Jump to content

Home

NOT ANOTHER GUN CONTROL THREAD


Tommycat
 Share

Recommended Posts

Okay, so now that you opened it up, bear with me.

 

I would like to entertain ideas for how mass shootings could be avoided in the future, and to be honest, I only see one solution that would actually work. That is as the NRA has said, have someone armed there to stop them.

 

Lets run through the reasons gun control will NOT work.

Make guns illegal for everyone: Aside from the fact that the majority of gun owners are simply law abiding citizens who you are now punishing for no reason at all, the real problem is that there is no way to get rid of all of them. Lets assume that a really high percentage of legal gun owners just roll over and turn in their guns. Say 99%. The remaining percentage of 1% means at a minimum of 3million privately held firearms will remain. Guns last a long time. I still have my great grandfather's octagon barrel repeating rifle from the 1800's. Soooo it really only stops the law abiding from owning the firearms that they may have had in their family for generations.

 

Get rid of "Assault Weapons" for everyone but cops: Why? Because they aren't good for self defense? As a buddy of mine who was in Iraq said, "I always kept my pistol on me. It's what I used to get to my rifle." A rifle is better than a shotgun. A shotgun is better than a pistol. Think about it, you are saying that the gun the media has been saying is a very effective killing tool would not be good for home defense?

 

Get rid of high capacity magazines: Sounds great and all, but there are an unknown number of high capacity magazines on the market, and in private hands. Most people I know who have one high capacity magazine have several. Magazines can last for decades at least. And if they wear out, it's not difficult to repair them. really. it's a simple box with a spring used to push rounds up to feed the weapon. Besides, even if you ban the high capacity magazines, the gunman just keeps firing and changing mags until he runs out of ammo, or someone with a gun stops him.

 

Get rid of these automatic weapons: Um... go online and try to purchase an automatic weapon. It's not cheap. It takes better than 6 months to get. approved for it, and even then they go through a very strict process to transfer one to you... Oh and the reason they are not cheap: they have been banned since the National Firearms Act of 1934. which required a tax stamp and registration. With the FOPA of 1986 they stopped allowing new automatic weapons to be registered.

 

 

Please spare me the "We don't want a shootout at the schools." It's already going to be a shooting gallery. How well can you shoot if someone is shooting back at you? And if the gunman turns to take on the guy with a gun, GREAT! He's not shooting at KIDS! Besides, that assumes that the gun owner who likely took the same kind of courses I took would ignore the fact that if he misses and hits someone else, he is STILL LIABLE FOR THEIR DEATH OR INJURY! The murdering b****** doesn't care about getting sued or prosecuted. HE'S ALREADY BREAKING THE LAW! The law abiding person with the gun MUST think about the possible repercussions of his shots missing. That's why even though (at least) 3 people had legal carry permits at the Giffords shooting none of them shot Laughner. One even came out of the store drew a bead on a guy with a gun, and didn't fire because he didn't know for a fact that the guy with the gun was the bad guy. Turns out it was one of the people holding Laughner. If you fire your weapon at someone and don't know for a fact that they are the bad guy, you WILL face charges. You WILL be arrested. And at a minimum you will end up with a felony which will preclude you ever owning a firearm again. It's not like the movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I am not for getting rid of guns... I am for getting rid of high capacity magazines, yes I understand what you are saying, but I am against making it easy for people to shop to kill. There is no reason for them, period end of story. If someone is too lazy to reload, then they should find another hobby.

 

What I think should be done is make gun owners responsible for their firearms. If my gun is taken from my home by a family member or anyone else that I allow access to my house and shoots up a school, mall, movie theater, etc, etc…. Then I should be held accountable both civilly and criminally. Oh you can cite the case of the mother was the first one dead in the recent school shooting, maybe if she knew she could be held criminally accountable for not locking up her weapons, she may be alive today. This really shouldn’t be a big deal, any responsible gun owner should already be keeping their weapons out of unwanted hands now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing the shooting proves is that strict gun control laws don't prevent mass shootings or high crime rates (just look at Chicago or even DC). Not so sure banning high capacity magazines will make much difference either b/c criminals ignore the law anyway and can do end runs around the law via smuggling/black market (or becoming very adept at switching out clips very quickly). That said, you both make very legitimate points. I see no reason responsible law abiding gun owners should be penalized b/c of some crackpot, but neither should they have a big problem w/being extremely careful to keep their weapons secured when they're not using them themselves (gun range, hunting, etc..).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see no reason responsible law abiding gun owners should be penalized b/c of some crackpot, but neither should they have a big problem w/being extremely careful to keep their weapons secured when they're not using them themselves (gun range, hunting, etc..).

 

When the crackpot is someone they know and they were stupid enough to give access to a tool for mass murder then they deserve to be held accountable. We are each responsible for our own freedom and rights and if that person does not have that right because of mental illness, felony conviction or age, then we are responsible for keeping our freedom out of their hands so they don’t violate someone else’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Besides if you have a law stating they are responsible to keep their gun out of such hands and they violate that law, then they are not law aiding gun owners any longer.

 

People love saying guns are just a tool. Well a car is just a tool too and in the wrong hands a car can be used to murder too. If you allow access to your car to someone that does not have the legal capacity to operate it and they kill someone else, then you can be held legally and criminally responsible. What is the difference if you consider firearm just tools to?

Edited by mimartin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point about the mags is that it doesn't stop the killing. the only thing that stopped the killing when the bad guy stopped shooting. He fired hundreds of rounds. that means he changed magazines multiple times. And as I said before, There are hundreds of millions of magazines out there. Good luck getting rid of those. I have a few magazines from WWII that still function like new.

 

I agree that gun owners should take more responsibility for their firearms. The problem is where you draw the line. If my car is stolen and someone uses it to run someone down, I'm not liable. If I could I'd rather keep my primary firearms on me at all times. The problem is all the "Gun free zones" that prevent me from keeping control of them. A police officer friend just had her car broken in to and her weapon stolen from it while she was in a "Gun Free" establishment(she didn't want to make a scene and all that, just get in, get her groceries and get out). We cannot maintain control of our firearms all the time if we cannot carry them all the time. Even a safe. I Know of a few people who had their safe stolen from their house. One they even broke the slab.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point about the mags is that it doesn't stop the killing. the only thing that stopped the killing when the bad guy stopped shooting. He fired hundreds of rounds. that means he changed magazines multiple times. And as I said before, There are hundreds of millions of magazines out there. Good luck getting rid of those. I have a few magazines from WWII that still function like new.
SO what? I agree with you they are out there, we are not going to get rid of them anytime soon, but there is no reason to make it easy for someone planning mass murder, make them at least have to do some work to find them. I am also under the impression that lower magazine capacity could save lives. I know personally I am more like to attack someone reloading rather than attacking someone shooting me in the face. Also think my chances of success would be likely better while they are not shooting me.

 

I agree that gun owners should take more responsibility for their firearms. The problem is where you draw the line. If my car is stolen and someone uses it to run someone down, I'm not liable. If I could I'd rather keep my primary firearms on me at all times. The problem is all the "Gun free zones" that prevent me from keeping control of them. A police officer friend just had her car broken in to and her weapon stolen from it while she was in a "Gun Free" establishment(she didn't want to make a scene and all that, just get in, get her groceries and get out). We cannot maintain control of our firearms all the time if we cannot carry them all the time. Even a safe. I Know of a few people who had their safe stolen from their house. One they even broke the slab.
Yes nothing is foolproof. Stuff can get stolen, but there is a big difference between having something locked up in a safe, closet or car than having easy access setting in the open in the family room or under a pillow in the master bedroom. Someone breaks into the house and steals the weapon locked up in the house, then no you are not liable. Someone that lives in the house or has legal access to the house takes the gun from the house then you should legally responsible, even possible criminally (provided there was some legal reason (mental illness felony, age) that the person should not have had access to the weapon.

 

You pretty much answered your own question with the car example. You are not liable if it is stolen. However if you leave the keys on the kitchen table and your 5 year gets the keys starts the car, throws in in reverse and backs through the neighbors house. Then you are legally liable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the crackpot is someone they know and they were stupid enough to give access to a tool for mass murder then they deserve to be held accountable. We are each responsible for our own freedom and rights and if that person does not have that right because of mental illness, felony conviction or age, then we are responsible for keeping our freedom out of their hands so they don’t violate someone else’s right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Besides if you have a law stating they are responsible to keep their gun out of such hands and they violate that law, then they are not law aiding gun owners any longer.

 

People love saying guns are just a tool. Well a car is just a tool too and in the wrong hands a car can be used to murder too. If you allow access to your car to someone that does not have the legal capacity to operate it and they kill someone else, then you can be held legally and criminally responsible. What is the difference if you consider firearm just tools to?

 

I meant law abiding gun owners collectively, not merely the "victim" of said crackpot. (ie. b/c someone in one state is lax does not mean people elsewhere should have their rights proscribed). Otherwise, as I basically indicated, we're pretty much in agreement on that point (personal responsibility).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant law abiding gun owners collectively, not merely the "victim" of said crackpot
I would hardly call the people that allowed the crackpot access to the gun the "victim," I can feel sorry for them, but to me the true victim are the innocents that got murdered by a gun they allowed access to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would hardly call the people that allowed the crackpot access to the gun the "victim," I can feel sorry for them, but to me the true victim are the innocents that got murdered by a gun they allowed access to.

 

On this we can agree. If anything I would call her an unwilling accomplice. She KNEW she had a problem with Adam. She was in the process of forcibly committing him. But she still recklessly allowed him access to the firearms.

 

As to your assumption that you would jump him: He had more than one firearm. Oh and just to be clear, the higher capacity mags tend to jam a lot more. That's what the guy in portalnd found.

 

I just feel that the whole gun debate is a bit like some drunk driver goes on a bender all night, and crashes his pickup into a school bus killing a bunch of kids, and suddenly we're talking about banning the pickup and making all other drivers have a breathalyzer interlock device in their cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@mim--if I meant they were really victims, I wouldn't have used the ""s around the word. It's safe to say that the three of us pretty much agree that gun owners should be very aware of where their weapons are and that they're properly secured and stored when not in use.

 

I just feel that the whole gun debate is a bit like some drunk driver goes on a bender all night, and crashes his pickup into a school bus killing a bunch of kids, and suddenly we're talking about banning the pickup and making all other drivers have a breathalyzer interlock device in their cars.

 

Nicely put.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the things that annoys me slightly by the public debate is people trying to point to Chicago and say gun control does not work. Sorry that is completely a bogus cop-out. Chicago does not work because criminals still get guns from neighboring towns. The use straw purchases, CNN did a story last night and the idiot talking heads went straight to they did not point out that straw purchases are illegal since the 1960's. So what? The problem with the law is all you have to say is the gun was stolen after you purchased it should the weapon be traced back to you after a crime or murder. So if you are so irresponsible to not report the theft of a deadly weapon, then you are not responsible enough to own a weapon. That person is either a criminal or so stupid that they are a danger to them-self and society. Chicago Superintendent wants make a state law that you have to report a theft of a deadly weapon (something that is just stupid to even be necessary), but the NRA is against this as it restricts the gun owners rights and you can't trust the Superintendent since he is from New York (and we all know how they are). That was they last straw for me, I remember when the NRA was for responsible gun ownership, now they are just give everyone a gun and let the gun god sort it out. I LOL when they said something about wanting to talk about protecting children. Yeah arm the 7 year olds was probably at the top of their list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pointing to such things as "gun free zones" and cities with strict gun control laws as being ineffective isn't a bogus cop-out. Ultimately, criminals don't care what laws you come up with or where you designate gun free zones b/c they just don't give a damn. Still, I'd agree that opposition to even some common sense rules is daft. The only reason I can think of off the top of my head for not reporting a stolen weapon is that you might be incriminating yourself for criminal negligence and wish to spare yourself the embarrassment. Of course if/when said weapon shows up in a criminal investigation, embarrassment will be the least of your worries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pointing to such things as "gun free zones" and cities with strict gun control laws as being ineffective isn't a bogus cop-out. Ultimately, criminals don't care what laws you come up with or where you designate gun free zones b/c they just don't give a damn. Still, I'd agree that opposition to even some common sense rules is daft. The only reason I can think of off the top of my head for not reporting a stolen weapon is that you might be incriminating yourself for criminal negligence and wish to spare yourself the embarrassment. Of course if/when said weapon shows up in a criminal investigation, embarrassment will be the least of your worries.

 

Pointing it out when you know the reason the gun free zone does work is because other area don't enforce their own rules is bogus. It isn't that Chicago rules don't work, it is that the surrounding areas that don't enforce federal laws at all. It is a loophole and it isn't about embarrassement or worry, because with the loophole their is no embarrassement or worry, you say it was stolen way back when and you did not report it and you get a get out of jail scott free card. It also is not about being a innoccent gun owner, it is being a low life criminal that is a accessory to a crime even murder because of suppling guns to criminals for profit.

 

Funny thing you can say it is a loophole it can't be enforces, but the NRA saying they don't want to close the loophole, sounds to me like they support giving criminals guns and thus support the Chicago murder rate and why not it support the advertisment to sell more guns elsewhere. All about the money to hell with human life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason a lot of "gun free zones" don't work is not b/c law abiding citizens generally ignore them. Recognizing that isn't bogus, so we'll just have to disagree on that general point. Again, it comes down to the criminals. Society can make all the rules it wants, but making rules is all it will be (and we're not merely talking about the example you laid out above). Btw, that doesn't mean you don't have laws or that you don't enforce the ones already on the books. It's just ironic that areas in the US w/very strict gun laws often have higher violent gun crime rates.

 

As to the loophole in question, unless the "low level accessory" is actually buying guns and then selling them on the black market for profit and using the loophole as a get-out-of-jail free card, then why wouldn't they initially report the stolen firearm in the first place (which is what my point about embarrassment was addressing)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah wasn't talking about rules, big difference between laws and rules. When you disreguard a law then you are no longer a law abiding citizens, you are a low life criminal.

 

But whatever, typical people find ways around laws and then people point out it doesn't work because it means more profits, after all life is cheap. Funny thing the people that think breaking these laws are fine are the same ones that think it is terrible that immigration laws are bent and broken. Law is law, and both should be enforced. Someone breaks the law then they are criminals plan and simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Usually, when society makes rules.....they're called laws. But am I to take it from your response that anyone who disobeys any laws is a low life criminal? Also, since you bring it up, might be interesting to find out how many rabid gun opponents prefer looking the other way on immigration violations...... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Usually, when society makes rules.....they're called laws. But am I to take it from your response that anyone who disobeys any laws is a low life criminal?
Nothing ever ever that black and white, but if we are talking about buying guns for profit to sale to criminals, then yes.

 

Rule: keep off grass

 

Law: Don't murder or buy guns for murders so they can murder.

Edited by mimartin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laws are still nothing more than rules about what you're allowed to do or not according to the society you live in. All you can really hope for is that whatever laws are passed both make sense and are enforceable. Making laws to look you're doing something is at best farcical. The Assault Weapons ban of the mid 90's did nothing to stop Columbine. :giveup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it did not stop Columbine.... another one of the give everyone gun aguments that I will never understand...No way short of going back and taking everyone's assault weapon that is already on the market would stop all murders with assault weapons. NRA loves to point this and other gun laws out should they do not work when they were the ones that lobbied (paidoff) Washington to make sure any gun law passed is so weak that it couldn't possibly work.

 

Taft Union High School had a armed guard, but the armed guard didn't stop the school shooting there either (see it works both ways when people use 1/2 truths and misinformation to make their point).

 

Another one of my favorite auguments out of the gun nuts (trust me only a gun nut would make this argument) is we need assualt weapons to defend ourselves from the government. Word of advice, if it ever comes to the point that you have to defend yourself against a US military soldier, put down the weapon or you will die. Our greatest protection against a government take over, is we the people are the government and we the people are the military. People that think they need assault weapons to stand up against our troops shouldn't be allowed to own weapons, they are too stupid and a danger to their ownself.

Edited by mimartin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um the Taft guard was out that day.

 

Also, I heard that the majority of the deaths in Aurora were caused by the shotgun he was carrying. Even if that isn't true, I can pretty much prove that a shotgun can be significantly more deadly than an AR-15. Especially in close quarters like a theater or school.

 

In all honesty, with roughly 90million gun owners, and 1.4 million soldiers, If 1 in 10 kills the people trying to take the guns, gun owners still win. That's also assuming that soldiers would fire on civilians and family members. That's also assuming that the soldiers and pilots could accept killing those in the US. And to be frank, it's to defend against a tyrannical government. Be it our own or another.

 

The one I laugh at is the anti gunners saying that there is no need for an AR-15 for home defense. First off it ignores a couple things. First is that either it's a deadly weapon that is efficient at killing, and therefore a useful tool for home defense, or it's not effective, and there is no reason to ban it. The advantage of an AR is really for the lighter frame users(aka women). While a shotgun is my preferred home defense firearm, it is significantly easier for my girlfriend to carry aim and shoot the lighter AR-15. The second thing they don't realize is that for home defense, PISTOLS SUCK! Seriously. If I could, I'd rather carry a rifle all day than a pistol. Pistols are only good for being concealed. Use your pistol to get to your shotgun or rifle. Use your shotgun to get to your rifle.

 

I think I would be okay with all sales having to go through a background check at gun shows(That's already the case in Florida). The problem comes when talking about private sales outside of the gun show. There's really no way to regulate that. It also makes it more difficult to pass a firearm down to your kids after your death. I may not have gotten my great grandfather's rifle had the restrictions been in place that Feinstein wants.

 

And really, why go after "assault weapons" anyway. Since the gun ban was lifted on "Assault Weapons" there have been a grand total of less than 500 murders committed with an "Assault Weapon." That's 8 years worth of murders, and it doesn't even equal the number of murders committed in Chicago last year. It's less than the number of murders committed with a hammer. The real reason for the ban is pretty obvious. It was even stated by Feinstein that she wanted a total ban on all guns, and the AWB was the first step.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um the Taft guard was out that day.
I know that, why do you think I pointed out it was a 1/2 truth. I was pointing out both sides can use half/truths (lies) to support their cause and it is doing nothing at all to limit these types of murder. Open honest discussion and honest implication of common sense laws can save lives, but no law or amount of weapons will end this type of violence. If one nut job decides to murder people, they will. Armed guards, no guns, armed teachers, no assault weapons, no clips... so on and so on, nothing will stop it. Even if you locked up all nut jobs, someone would fall through the cracks. Nothing will stop it. So to me, the goal should be limiting the magnitude of the events and the ease in which people pull off these events.

 

There were "23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000" So to me, not everyone that qualifies to own a firearm, should be armed. To me owning a firearm is a great responsibility and as such it should be treated with respect. You arm all teachers, mall worker and everyone else working in public areas, you think the chances of accidental shooting and deaths go up or down? I am sure we can all think of many people that could pass the gun requirements, but have no business having a drivers license much less a firearm.

 

In all honesty, with roughly 90million gun owners, and 1.4 million soldiers, If 1 in 10 kills the people trying to take the guns, gun owners still win. That's also assuming that soldiers would fire on civilians and family members. That's also assuming that the soldiers and pilots could accept killing those in the US. And to be frank, it's to defend against a tyrannical government. Be it our own or another.
Yeah, guns would work wonders against tanks, aircraft, drones and everything else the military has to offer. You also lost my point (ignored it) I don't believe our military would attack our civilians and I also know of at least one of those 90 million gun owners that would not attack our soldiers who are sworn to protect me and uphold The Constitution. It is a stupid nonsensical argument on why we should have assault weapons. Saying I like using them for target practice or home protection is a valid reason, saying I need them to protect us against our own soldiers is idiotic.

 

Man with AR-15 goes up against a platoon of American Soldiers, man with AR-15 is dead.

Edited by mimartin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mim. Fine then, we should be allowed to purchase any weapon or vehicle our government can. Feel better? honestly when talking about out right civil war, there is no guarantee of how it would be fought. Tanks come rolling in they may find out how resourceful the rednecks can be.

 

Accidental shootings: Well, first off, that's why I would say they should be allowed to carry IF they have their CCW as that requires their willingness to own rather than forcing teachers to carry. Which by the way, I wouldn't mind if they tightened up the training requirements. I also feel that there should be a legal requirement that any place that has a sign that says "No Firearms Permitted" should have an armed guard to enforce that rule. Simply putting up the sign only covers the law abiding. If you disarm me, you take on the responsibility of protecting me.

 

Also, lets look at the truth behind the "Assault Weapon"

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

Edited by Tommycat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mim. Fine then, we should be allowed to purchase any weapon or vehicle our government can. Feel better?
So you are saying it is ok for me to own nuclear weapons, but it is not alright for a foreign country to own them? Or are you now saying you support Iran and North Korea’s right to have nuclear weapons?

Putting words in others mouth can work both ways, because I am not saying we should have the same weapons as the government. I am saying that assault weapons would be useless in protecting us from a government takeover. Just because Billy Bob watched a couple john wayne movies, does not make them a expert at going against trained soldiers.

 

I never said anything of the kind. I haven't said people should not have assault weapons. I just said if someone is stupid enough to want an assault weapon (since it is a useless overprice weapon) at least give a valid reason and quit spouting off stupidity. I even wrote; I want to use it for target practice or I want it for home protection are valid reasons. These idiot gun nuts just need to stop making people think all gun owners are stupid and paranoid idiots. In other works the NRA needs to get better people in front of the camera.

 

Accidental shootings: Well, first off, that's why I would say they should be allowed to carry IF they have their CCW as that requires their willingness to own rather than forcing teachers to carry. Which by the way, I wouldn't mind if they tightened up the training requirements.
CCW is not a magic pill. People with CCW still have weapons involved in accidental shootings.

 

I also feel that there should be a legal requirement that any place that has a sign that says "No Firearms Permitted" should have an armed guard to enforce that rule. Simply putting up the sign only covers the law abiding. If you disarm me, you take on the responsibility of protecting me.
Why? If you don’t like it, then don’t go into those areas. It isn’t rocket science and this is not Beirut.

 

This is another of those things that has been bugging me in the news lately. I am not trying to take away anyone’s weapon. Like I have said before I am a gun owner. I am actually legally armed at the moment. However, if I go somewhere that has a “No Firearms Permitted” I will unarm. I am not trying to shove my belief structure down anyone’s throat and the only people responsible for a shooting is the person pulling the trigger and the person responsible for the firearm (if they have a legal or criminal responsibility would depend on the circumstances).

Also, lets look at the truth behind the "Assault Weapon"

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

No…Link doesn’t work, but is this part of the debate, because you and Totenkopf seem to agree on this and I don’t care. Assault Weapon are a useless weapon in my opinion. They are not good for hunting and IMO useless for home protection. That was an opinion given to me by a US Marine and a former Navy Seal (notice I did not call the Marine former). No article is going to change my mind when my father and uncle taught me otherwise over years. I have recently shot an AR-15 former army friend bought since he believes Obama will take away his guns. Nothing changed my mind from first hand contact. At close enough range (as in a home) I would much rather have the shotgun over the AR-15 in my house.

 

My only thing suggestion on the subject is people should be responsible for their firearms. However, I seemed to have been meet with people have the right to guns…no matter what. Only thing I am convinced of now is I will support businesses that have signs that say no firearms. At least there I only have to worry about nut cases and criminals shooting me instead of idiots that think they are going to save America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually mimartin, I was saying it. And actually, I say DISARM OUR GOVERNMENT! If we cannot have it, the government shouldn't either. And that would include Nukes. And heck, if someone wants to buy a $5 billion nuclear powered submarine(I could see Larry Ellison wanting one)

 

I already pointed out why an "Assault Weapon" is actually pretty good for home defense. But let me explain that a bit better, as I know I can sometimes ramble and the point can be lost.

 

Reasons for an AR-15 for home defense

A rifle is more accurate than a pistol.

The .223 round is effective at stopping a threat.

The chances of over-penetration are lower than many pistol rounds

The AR-15 can carry more rounds should there be more than one attacker.

Should you have to move, you have even more control of your firearm.

Even though you are using it as a rifle, it actually sticks out less than a pistol.

Unlike a shotgun you can place your shots more carefully.

The AR-15 is light enough for a woman to easily use.

Because I can't afford an assault rifle.

 

As for the CCW: I should have explained that it's a matter of where you get them right now. Some places get the CCW as a free prize in a Cracker Jack's box. There should be a bit more to the training and more consistent training at that. I would even be fine with requiring that persons wishing to carry on their school grounds be required to undertake even further training. Right now, the schools are a great place to practice shooting at moving targets without fear of anyone shooting back. Ask yourself why there have never been any mass shootings at a gun show. There are THOUSANDS of guns there. And before the shooting I went to a gun show and there were more than a thousand AR-15's for sale and being carried.

Edited by Tommycat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...