measures around 80 dB loud.)

Suppressors similarly vary based on design and size in how much of this sound they can absorb.

Joshua Waldon, CEO of the gun suppressor designer and manufacturer SilencerCo., estimated to TheDCNF that unsuppressed gunshots range between 155 to 165 dB, while suppressed gunfire range in the “upper 130s,” a 20 to 30-decibel drop.

TheDCNF also examined a 2005 experiment that measured gunshot sound levels produced by over 120 combinations of guns, bullets, and suppressors. The experiment involved multiple assault rifles and automatic guns. The average sound level produced by the unsuppressed test shoots was over 160 dB. The average sound level produced by the suppressed test shoots was just over 135 dB, leaving an average 25 dB difference.

These case studies of suppressor effectiveness indicate significant sound reduction. Decibels are logarithmically scaled; a 12.5 percent drop in decibels from 160 dB to 140 dB represents a 10,000 percent reduction in sound, as each three-decibel increase or decrease represents a doubling or halving, respectively, of sound levels.

This supports Clinton’s notion that gun “silencers” or suppressors make gunshots significantly quieter. The issue, however, is that suppressed gunfire is still loud. Sound levels in the “upper 130s” decibels are comparable to those of a rock concert or sports crowd.

“It’s not like the movies,” SilencerCo. CEO Waldon told TheDCNF. “There’s zero reflection of what you see in Hollywood. It’s still loud.”

Gun suppressors lower gunshot sound levels “from simply ear shattering to very loud,” a New York-based gun hobbyist and Second Amendment advocate explained to TheDCNF.

The sound of the gunshot, however, is just half of the equation. There is also the sound made by the flight and impact of the bullet, both of which are affected by the speed of the bullet.

Suppressors’ effect on bullet speed is “low to nonexistent.”

The noise made by a bullet’s flight, often referred to as the sonic crack, is a “constant crack during the entire flight of the bullet because it’s flying [faster than] the speed of sound,” Waldon explained to the TheDCNF. “It’s an extremely loud, very loud sound.”

An experiment conducted for a 2014 outdoorsman and shooting training manual measured the sound made by variously sized bullets from a rifle, with and without a suppressor. Sound measurements were taken 165 feet away from the rifle. The experiment indicated immaterial changes in bullet flight sound levels with suppressor use.

This was just one experiment involving only one gun and suppressor with three different bullet sizes. Still, numerous gun experts and advocates confirmed its findings to TheDCNF – suppressors don’t reduce much sound from bullets already traveling faster than the speed of sound.

TheDCNF could not identify any publicly available measurements of the exact decibel sound level of bullet impacts at comparable ranges to the Las Vegas shooting with and without suppressors. Gun experts and hobbyists, including former military personnel, however, described bullet impacts as “just as loud as a bullet [being shot].”

Clinton claimed that the use of gun suppressors or “silencers” by the Las Vegas gunman could have worsened Sunday night’s tragedy that left nearly 60 dead and hundreds wounded on the basis that the crowd would not have heard the gunshots in time to flee. Although it is not confirmed yet if the shooter indeed was not even using a suppressor, Clinton’s claim relies on implications of how gun and gun suppressor mechanics work that do not hold up to the facts.

FACT CHECK: Do Gun Suppressors Really Silence ‘The Sound Of Gunshots’? |

Don't apologize - just say thank you for broadening your knowledge, and for not taking this opportunity to tell everybody how uninformed you really are.

As for your final nonsensical question - the sonic crack of the first bullet will serve as warning to all ... I'm guessing that after about 30 shots, even a liberal would figure out somebody was shooting.

This is very funny. Remember people like Tucker distort facts. Did you really read your link or to just look at it? If you didn’t. For your own sake PLEASE read it again.

Clinton NEVER said INAUDABILITY. She never said that. But your link said she said that. That is a lie. Keep reading your link there are lots of false and inconsistencies.

Did you even watch some of the news videos when the shooting was taken place? And the people interviewed? It took them awhile to realized it was semi automatic gun shots. Just imagine if he used a silencers.
Hillary is right——- this sick dude could have killed thousand with if he fitted his big guns with silencers.

Using liberals to counter act with your rebuttal shows you are weak. Why? What is this has to do with liberals? Are you saying most of those attendees are liberals? Are you saying that only liberals has brain? Grow up dude.

Attack the facts ---- tell us what facts are wrong?

Not 160 dB? Not 130 dB? No sonic crack? You, and Hillary, claim that using a silencer would have meant "thousands" killed because they wouldn't be able to hear the gunshots. I say - and the reference says - you both are wrong.

Prove your point.

As for the liberal comment ---- can't you even read? I said that you had a nice try - for a liberal ... more particularly, for a liberal who has absolutely ZERO facts to back them up ... who doesn't allow their ignorance to stop them from posting a moronic post like yours ... for a liberal who, when shown his error, doubles down, calls people names, tries to discredit the source rather than the content. I have no idea why you would think I was commenting about liberals at the concert. Your reading comprehension definitely went haywire.

You can be absolutely confident that i never said, nor did I mean to indicate, that a liberal had a brain. The Scarecrow did better than most liberals.

I admit I don’t know much about gun silencers. My mistake. That is called INTEGRITY.———- REPEAT I admit I don’t know much about gun silencers because it’s not a normal day to day type of discussion. Normally I researched before I post.

However in your case because you lied to me in a separate thread———- You claimed that Trump Executive Orders created jobs and open a lot of markets. I repeatedly ask you for a proof. But you came up nothing. That is how I viewed your post a dishonest person.

This has nothing to do with with liberals but is has something to with your ignorance and tolerance to dishonesty.

On top of that you’ve use Tucker Carlson a Fox News as your link which published a lot of real fake news.
There are lots of good articles written about gun silencers as back as 2010 to 2014.

From your link. The CEO of gun silencers talking about the weakness of his products. Since when a CEO talking weakness about his products? Then Coming from Tucker which are good of exploring the technicalities but not the reality.

Dude go take your meds.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Lets just say that the republicans would have us living in the 19th century again...I'll take western Europe any day of the week!

 

[Spare_change]

Lets just say that the republicans would have us living in the 19th century again...I'll take western Europe any day of the week!

I couldn't agree more --- I think you should.