Speaking of having guns at school......this should peek some interest

[lostaussie]

oh no..........say it ain't so

http://tylerpaper.com/article/20130228/NEWS01/302289989

[lostaussie]

uh...........no comment:D.............probably the best

http://tylerpaper.com/article/20130228/NEWS01/130229813

[icu812]

Well at least they found out during training he needs a new gun. Hope he will be ok.

[Macarthur]

Sounds like the guy is going to be okay.

I'm telling you, the majority of teachers I've been around in my life do not instill confidence knowing they are packing at school. Doesn't mean they were bad teachers.

Said it on the other thread - I do not think this is a good idea.

[Cam]

Sounds like the guy is going to be okay.

I'm telling you, the majority of teachers I've been around in my life do not instill confidence knowing they are packing at school. Doesn't mean they were bad teachers.

Said it on the other thread - I do not think this is a good idea.

I just thought of something Macarthur....my father in law was one of Macarthur's body guards during WWII.....just sayin' cause your avatar reminded me of it......carry on....

[Phil C]

Fortunately no one was hurt but I need to remind you that

IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED THEN ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS!!

:flaming:

[lostaussie]

Fortunately no one was hurt

I think you mean "fortunately no one was KILLED".............cause I'm pretty damn sure when that bullet popped his arse he was hurt!!!

[Macarthur]

I just thought of something Macarthur....my father in law was one of Macarthur's body guards during WWII.....just sayin' cause your avatar reminded me of it......carry on....

That is very cool. Mac was one of our most facinating military figures. Brilliant but certainly had his flaws.

[Macarthur]

Fortunately no one was hurt but I need to remind you that

IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED THEN ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS!!

:flaming:

The problem, IMO, is that the overreaction in the direction of arming everyone is a huge overcompensation for the extremely rare instances that someone would actually need a gun in those situations.

While not the exact same subject, this piece the other night is really worrisome about the number and quality of individuals that are wanting to carry concealed handguns.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Safety-concerns-raised-over-193438831.html

[BwdLion73]

The problem, IMO, is that the overreaction in the direction of arming everyone is a huge overcompensation for the extremely rare instances that someone would actually need a gun in those situations.

While not the exact same subject, this piece the other night is really worrisome about the number and quality of individuals that are wanting to carry concealed handguns.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Safety-concerns-raised-over-193438831.html

I agree, but I think there is overeaction on both sides. the "get rid of guns side" is helping to fuel the "guns...when do we get guns" side. As far the "rare instance" I hope someone has a gun.

[Macarthur]

True. There is too much overreaction on both sides

[ethsfbnut]

I agree, but I think there is overeaction on both sides. the "get rid of guns side" is helping to fuel the "guns...when do we get guns" side. As far the "rare instance" I hope someone has a gun.

Also agree. Some people that are " for guns" don`t want a gun themselves. But they want, and don`t care, for others to be allowed to have guns. Has to be a balance so the bad guys don`t take over.

[Black_Magic]

Fortunately no one was hurt but I need to remind you that

IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED THEN ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS!!

:flaming:

:doh:.. Statistical fact is that if you have a gun in your home for the reason of protection against an intruder then you are 25 times more likely to either die from it your self or kill someone else in the home that lives there.. thats just a statistical fact man.. so if you have a gun in your home for the reason to protect you, then your more likely to eithrer shoot your sellf, get shot by it by accident, get shot by your spouse or someone else in your house, shoot your spouse, or have some one else in your home kill them self with it than you are to shoot some intruder into your house.. those are statistical truths.. Now if your gun is there because you go hunting with it then those statistice dont reallly apply in the same way
now do they..

[BwdLion73]

Hope they didn't spend a lot of money on that study. Statistical truths...:doh:

[lostaussie]

I fit all of the above statistics:D

[Phil C]

:doh:.. Statistical fact is that if you have a gun in your home for the reason of protection against an intruder then you are 25 times more likely to either die from it your self or kill someone else in the home that lives there.. thats just a statistical fact man.. so if you have a gun in your home for the reason to protect you, then your more likely to eithrer shoot your sellf, get shot by it by accident, get shot by your spouse or someone else in your house, shoot your spouse, or have some one else in your home kill them self with it than you are to shoot some intruder into your house.. those are statistical truths.. Now if your gun is there because you go hunting with it then those statistice dont reallly apply in the same way
now do they..

You don't seem to understand. Only criminals will have guns if we lose the right to have them as desiered by our founding fathers and the constitution. Heck this right saved us from invasion on the West Coast at the start of WW2. We must not lose this right. I keep saying this and some of you don't seem to understand why.

[ronwx5x]

You don't seem to understand. Only criminals will have guns if we lose the right to have them as desiered by our founding fathers and the constitution. Heck this right saved us from invasion on the West Coast at the start of WW2. We must not lose this right. I keep saying this and some of you don't seem to understand why.

Maybe it's because of your believing that armed citizens kept out a Japanese invasion? There has never been and no one presently is advocating taking away all guns from citziens. Where do you come up with this stuff?

[bobcat1]

Landed another Phil. :2thumbsup

[bobcat1]

oh no..........say it ain't so

http://tylerpaper.com/article/20130228/NEWS01/302289989Gonna have to start calling you Casey.

[ronwx5x]

Landed another Phil. :2thumbsup

Ain't "caught" nobody. Same junk since 2006.

[speedbump]

Landed another Phil. :2thumbsup

Landed another one??? I'd be interested in knowing what part of that BS you think was " landing another one"

[bobcat1]

Landed another one??? I'd be interested in knowing what part of that BS you think was " landing another one"

:taunt:Obviously you don't know Phil. Watch his posts and you will figure it out. No way you could know in 6-7 months though.

[bobcat1]

Ain't "caught" nobody. Same junk since 2006.

:2thumbsup

[bobcat1]

Giving up your guns to keep criminals from getting them is like having a vasectomy because your neighbor has too many kids!

[ronwx5x]

Giving up your guns to keep criminals from getting them is like having a vasectomy because your neighbor has too many kids!

Set an example!

[bobcat1]

Set an example!

:tisk: Not this guy.

[ronwx5x]

:tisk: Not this guy.

Nothing to it. 33 years ago!

[Eagle 1]

It was probably a liberal teacher.
Obviously since the article said, " the accident would not change his mind about a recent decision by the board to arm some teachers" that this was a minor incident.
I still support the decision to allow teachers carry concealed hand guns.

http://i1.wp.com/preachinghelp.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/fife-gun.jpg?resize=230%2C318

[speedbump]

:taunt:Obviously you don't know Phil. Watch his posts and you will figure it out. No way you could know in 6-7 months though.

In other words you can't or won't answer my question.

[bobcat1]

In other words you can't or won't answer my question.

What would give you that impression? I did answer your question. Comprehension must not be your strong suit. Did you know Phil admires the Catholic Church and the Tour DeFrance?:taunt:

[speedbump]

What would give you that impression? I did answer your question. Comprehension must not be your strong suit. Did you know Phil admires the Catholic Church and the Tour DeFrance?:taunt:

OK, I win. Have a good life crawfishing through it.

[Eagle 1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhXPlCjr0Vw&feature=player_embedded

[Macarthur]

Just because he's from newton, doesn't make his opinion any more valid than anyone else.

And frankly I think his smarminess is pretty off putting given the platform and subject matter.

[bobcat1]

OK, I win. Have a good life crawfishing through it.

Yes you won the award alright. :spitlol:

[Eagle 1]

Just because he's from newton, doesn't make his opinion any more valid than anyone else.

And frankly I think his smarminess is pretty off putting given the platform and subject matter.
I would say his opinion is probably more valid than anybody on here. I can't even imagine how I would feel if one of my kids where at that school when they were attacked.

[Ernest T Bass]

I'm telling you, the majority of teachers I've been around in my life do not instill confidence knowing they are packing at school. Doesn't mean they were bad teachers.

.

This is my 10th year in education, and Ive met very few people that I'd feel comfortable knowing they were armed. I agree, this is an EXTREMELY bad idea.

[Macarthur]

I would say his opinion is probably more valid than anybody on here. I can't even imagine how I would feel if one of my kids where at that school when they were attacked.

So if there is a parent that actually lost a child and has a diff view, does their opinion carry more weight than this guy.

My guess is you say no because it doesn't match your view.

[Phil C]

The problem is Ladies and Gentlemen is that if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

[Phil C]

Landed another one??? I'd be interested in knowing what part of that BS you think was " landing another one"

Come on speedbump. Actually this is supposed to be a 3A Downlow sports thread. This means Texas
3A sports not olympics, pro sports or Johnny Manziel. 3A HS Sports! Get the general idea?

[ethsfbnut]

Speedbump sounds sensitive.

[Eagle 1]

So if there is a parent that actually lost a child and has a diff view, does their opinion carry more weight than this guy.

My guess is you say no because it doesn't match your view.
Actually that doesn't matter.
All I'm saying is that this guy's point of view carrys more weight than anybody on this mb.
None the less, he is not alone. Several states have legislation to allow school districts to arm their teachers including Texas.

[ronwx5x]

Speedbump sounds sensitive.
Actually Phil seems as sensitive as anyone. Phil normally spouts off, then sits back and allows everyone to defend him. This is one of the few times he has actually responded. I would venture to say very few of his posts have anything to do with 3A football.

[Macarthur]

The problem is Ladies and Gentlemen is that if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

Strawman. No one is reasonably proposing such a thing.

[Macarthur]

Actually that doesn't matter.
All I'm saying is that this guy's point of view carrys more weight than anybody on this mb.


No, it absolutely does not. You're only saying that because his view happens to parallel yours.


None the less, he is not alone. Several states have legislation to allow school districts to arm their teachers including Texas.

AGain, this doesn't make it any more valid that the fact that MOST states are not doing this. See, I can play this game too.

[BwdLion73]

:wave:

[44INAROW]

Giving up your guns to keep criminals from getting them is like having a vasectomy because your neighbor has too many kids!

ROFL Nice one Bobcat...
if I was in a school (or anywhere for that matter) and some lunatic is firing off rounds, shells, bullets, whatever the PC term is today, I'd much rather the person in the next room be armed with a loaded GUN than a baseball bat or cell phone.. I would prefer the person with the gun be trained, if possible, so kudos for the ISD trying to do the right thing.

[Macarthur]

ROFL Nice one Bobcat...
if I was in a school (or anywhere for that matter) and some lunatic is firing off rounds, shells, bullets, whatever the PC term is today, I'd much rather the person in the next room be armed with a loaded GUN than a baseball bat or cell phone.. I would prefer the person with the gun be trained, if possible, so kudos for the ISD trying to do the right thing.

Well, here's the problem. As horrific as the Sandy Hook thing was, I think putting guns in classrooms is a drastic overreaction. How many of these school shooting situations have we had? There's really only been a small handful in the last couple of decades.

So the answer to that is putting multiple guns in our approx 250,000 public schools in this country? You realize that putting a couple million guns in our public schools that were otherwise not there. I think that is insane. I think you will see many instances of folks stealing those guns, shooting folks with the 'school guns', accidents, etc. I think the death toll would rise exponentially.

[Eagle 1]

http://www.mrconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/gun_41-470x392.jpg

[Eagle 1]

Well, here's the problem. As horrific as the Sandy Hook thing was, I think putting guns in classrooms is a drastic overreaction. How many of these school shooting situations have we had? There's really only been a small handful in the last couple of decades.

So the answer to that is putting multiple guns in our approx 250,000 public schools in this country? You realize that putting a couple million guns in our public schools that were otherwise not there. I think that is insane. I think you will see many instances of folks stealing those guns, shooting folks with the 'school guns', accidents, etc. I think the death toll would rise exponentially.

FAIL....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

[Ernest T Bass]

Put an armed SRO on each campus. Problem solved.

[BwdLion73]

Arm the coaches with their best paddles again. I especially feared the ones with holes drilled in them.

[GrTigers6]

Put an armed SRO on each campus. Problem solved.

Who is going to pay for that?

[Ernest T Bass]

Who is going to pay for that?

Tax payers. It'll cost less than $100,000 a year for most districts. Well less than the lawsuits that will be inevitable if you do something as stupid as arming teachers; and a small price to pay for the lives of children, wouldn't you say?

[Macarthur]

FAIL....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

Let me clairfy. Since 2010 (using your link), there have been 53 deaths. And 27 of those are Sandy Hook. So outside of the one biggie - there have been a total of 26 in just over 2 years. So that averages out of less than one per month.

I think anyone using common sense would agree that putting a couple of million guns in our public schools to stop approximately .96 deaths per month nationally is crazy.

[Macarthur]

Put an armed SRO on each campus. Problem solved.

This seems like the most logical solution. Virtually all middle and secondary schools have officers now. Adding those to elementary would not be that difficult.

[Ernest T Bass]

This seems like the most logical solution. Virtually all middle and secondary schools have officers now. Adding those to elementary would not be that difficult.

Nope, not at all. Great job for a police officer just bidding his time until retirement. My old man will be doing just that in a few weeks.

[Macarthur]

And, Eagle, looking more at your link makes it even more dubious.

If you go through and look at many of those shootings, some were spouses (domestic violence) that just happen to be at a school, one was a parking garage that involved domestic violence (had nothing to do with a school), several were gang related, several suicides and one was a dude just getting on a ramdom school bus.

So that number of deaths that can really be considered 'school shootings' as we view the Sandy Hook situation is much lower.

[Ernest T Bass]

So that number of deaths that can really be considered 'school shootings' as we view the Sandy Hook situation is much lower.

Those are a very new phenomenon, and kinda coincide with the amount of violence(and level of graphic violence) that we entertain ourselves with. As the level of violence in entertainment rises, so does the number and severity of these random violent acts. Maybe just a coincidence. Maybe not.

[Macarthur]

Those are a very new phenomenon, and kinda coincide with the amount of violence(and level of graphic violence) that we entertain ourselves with. As the level of violence in entertainment rises, so does the number and severity of these random violent acts. Maybe just a coincidence. Maybe not.

You know what, there's some really interesting information in this link. Thanks Eagle.

I encourage everyone to really study the link. Go look at the 1950s and see if you see some stark differences in the shootings over the past decade or so.

The thing that jumped out at me is what is used and the resulting body counts. .22 pistols, home made pistols, shotguns. In virtually all of those instances, there were one victim. Contrast that with today where we have semi-automatic weapons and look at the death numbers from 2000 to current. Prior to 2000, these episodes almost always had a single victim. Now, it is common place for there to be multiple victims.

[GrTigers6]

Tax payers. It'll cost less than $100,000 a year for most districts. Well less than the lawsuits that will be inevitable if you do something as stupid as arming teachers; and a small price to pay for the lives of children, wouldn't you say?Thats not my point. Texas is the 49 lowest state in per student funding. And most school districts are at their max tax rate! S I say again where will the money come from.
Also We have 4 campuses with one SRO. So we would have to add three and I doubt we could pay them less than 33k a year and get away with it. And we are a small district. But you are looking at the millions for a district like Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and so on.

[speedbump]

I would say his opinion is probably more valid than anybody on here. I can't even imagine how I would feel if one of my kids where at that school when they were attacked.

I'll tell you this. If one of your kids were killed at that school,you wouldn't be at that hearing running your mouth like this worm.
I'm sure their are some parents that would like a word with him.

[Eagle 1]

And, Eagle, looking more at your link makes it even more dubious.

If you go through and look at many of those shootings, some were spouses (domestic violence) that just happen to be at a school, one was a parking garage that involved domestic violence (had nothing to do with a school), several were gang related, several suicides and one was a dude just getting on a ramdom school bus.

So that number of deaths that can really be considered 'school shootings' as we view the Sandy Hook situation is much lower.

Really? So if a teachers spouse shows up to your childs school and shoots her your ok with that?
The point is, it makes NO difference what kind of shooting there is at a school. Nor does it matter what kind of gun is used.
BTW, you said in the last couple of DECADES, not the last couple of years.

[Eagle 1]

I'll tell you this. If one of your kids were killed at that school,you wouldn't be at that hearing running your mouth like this worm.
I'm sure their are some parents that would like a word with him.

You don't even know me, so don't pretend to know what I would do.

[lostaussie]

I knew at some point this thread would get going:D...........carry on until they dispose of it:D

[Macarthur]

Really? So if a teachers spouse shows up to your childs school and shoots her your ok with that?
The point is, it makes NO difference what kind of shooting there is at a school. Nor does it matter what kind of gun is used.
BTW, you said in the last couple of DECADES, not the last couple of years.

You completely missed the point.

[Eagle 1]

You completely missed the point.

How so?
Any shooting at a school is unexceptable. Wouldn't you agree?

[bobcat1]

I knew at some point this thread would get going:D...........carry on until they dispose of it:D It's Lost (Casey) Aussie's fault.:wave:

[Ernest T Bass]

Thats not my point. Texas is the 49 lowest state in per student funding. And most school districts are at their max tax rate! S I say again where will the money come from.
Also We have 4 campuses with one SRO. So we would have to add three and I doubt we could pay them less than 33k a year and get away with it. And we are a small district. But you are looking at the millions for a district like Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and so on.

School funding is about to get a HUGE overhaul, so don't worry about that. All those who were in favor of the funding cuts 2 years ago(and tax payers) will be begging to have the Robin Hood plan back once this is said and done.

[Eagle 1]

One thing to point out, nobody is saying we need to arm EVERY teacher or school administrator in the school.
I agree there are teachers who don't need to be armed.

[Black_Magic]

You don't seem to understand. Only criminals will have guns if we lose the right to have them as desiered by our founding fathers and the constitution. Heck this right saved us from invasion on the West Coast at the start of WW2. We must not lose this right. I keep saying this and some of you don't seem to understand why.

Look. Im not saying we should give up our guns.. Not at all , and thats not what is being proposed.. Its simple.. the average Joe should not have and does not need an assualt rifle with a 30 round mag.... the right to have a gun is almost universaly supported.. but there has to be comon sence limits .. Gota have background check on ALL sales. Gotta get rid of these kinds of Military assault weapons invented specifically because they kill more people faster with less reloading. The Facts I mentioned are TRUE.. If you have a gun in your home for the Reason of protection then your statisticaly proven to be more likely to get shot by it your self or to have some other family member to die by it than you ever are to shot some intruder with it.

[Eagle 1]

Look. Im not saying we should give up our guns.. Not at all , and thats not what is being proposed.. Its simple.. the average Joe should not have and does not need an assualt rifle with a 30 round mag.... the right to have a gun is almost universaly supported.. but there has to be comon sence limits .. Gota have background check on ALL sales. Gotta get rid of these kinds of Military assault weapons invented specifically because they kill more people faster with less reloading. The Facts I mentioned are TRUE.. If you have a gun in your home for the Reason of protection then your statisticaly proven to be more likely to get shot by it your self or to have some other family member to die by it than you ever are to shot some intruder with it.

ONE more time, it's not about NEEDS.
Nobody should have the government dictate what they NEED.
I haved owned guns since I was about 9 years old and I spent 23.5 years in the military and I never shot anybody nor has any of my family members died from owning a gun.
I don't know where this statistic comes from, but I'm throwing the BS flag on it.

BTW, these types of lever action and revolvers have been around since the 1800's.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1BwUJ4--Qw[

[Black_Magic]

ONE more time, it's not about NEEDS.
Nobody should have the government dictate what they NEED.
I haved owned guns since I was about 9 years old and I spent 23.5 years in the military and I never shot anybody nor has any of my family members died from owning a gun.
I don't know where this statistic comes from, but I'm throwing the BS flag on it.

BTW, these types of lever action and revolvers have been around since the 1800's.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1BwUJ4--Qw[

for every time a gun in or around the home was used in self-defense, or in a legally justified shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

That's one self-defense shooting for 22 accidental, suicidal or criminal shootings -- hardly support for the notion that having a gun handy makes people safer.

Other studies show that women and children are disproportionately the victims of such gunshots, and that when children commit suicide, guns in their home or at their friends or relatives' homes are used.

The satistics are showing that we are on pace for gun deaths to exceed auto deaths by 2015..

These stats are all over the place..

[GrTigers6]

Look. Im not saying we should give up our guns.. Not at all , and thats not what is being proposed.. Its simple.. the average Joe should not have and does not need an assualt rifle with a 30 round mag.... the right to have a gun is almost universaly supported.. but there has to be comon sence limits .. Gota have background check on ALL sales. Gotta get rid of these kinds of Military assault weapons invented specifically because they kill more people faster with less reloading. The Facts I mentioned are TRUE.. If you have a gun in your home for the Reason of protection then your statisticaly proven to be more likely to get shot by it your self or to have some other family member to die by it than you ever are to shot some intruder with it.Alot of people shouldnt have kids but that doesnt give the government the right to take them away or prevent them from having them without probable cause!
wether we need them or not its our right to own them!

[GrTigers6]

for every time a gun in or around the home was used in self-defense, or in a legally justified shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

That's one self-defense shooting for 22 accidental, suicidal or criminal shootings -- hardly support for the notion that having a gun handy makes people safer.

Other studies show that women and children are disproportionately the victims of such gunshots, and that when children commit suicide, guns in their home or at their friends or relatives' homes are used.

The satistics are showing that we are on pace for gun deaths to exceed auto deaths by 2015..

These stats are all over the place..

Suicidial people will find other meansif there are no guns. Which may include killimg other people. Like running head into another vehicle or jumping in front of a bus and causing it to crash to avoid impact. People who get shot accidently will find other ways to hurt themselves because they are not safety concious or they wouldnt have expected the gun to be unloaded in the first place.

[Eagle 1]

Polls can be manipulated by how and what questions are asked. Most people only use the ones that agree with their point of view.

The only recent poll that counts is the number of times NICS has been accessed in the last 2 to 3 months. People aren't buying guns because they think they should be banned from sale. All this talk about banning sale of guns and magazines has put more guns into peoples' hands than anything else could have.

[Black_Magic]

Alot of people shouldnt have kids but that doesnt give the government the right to take them away or prevent them from having them without probable cause!
wether we need them or not its our right to own them!
So you dont think that the governemtn should have the right to restrict the kinds of weapons that the people can have? Understand. Nothing has been proposed to disarm the people.. Only regulations.. thats it...

[Black_Magic]

Suicidial people will find other meansif there are no guns. Which may include killimg other people. Like running head into another vehicle or jumping in front of a bus and causing it to crash to avoid impact. People who get shot accidently will find other ways to hurt themselves because they are not safety concious or they wouldnt have expected the gun to be unloaded in the first place.

SO???? But thats not happening now is it.. in the homes where there is a gun they use it.. WHY?? its made to kill.. Look the facts and numbers dont lie.. satisticaly speaking your less safe with a gun in your house.. If your issue is safety then the best thing you can do is make your home more secure in other ways.. Look the stats are what they are.

[Black_Magic]

Polls can be manipulated by how and what questions are asked. Most people only use the ones that agree with their point of view.

The only recent poll that counts is the number of times NICS has been accessed in the last 2 to 3 months. People aren't buying guns because they think they should be banned from sale. All this talk about banning sale of guns and magazines has put more guns into peoples' hands than anything else could have.

POLLS???? Who said they were Polls. We are talking gun deaths... You cant manipulate them.. You have X number of gun suicide deaths from guns in the house... You have X number of homicides from guns in the house.. You have X number of accidental deaths from guns in the house.. Then you have X number of intruders shot by guns in the house... Its simple really.. ALL of the gun death or attempted shootings or suicides individualy and collecively out number the last one... Cant manipulate that man

[bobcat1]

SO???? But thats not happening now is it.. in the homes where there is a gun they use it.. WHY?? its made to kill.. Look the facts and numbers dont lie.. satisticaly speaking your less safe with a gun in your house.. If your issue is safety then the best thing you can do is make your home more secure in other ways.. Look the stats are what they are.I assure I am more safe in my house because of my guns.

[GrTigers6]

So you dont think that the governemtn should have the right to restrict the kinds of weapons that the people can have? Understand. Nothing has been proposed to disarm the people.. Only regulations.. thats it...

No I dont. Because where will it end. They start with one type then go to another type and so on and so forth and before you know it we are hunting with 22 single shot rifles with no scope until they decide that is bad as well.

[GrTigers6]

SO???? But thats not happening now is it.. in the homes where there is a gun they use it.. WHY?? its made to kill.. Look the facts and numbers dont lie.. satisticaly speaking your less safe with a gun in your house.. If your issue is safety then the best thing you can do is make your home more secure in other ways.. Look the stats are what they are.

If no one has guns except for criminals because we all know thats where they will end up. Then there is no way you are safer at home because the criminals have nothing to fear. Its like our army today taking on the British army from the war of 1812. It would be a slaughter! If there are guns out there that can shoot 100 rounds then we have the right to own one if we feel the need. Its not our fault there are crazy people in this world.

[Tejastrue]

Older article but something to chew on...


http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/tabor/041229

[Eagle 1]

POLLS???? Who said they were Polls. We are talking gun deaths... You cant manipulate them.. You have X number of gun suicide deaths from guns in the house... You have X number of homicides from guns in the house.. You have X number of accidental deaths from guns in the house.. Then you have X number of intruders shot by guns in the house... Its simple really.. ALL of the gun death or attempted shootings or suicides individualy and collecively out number the last one... Cant manipulate that man

Polls, stats....either one can be manipulated to fit your point of view.
And all those X's don't add to the number of people killed in automobiles yearly.
Another myth is that all guns are made to kill.



http://www.mrconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/g2-470x340.jpg

[bobcat1]

Older article but something to chew on...


http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/tabor/041229Are Doctors next on the chopping block?

[Tejastrue]

Are Doctors next on the chopping block?

Ha ha..exactly.

[Black_Magic]

No I dont. Because where will it end. They start with one type then go to another type and so on and so forth and before you know it we are hunting with 22 single shot rifles with no scope until they decide that is bad as well.

So you think its ok for someone to have an M1 Abrams Tank.. Or a stinger missile? You do know that those of all considered ARMS.. So under your interpritation then someone would even have the right to a Nuke or biological weapons.. I know thats extreme. but the law IS very technical and to the word..

[Black_Magic]

Polls, stats....either one can be manipulated to fit your point of view.
And all those X's don't add to the number of people killed in automobiles yearly.
Another myth is that all guns are made to kill.



http://www.mrconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/g2-470x340.jpg

You cant Manipulate the numbers of Gun deaths.. they are what they are. you have X number of people killed in the home by a gun.. Out of those they can be and have been broken down by kind of death, Suicide, accidental, Homicide Ect... The numbers of home death by firearms are a matter of record.. Do you have contrary numbers you can point to to refute what i posted????????

[Black_Magic]

Polls, stats....either one can be manipulated to fit your point of view.
And all those X's don't add to the number of people killed in automobiles yearly.
Another myth is that all guns are made to kill.



http://www.mrconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/g2-470x340.jpg

Cars are not invented for the sole purpose of KILLING PEOPLE.. So you just think killings by guns are just going to ba a fact of life that we are just going to have to swallow???:dispntd:

[Eagle 1]

You cant Manipulate the numbers of Gun deaths.. they are what they are. you have X number of people killed in the home by a gun.. Out of those they can be and have been broken down by kind of death, Suicide, accidental, Homicide Ect... The numbers of home death by firearms are a matter of record.. Do you have contrary numbers you can point to to refute what i posted????????

My response to that is this. In every one of those incidents a human was involved, and in some cases multiple humans. Therefore mathmatically speaking, the number of humans involved in gun related deaths far out number the guns. Using logic, a gun never killed anybody on it's own. In EVERY case at least one human was there to discharge the weapon, and in some cases several humans. Blaiming the tool makes NO sense at all.
You don't ban cars when a drunk driver kills somebody.

http://www.mrconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/gun1.jpg

[Eagle 1]

Cars are not invented for the sole purpose of KILLING PEOPLE.. So you just think killings by guns are just going to ba a fact of life that we are just going to have to swallow???:dispntd:


http://www.mrconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/gb_a.jpg

[Farmersfan]

You cant Manipulate the numbers of Gun deaths.. they are what they are. you have X number of people killed in the home by a gun.. Out of those they can be and have been broken down by kind of death, Suicide, accidental, Homicide Ect... The numbers of home death by firearms are a matter of record.. Do you have contrary numbers you can point to to refute what i posted????????




Your entire point of view (just like so many others) is centered around the OBJECTS used to create these deaths instead of the deaths themselves. A suicide is a horrible occurrence and yes the gun is the quickest and easiest way to achieve that. We don't refute that claim. But what you don't seem to understand is that getting rid of the guns isn't going to get rid of the suicides. Removing the guns isn't going to get rid of the domestic violence deaths. It will do nothing but shift to a different "TOOL" that will be used to accomplish the same end. Of course there are the accidental shootings from guns that happen from time to time but those are far, far, far more outnumbered by accidental deaths in auto accidents, kids falling out of trees, drownings in swimming pools and any number of other harmful situations that aren't creating this kind of attention. And most of those accidental deaths are from weapons that wouldn't be affected by any of the proposed regulations anyway. So I think the issue that is creating so much diversity in opinions on this subject is that people with a minimal ability to use linear thinking are trying to take away or minimize a constitutional right based on their very narrow view of the subject. And in the end it is still a undeniable fact that setting regulations on guns will only effect the people who obey the regulations in the first place. I political play to get rid of "assault weapons" will only have an effect on the people who will obey the law that makes assault weapons illegal. I don't think the possible positive result of that would offset the negative effect of providing the criminals the upper hand! I have never heard or saw a politician in my 51 years of life that I would trust to inform me how much protection in my home is enough. None of those guys live in reality world.

[Black_Magic]

My response to that is this. In every one of those incidents a human was involved, and in some cases multiple humans. Therefore mathmatically speaking, the number of humans involved in gun related deaths far out number the guns. Using logic, a gun never killed anybody on it's own. In EVERY case at least one human was there to discharge the weapon, and in some cases several humans. Blaiming the tool makes NO sense at all.
You don't ban cars when a drunk driver kills somebody.

http://www.mrconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/gun1.jpg
So you ok with a individual owning an NUKE?? After all if someone sets one off its not the NUKE killing folks its the person??? Is that accurate?

[Eagle 1]

So you ok with a individual owning an NUKE?? After all if someone sets one off its not the NUKE killing folks its the person??? Is that accurate?

Apples and Oranges.
Both are round and that's about it.
I can kill a person with a knife, should we ban them too? See how that works?

[Farmersfan]

So you ok with a individual owning an NUKE?? After all if someone sets one off its not the NUKE killing folks its the person??? Is that accurate?




Seriously? Isn't this like justifying trying to outlaw kittens by asking if people should be allowed to own Tigers?

[lostaussie]

I assure I am more safe in my house because of my guns.I'll second that :thumbsup:

[Macarthur]

Apples and Oranges.
Both are round and that's about it.
I can kill a person with a knife, should we ban them too? See how that works?

Dude, it's not about banning. It's about regulation. He's exagerating to make a point.

I think it's pretty clear that almost every American would agree that someone should not be allowed to buy a tank just because they want one. Okay, so that means that all of us agree there are limits to freedom. There isn't a single freedom in this country that is unlimited. We all accept a certain level of regulation of freedoms.

[Macarthur]

Seriously? Isn't this like justifying trying to outlaw kittens by asking if people should be allowed to own Tigers?

Actually, in trying to make an absurd analogy, you are actually hitting the nail right on the head.

As I said above, we all agree that there should be some stipulations put on freedoms. It would be insane to allow someone to walk their Tiger down the street on a leash. A cat is simply a small Tiger; we're okay with that because a cat can do far less damage than a tiger.

[Ernest T Bass]

Speaking of having guns at school......this should PIQUE some interest ]

Fixed it for you.

[Black_Magic]

Apples and Oranges.
Both are round and that's about it.
I can kill a person with a knife, should we ban them too? See how that works?

why didnt the shooters at Sandy hook and Aurora use a knife?? We know the anwer to that. Why to the US military use Assualt weapons and not knives?? Know that one too!. A NUKE is an ARM. as defined by the word ARMS in any dictionary.. Do you believe an average citizen should be able to own one of those??? Simple question

[Black_Magic]

Actually, in trying to make an absurd analogy, you are actually hitting the nail right on the head.

As I said above, we all agree that there should be some stipulations put on freedoms. It would be insane to allow someone to walk their Tiger down the street on a leash. A cat is simply a small Tiger; we're okay with that because a cat can do far less damage than a tiger.

Very good!! If you agree that nobody should be able to own a NUKE or a Tank then you agree that SOME limit is applicable.. THEN you agree that a line CAN be drawn .. Then it becomes a debate as to WHERE to draw that line..

[Eagle 1]

why didnt the shooters at Sandy hook and Aurora use a knife?? We know the anwer to that. Why to the US military use Assualt weapons and not knives?? Know that one too!. A NUKE is an ARM. as defined by the word ARMS in any dictionary.. Do you believe an average citizen should be able to own one of those??? Simple question

Actually the military does use knives and bayonets.
A simple question about citizens owning a NUKE doesn't justify taking AR's from law abiding citizens.
BTW, the second amendment is about guns, not tanks.

Edit to add: You can buy tanks. http://www.milweb.net/classifieds.php?type=1

[Black_Magic]

Actually the military does use knives and bayonets.
A simple question about citizens owning a NUKE doesn't justify taking AR's from law abiding citizens.
BTW, the second amendment is about guns, not tanks.

It absoloutly does. why would you not want a law abiding citizen to own a NUKE?? THe Second Amendment Does not say Guns or take.. It Says ARMS.. Look up arms in the dictionary and you will see all kinds of weapons . Its really simple.. Its not a violation of the second amendment ( not letting you have an assault weapon ) any more than it is for them to not let you have a Nuke..

Come on man.. If a Knife is just as deadly and efficient of killing tool as an AR then why even spend the money on An AR??? Come on man.. Stop it.. bad analogy all togeather

[Macarthur]

Actually the military does use knives and bayonets.
A simple question about citizens owning a NUKE doesn't justify taking AR's from law abiding citizens.

I think you're being obtuse now. You know the point that he's making but you are avoiding it because you don't like the answer.


BTW, the second amendment is about guns, not tanks.

Not true. It's about 'Arms'.

[Macarthur]

Edit to add: You can buy tanks. http://www.milweb.net/classifieds.php?type=1

Come on dude, really? Buying an old collectable tank is useless unless you have the armament to use it.

[Eagle 1]

Come on dude, really? Buying an old collectable tank is useless unless you have the armament to use it.

Not really.

http://armyjeeps.net/armor1.htm

[Eagle 1]

I think you're being obtuse now. You know the point that he's making but you are avoiding it because you don't like the answer.



Not true. It's about 'Arms'.

Oh my bad. When the 2nd Amendment was written you could buy a tank or a nuke at that time.
Now who's being obtuse?

[Macarthur]

Oh my bad. When the 2nd Amendment was written you could buy a tank or a nuke at that time.
Now who's being obtuse?

Um, YOU!

Wow.

[Eagle 1]

Sorry boys, we will have to continue this discussion at a later date.
The gun shop just called and my new Eotec sites for my AR15 just came in.
HAPPY...HAPPY....HAPPY.

[Black_Magic]

Oh my bad. When the 2nd Amendment was written you could buy a tank or a nuke at that time.
Now who's being obtuse?

It does not matter.. People argue all the time that "ITS MY SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT" they argue the second amendment says we have the right to bear arms.. they say that the amendment does not say certain kinds of arms .. So they say you cant limit it... if your one of those you cant have it both ways.. you cant claim that the second amendment protects your right to have an AR but at the same time cant have an M1 Abrams tank... If you agree that there must be limits ( any rational person feels this way ) then you agree it becomes a debate as to where to draw the line.. YOU DO AGREE A LINE CAN BE DRAWN DONT YOU???

[GrTigers6]

It does not matter.. People argue all the time that "ITS MY SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT" they argue the second amendment says we have the right to bear arms.. they say that the amendment does not say certain kinds of arms .. So they say you cant limit it... if your one of those you cant have it both ways.. you cant claim that the second amendment protects your right to have an AR but at the same time cant have an M1 Abrams tank... If you agree that there must be limits ( any rational person feels this way ) then you agree it becomes a debate as to where to draw the line.. YOU DO AGREE A LINE CAN BE DRAWN DONT YOU???

Show me the law where it says you cannot own a tank! Not that i would but im curious why that would have come up for a law.
Also A nuke is not considered in that amendment, nor is a tank so your argument is pointless. Read the following,
The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line. The standard has to be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny, but the precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally. The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons that do not cause mass destruction. If we follow the rule that personal rights should be interpreted broadly and governmental powers narrowly, which was the intention of the Framers, instead of the reverse, then "arms" must be interpreted broadly.

[Black_Magic]

Show me the law where it says you cannot own a tank! Not that i would but im curious why that would have come up for a law.
Also A nuke is not considered in that amendment, nor is a tank so your argument is pointless. Read the following,
The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line. The standard has to be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny, but the precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally. The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons that do not cause mass destruction. If we follow the rule that personal rights should be interpreted broadly and governmental powers narrowly, which was the intention of the Framers, instead of the reverse, then "arms" must be interpreted broadly.

Come on man.. If you think that our framer envisioned AK47s and other kinds of guns like that then your wrong.. I can make the same argumentyou just made about assault weapons you did about tanks... Look.. You cant use the wording and technical deffinition of it to support your view on one hand but then say you dont have to be technical about the definition of "ARMS" when making another point.. YOU DONT NEED AN ASSAULT WEAPON.. It has no place in a civilians hands anymore than an M1 ABRAMS tank does

[Macarthur]

Show me the law where it says you cannot own a tank! Not that i would but im curious why that would have come up for a law.
Also A nuke is not considered in that amendment, nor is a tank so your argument is pointless. Read the following,


You guys are missing the whole point by focusing on this owning a tank thing. Yes, you technically can own a tank, but no one can own armament for military equipment such as tanks without a federal permit. You could even own a grenade launcher, but to get the arament (it's considered a DD - Destructive Devise) you have to go through ATF and has to be approved by the executive branch, if my memory is correct.

So yes, you can have lots of things, but what matters is the armament. Otherwise they are nothing more than a paper weight and conversation piece.

[GrTigers6]

You guys are missing the whole point by focusing on this owning a tank thing. Yes, you technically can own a tank, but no one can own armament for military equipment such as tanks without a federal permit. You could even own a grenade launcher, but to get the arament (it's considered a DD - Destructive Devise) you have to go through ATF and has to be approved by the executive branch, if my memory is correct.

So yes, you can have lots of things, but what matters is the armament. Otherwise they are nothing more than a paper weight and conversation piece.I dont have a problem with restricting who owns those weapons or makes them have to register for them. I have a huge problem with a ban of any sort on any gun

[GrTigers6]

Come on man.. If you think that our framer envisioned AK47s and other kinds of guns like that then your wrong.. I can make the same argumentyou just made about assault weapons you did about tanks... Look.. You cant use the wording and technical deffinition of it to support your view on one hand but then say you dont have to be technical about the definition of "ARMS" when making another point.. YOU DONT NEED AN ASSAULT WEAPON.. It has no place in a civilians hands anymore than an M1 ABRAMS tank doesYour Right I dont need one. But if I want one I have the right to buy one!

[Black_Magic]

Your Right I dont need one. But if I want one I have the right to buy one!
Not if the rest of us have anything to do with it. Your right should not harm the rest of us.. Oh I know .. your a law abiding person.. but then what if you go off your rocker?? then your right cost the rest of us and maybe 20 6 year olds thier lives...

[Black_Magic]

I dont have a problem with restricting who owns those weapons or makes them have to register for them. I have a huge problem with a ban of any sort on any gun
SO you think its ok for someone to own a 155mm howitzer... Sorry thats a gun.. dont want anyone to have that..

[GrTigers6]

Not if the rest of us have anything to do with it. Your right should not harm the rest of us.. Oh I know .. your a law abiding person.. but then what if you go off your rocker?? then your right cost the rest of us and maybe 20 6 year olds thier lives...

My right didnt cause that to happen. Someone's disease did and lack of help that led up to it. So if several people run through a school yard in cars and kill twice as many kids are you gonna ban cars too. You cant just say well this could happen or has happened so we need to get rid of it. It doesnt work that way. You fix the cause of the problem not the means.
And if I went off my rocker and didnt have an assualt weapon. How does that save any kids? I would just find another means. Thats my entire point. You cant stop people from killing by taking away their weapon of choice, because that choice will change!

[GrTigers6]

SO you think its ok for someone to own a 155mm howitzer... Sorry thats a gun.. dont want anyone to have that..No I dont if he passes all backgrounds checks and it is legal for him to have it.

[Macarthur]

I dont have a problem with restricting who owns those weapons or makes them have to register for them. I have a huge problem with a ban of any sort on any gun

OK. Now we're making progress. This was the point we were trying to get Eagle to admit. Virtually every person in the country agrees that there are limits.

Now, the debate as to where that limit is....

[Ernest T Bass]

OK. Now we're making progress. This was the point we were trying to get Eagle to admit. Virtually every person in the country agrees that there are limits.

Now, the debate as to where that limit is....

Fully automatic weapons, I think is a good place to draw the line. It's a bad idea to have citizens better armed than the police, imo.

[bobcat1]

Fully automatic weapons, I think is a good place to draw the line. It's a bad idea to have citizens better armed than the police, imo. I could agree to that. But then I bet the criminals don't.

[Ernest T Bass]

I could agree to that. But then I bet the criminals don't.

Ok. Your point? We've agreed that there should be limits, so we're now discussing those limits. To me, that's a great place to draw that line. You have a better idea?

[Farmersfan]

Not if the rest of us have anything to do with it. Your right should not harm the rest of us.. Oh I know .. your a law abiding person.. but then what if you go off your rocker?? then your right cost the rest of us and maybe 20 6 year olds thier lives...



Yea, because we all know that when a person goes "OFF THEIR ROCKER" a assault weapon is the only way they can harm others! What a moron!

[speedbump]

Come on speedbump. Actually this is supposed to be a 3A Downlow sports thread. This means Texas
3A sports not olympics, pro sports or Johnny Manziel. 3A HS Sports! Get the general idea?

If all that's true,why have you puked out your gun control opinion on this thread several times? Maybe you can explain how you came up with this laugher.
"Heck this right saved us from invasion on the West Coast at the start of WW2.

[BwdLion73]

YOU DONT NEED AN ASSAULT WEAPON..

:dispntd: Or 16 oz. drinks, hamburgers,plastic bags,Refinerys.....

[bobcat1]

Ok. Your point? We've agreed that there should be limits, so we're now discussing those limits. To me, that's a great place to draw that line. You have a better idea?

I don't think the general public needs fully automatic weapons but I won't argue their right to have them any more than I will my right to own a shotgun. Shotguns are just as deadly in a crowd of people. So I really think we enforce the laws we have and do a good job of that first. No need for new laws or limitations.

[Macarthur]

I don't think the general public needs fully automatic weapons but I won't argue their right to have them any more than I will my right to own a shotgun. Shotguns are just as deadly in a crowd of people. So I really think we enforce the laws we have and do a good job of that first. No need for new laws or limitations.

A shotgun is just as deadly as an AR? Seriously?

[bobcat1]

I don't think the general public needs fully automatic weapons but I won't argue their right to have them any more than I will my right to own a shotgun. Shotguns are just as deadly in a crowd of people. So I really think we enforce the laws we have and do a good job of that first. No need for new laws or limitations.


A shotgun is just as deadly as an AR? Seriously? Read please. Then think. Buckshot in a short barrel legal length shotgun will scatter and kill a large group of people in one shot. So yes.

[Eagle 1]

You guys are missing the whole point by focusing on this owning a tank thing. Yes, you technically can own a tank, but no one can own armament for military equipment such as tanks without a federal permit. You could even own a grenade launcher, but to get the arament (it's considered a DD - Destructive Devise) you have to go through ATF and has to be approved by the executive branch, if my memory is correct.

So yes, you can have lots of things, but what matters is the armament. Otherwise they are nothing more than a paper weight and conversation piece.

Ok, technically the term armament refers to military equiptment, not ammunition. None the less you can technically own a military tank without a federal permit. A friend of mine owns an artillery gun that he bought from a DOD auction without going through the ATF. As for the ammo that's out there too, although it would take some modification by the buyer. Example, I have seen M155 rounds at Army/Navy stores that were drilled out and didn't have a primer. By simply modifying a primer and refilling the round with gun powder you could make it work. This would take some body who knows what they are doing and not just the average "Joe."

BM keeps coming back to the term "Needs". He is totally missing the point. Needs are something you can't live without. He is correct, I technically don't need an AR, but I CHOOSE to own one because it is my right. He doesn't need a car, but I would be willing to bet he owns one. The term "Need" sounds like something from the Soviet Union. I personally don't want the government or people like BM to decide what my "NEEDS" are. I don't infringe on what your needs are, so extend me the same courtesy. Speaking of AR's. The AR-15 was developed as a lighter, 5.56 mm version of the AR-10. The "AR" in AR-15 comes from the ArmaLite name and stands for "ArmaLite Rifle". Most people like you think "AR" stands for assault rifle. An assault rifle is a selective fire (selective between automatic, semi-automatic, and burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. My AR15 WILL NOT FIRE ON AUTOMATIC! Therfore it technically is not an assault rifle. It will only fire in a semi-automatic mode. However, with a Class 3 fire arms license, I can LEGALLY own a fully automatic assault rifle. Just to add, silencers are also legal to own in Texas.
You should really educate yourself on guns BEFORE, trying to tell me what YOU think I "NEED". None the less I'm not to overly worried that the government will ban AR's. I believe it will eventually be passed down to the state level and each state government will decide if they will ban semi-automatic weapons. Luckly for me I live in a state that is pro-gun as confirmed by the letters I have received from my state senators and congressman.

Edit to add: ANY gun could be considered an assault weapon if you used it as such. Example, if I shot somebody with my .22 pistol that would be considered an "assault with a deadly weapon." Unless of course I done it in self defense, but that's a whole different can of worms.

[Macarthur]

Read please. Then think. Buckshot in a short barrel legal length shotgun will scatter and kill a large group of people in one shot. So yes.

It is asinine to compare the killing efficiency of your average double barrel shotgun to an AR15.

[Macarthur]

Needs are something you can't live without. He is correct, I technically don't need an AR, but I CHOOSE to own one because it is my right. He doesn't need a car, but I would be willing to bet he owns one.

I agree.

[Farmersfan]

It is asinine to compare the killing efficiency of your average double barrel shotgun to an AR15.



Wouldn't that "killing efficiency" be dependent entirely on the user? And also completely situational? You take a AR15 into a crowd and I'll take a 2012 Lincoln Navigator and I promise you I will take out more people than you can before we are stopped. The amount of damage that can be done is a "ASININE" argument because I can present you with a dozen alternatives that could do just as much damage.

[Macarthur]

Wouldn't that "killing efficiency" be dependent entirely on the user?

Not really. I've never shot an AR in my life but with a clip that hold 30 rounds I know I could do much more damamge that someone that has 2 shells and then has to reload that shotgun for another 2 shots. That type of scenario allows for must better intervention of people or ability of those people to escape.


And also completely situational? You take a AR15 into a crowd and I'll take a 2012 Lincoln Navigator and I promise you I will take out more people than you can before we are stopped. The amount of damage that can be done is a "ASININE" argument because I can present you with a dozen alternatives that could do just as much damage.

I see this argument all the time. Well, people can just use baseball bats. Why don't we outlaw baseball bats. It's disingenious and frankly lazy because it simply tries to ignore the issue all together.

[Farmersfan]

I see this argument all the time. Well, people can just use baseball bats. Why don't we outlaw baseball bats. It's disingenious and frankly lazy because it simply tries to ignore the issue all together.





What exactly IS THE ISSUE? Is it just that too many people are being killed or is that too many people are being killed with a AR15? It appears to me you guys are more concerned with HOW they are being killed than the fact that they are being killed at all. It reeks of left wing political agenda. This is why I bring up an SUV as a very realistic substitute for a AR15. From an effectiveness position it is probably more effective than any hand held weapon. So should we outlaw those also? The "tools" that could be used to create the same number of deaths is pretty much unlimited in our society yet for some reason you guys are fixated on the tools that are protected by the constitution. I don't even own a weapon and have no desire to. But I can not for the life of me see how someone could justify minimizing or fractionaizing a constitutional right with logic like what you guys have tried to present here. If it's going to alter the perceived rights that are granted by the constitution that built this country then it should have some damn could reasons to do so. Left wing political power play isn't a good enough reason in my opinion.

[Eagle 1]

Not really. I've never shot an AR in my life but with a clip that hold 30 rounds I know I could do much more damamge that someone that has 2 shells and then has to reload that shotgun for another 2 shots.



If you have never shot one then how would you know this? The reality is a shotgun blast covers a lot more area than a pinpoint shot from an AR.
I have actually been on close combat training ranges that people enter a building with 60 rounds (2 thirty round mags) and they only scored 8 hits.
The point is you actually have to aim an AR, where as with a shotgun you only have to point it in the general direction.
Another thing you don't know is that using a M16 on full automatic is actually designed for fire suppression, which means you shoot at your target to keep them from firing back. In the meantime your partner may be able to move to another location for a more desirable shot.

[Eagle 1]

Mac, take time to watch this video and educate yourself.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0o7YgiTFm4

[Macarthur]

If you have never shot one then how would you know this? The reality is a shotgun blast covers a lot more area than a pinpoint shot from an AR.
I have actually been on close combat training ranges that people enter a building with 60 rounds (2 thirty round mags) and they only scored 8 hits.
The point is you actually have to aim an AR, where as with a shotgun you only have to point it in the general direction.
Another thing you don't know is that using a M16 on full automatic is actually designed for fire suppression, which means you shoot at your target to keep them from firing back. In the meantime your partner may be able to move to another location for a more desirable shot.

Then why doesn't our miliary use shotguns as standard issue?

[Macarthur]

I've already watched the video. Do I really need to explain why the video is not convincing?

[bobcat1]

It is asinine to compare the killing efficiency of your average double barrel shotgun to an AR15.Who said double barrel? Again your imagination and spin don't work well. Most self defense shotguns hold 8 shells combined with )) buckshot or #4 shot, it's a deadly weapon.

[Macarthur]

Who said double barrel? Again your imagination and spin don't work well.

So it's a sporting shotgun. How man shells you got in yours?

[bobcat1]

So it's a sporting shotgun. How man shells you got in yours?5 in my sporting shotgun. 8 in home defense shotgun. Why do you ask 2 dogs?

[speedbump]

Mac, take time to watch this video and educate yourself.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0o7YgiTFm4

Did the NRA provide a cartoon with that BS? Oh... never mind. That was the cartoon. If shot guns were the better choice to go out and murder school kids the maniacs would be stealing them from mom and leaving the ARs at home.

[Macarthur]

5 in my sporting shotgun. 8 in home defense shotgun. Why do you ask 2 dogs?

You think a shotgun with 8 shells is more effective than an AR with 50 rounds?

And as speedbump has said, if shotguns are so much more efficient killing machines, why are drug lords not using shotguns? why are wackos not using shotguns at theaters or schools? Why are shotguns for police officers becoming less and less common?

[BwdLion73]

You think a shotgun with 8 shells is more effective than an AR with 50 rounds?

And as speedbump has said, if shotguns are so much more efficient killing machines, why are drug lords not using shotguns? why are wackos not using shotguns at theaters or schools? Why are shotguns for police officers becoming less and less common?

Shotguns are not less common for police officers. As far as what a wacko uses it is what ever is the popular item that the media keeps harping on. Why do gang bangers hold their semi auto pistol sideways when they shoot?

[Macarthur]

I don't think the general public needs fully automatic weapons but I won't argue their right to have them any more than I will my right to own a shotgun. Shotguns are just as deadly in a crowd of people. So I really think we enforce the laws we have and do a good job of that first. No need for new laws or limitations.


Shotguns are not less common for police officers. As far as what a wacko uses it is what ever is the popular item that the media keeps harping on. Why do gang bangers hold their semi auto pistol sideways when they shoot?

Yes, they are becoming less common for officers.

[bobcat1]

You think a shotgun with 8 shells is more effective than an AR with 50 rounds?

And as speedbump has said, if shotguns are so much more efficient killing machines, why are drug lords not using shotguns? why are wackos not using shotguns at theaters or schools? Why are shotguns for police officers becoming less and less common?

The reason I brought up shotguns in the first place was an illustration of what could be next and to point out they can be a killing machine. I assure you if someone breaks in my home I don't want an AR-15 or a pistol. I want a shotgun. I won't miss and it will inflict the damage necessary to stop an intruder.

I don't own an AR-15 but if I did I think it would make an awesome pig gun. I want my right to buy one left alone.

Why am I even talking to you? You would argue with a fencepost. You also along with speedbump march right in goose step with the Post Turtle in the White House and all the other Socialists/Nazis/Marxists in Washington DC.

I'm done with this. You won't change my mind and I won't change yours or speedbumps. So I agree to disagree.

[Eagle 1]

Mac, the point is you have never shot an AR, and for that matter probably a shotgun.
So really you don't know what the hell your talking about! I shot both today, did you?
He'll no!

[Eagle 1]

Ok Mac I apologize for that last sentence. We will just have to agree to disagree.

[Macarthur]

I don't think the general public needs fully automatic weapons but I woon't argue their right to have them any more than I will my right to own a shotgun. Shotguns are just as deadly in a crowd of people. So I really think we enforce the laws we have and do a good job of that first. No need for new laws or limitations.


Ok Mac I apologize for that last sentence. We will just have to agree to disagree.

I accept your apology. No, I ahve not shot an ar but I have shot a shotgun many times. And my experience at shooting either is not relevant to the discussion.

And no one ever said a shotgun wasn't effective at shooting or even killing. I'm just making the argument that an ar is more efficient which is why it's used as such much more often.

[Macarthur]

I don't think the general public needs fully automatic weapons but I won't argue their right to have them any more than I will my right to own a shotgun. Shotguns are just as deadly in a crowd of people. So I really think we enforce the laws we have and do a good job of that first. No need for new laws or limitations.


The reason I brought up shotguns in the first place was an illustration of what could be next and to point out they can be a killing machine. I assure you if someone breaks in my home I don't want an AR-15 or a pistol. I want a shotgun. I won't miss and it will inflict the damage necessary to stop an intruder.

I don't own an AR-15 but if I did I think it would make an awesome pig gun. I want my right to buy one left alone.

Why am I even talking to you? You would argue with a fencepost. You also along with speedbump march right in goose step with the Post Turtle in the White House and all the other Socialists/Nazis/Marxists in Washington DC.

I'm done with this. You won't change my mind and I won't change yours or speedbumps. So I agree to disagree.

I can't speak for anyone but myself. I'm not in favor of out lawing ar's. I'm in the camp of limiting rounds.

[Eagle 1]

So much for the high cap magazine theories.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2Upjn5DR0o&feature=youtube_gdata_player