Well let’s look at what you DID say.
Nice way to miss the point.
So I posted a link from a Law enforcement officer that disagreed with you.
Just for the hell of it here is avideo from a 25 year law enforcement veteran that also disagrees with you.
Care to miss the point again?
One of the most important and compelling things she said:
…you just completely ignored.
What’s behind all of these horrible tragedies is the nutjob(s) at the center of the tragedy, not the tool he uses. Many of these “school shooters” showed quite obvious signs of mental trouble well before they commit their final horrible act.
And as someone else clearly pointed out, not all of them do it with guns.
PS, I don’t own a gun. I have nothing against them, I just don’t happen to own one currently.
I was thinking it, but didn’t say it. I certainly haven’t made you repeat yourself like you’ve done to me. Anyway, what do you favor?
Oh yes, they can certainly be used for hunting, but they’re not required. PA banned them for deer hunting for whatever reason, and PA hunters get by OK. My knowledge of hunting is out of date and has always been sketchy, so I googled “most popular hunting rifle” and selected the second hit. Not a single semi on there. I selected the second one because the first one was titled “Best Bolt-Action Deer/Big Game Hunting Rifles”. It mentioned the Winchester 1894 as the most popular deer rifle ever. This one says that “bolt action is almost certainly the most common action in hunting rifles” (the author goes on to recommend a semi to new hunters, though, due to ease of use). Given that the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the US, it isn’t hard to conclude that the majority of them are used for sport shooting, not hunting. If it was my hobby, I’d be OK with seeing such a notorious weapon-- even if only notorious due to misuse by a few individuals-- be banned, so long as I could continue to hunt and sport shoot with other types of long guns.
The Bushmaster AR-15’s reputation certainly hasn’t been helped by the manufacturer’s ad campaign. Doesn’t look like a hunting rifle– because it’s not. It was marketed as an “adaptive combat rifle”.
That’s great, Rick. Took me all of .53 seconds to find high ranking cops in favor of more gun control. I didn’t look at your link because the first one you had was pretty trite.
I got off-topic in another thread. Reposting it here:
(Outside the quote box due to slight re-editing.)
The gun rights movement is just another aspect of the anti-modernity movement that Wm. F. Buckley and his kind knit together, right alongside banning birth control, opposing socialized medicine, putting “inferior Negroes” to death on spurious grounds, gutting environmental law, and opposing social democracy generally. The gun nuts are the same people as the anti-contraception maniacs, the white supremacists, the “free-marketers,” and the anti-environmentalist backlash.
The previous generation assumed that progress would proceed peaceably. But the best long-term way to defeat the rabid right in the USA’s federal democratic system is to defeat them militarily. This is what the abolitionists had to do. It is what we or our children will have to do. And time is short. The madmen still have their hands on the tiller and will not permit us to stop the destruction of our agricultural base–of our economy which they claim to defend!–by climate change.
They have already set their terms, long ago. Cold dead hands. I do not ask those terms to change. I ask only an acceptance of those terms from those of us who made the mistake of thinking this reform–any reform–could stand without being enforced by bloodiness worthy of U.S. Grant and Wm. Tecumseh Sherman.
Also in that thread there was this comment:
How about people like me?
I don’t need to scream at you. I just need the proper authorities to know where you all are.
Stand up, make your voices heard, by all means. And soon enough your names will go on a list, and one fine day the BATFE, or whatever name they’ll be using, will knock on your door to confiscate your guns.
By all means, resist, if you want to die for that.
It was before this latest mass shooting I was already thinking the cops were right to take down Randy Weaver’s family.
I’m not pro-gun-control because of school shootings. I’m pro-gun-control because of dumb guys who pick fights with teenagers and kill them. I’m pro-gun-control because of what we get without it: the damn arms race between civilians and cops, blacks and whites, one gang and another.
I was willing to let what rules we had work. Then this year there were too many high-profile cases for me to accept it anymore.
Time to shut it all down. Close the firearms factories; confiscate any civilian gun in any shooting anywhere and destroy it; shut it all down.
I’m so glad there is no shortage of kneejerk reactions from the pro gun side.
Hey idiots: nobody cares about automatic vs. semi-automatic.
It is a bullshit compromise cooked up in a climate where a sane discussion of gun regulation is impossible because you steel-dick types can’t combine reading comprehension with guns.
Um, I would just like to distance myself from the last two posters, if anybody cares.
You should try reading the first reply to that extremely ill informed article:
The number of mistakes this so called expert makes are embarrassing. For example:
Bullshit; the M16A2, M4 and some models of the FN FAL are not capable of full automatic fire but are still considered assault rifles by every military that uses them.
Again, bullshit as the first reply noted.
Yet again, bullshit. The M14 was fully automatic, as was it’s replacement the M16 and M16A1 The M16A2 was the successor to the M16/M16A1, not the M14. And again, the M16A2 and M4 are still considered an assault rifles despite the lack of fully automatic fire in favor of 3 round burst fire. Despite being a carbine, the M4 is also considered an assault rifle. The original assault rifle, the StG44 was a carbine.
It’s getting tiring trying to correct the number of times this guy is spouting bullshit and simply flat out wrong. The 5.56mm Nato is deadly, it is designed to kill, not to produce survivable wounds. What it does do is produce extremely damaging wounds if it fails to kill as the round will fragment upon hitting bone. As noted in the first reply to the author of this nonesense article, complaints about the 5.56mm round vs 7.62mm rounds is that the performance of the 5.56 drops off after 300-500m or so, and due to the nature of the terrain many engagements in Afghanistan have happened at further ranges than this. One of the reasons of the selection of the 5.56mm in the M16 to replace the 7.62mm of the M14 was that experiance in wars world wide from the turn of the 20th century to Vietnam was that small arms engagements almost never happened at more than 300m.
Complete and utter bullshit. Anyone claiming to be a firearms ‘expert’ making this statement deserves all the ridicule he gets. A semi-automatic rifle is a magazine fed rifle that is self loading, pulling the trigger fires a round and the spent casing is automatically ejected and the next round loaded automatically. This is most certainly not like every hunting, target, or military rifle ever made, Mr. Expert seems to have a gaping hole in his knowledge of firearms, namely he is entirely unaware of the very long existence of the bolt-action rifle which was the standard battle rifle of every military in the world for over half a century, is widely used in hunting and target shooting and is still widely the preferred type of action for sniper rifles. A second round is not fired when you pull the trigger a second time; the spend casing is not automatically ejected and a fresh round loaded. The bolt has to be manually operated by the shooter to allow the spent casing to be ejected and the next round loaded. For fucks sake, the most widely owned rifle used for hunting and target shooting in the US and the Western world is the Mosin–Nagant, a bolt-action magazine fed rifle that owes its wide use to its extremely cheap cost as it is military surplus from former Soviet Bloc states and clients. They can be had for less than $100, from the link:
Who are you to determine the boundaries of what constitutes sane discourse?
And FYI, I don’t have a dick (steel or otherwise). And my reading comprehension is just fine.
Why would it matter? This thread is specifically for shouting at each other so loud that we cannot hear what the other is saying. Other threads about guns are quite different, because … because … um, I will get back to you …
I care. And it’s appreciated. The problem, of course, is that political dissociation from them isn’t possible; they wave the same pro-gun-control flag as folks like you. It makes gun owners who might otherwise be open to compromises resist, because they know from experience that there’s never a point where those folks will say “OK, the gun laws we have on the books now are fine.” There’s always one more thing they want to ban.
(I wasn’t naive enough to believe the OP actually wanted honest answers to his original questions; I figured he basically wanted to point and laugh at “those stupid Americans.” I provided him with honest answers anyway. Clearly it was a wasted effort.)
Right now, I think I have five or six boxes of nine mill sitting around, because when I go to the range, I usually shoot four or five boxes. That’s an amount consistent with maintaining skill with my 9mm pistol.
Is that a “huge supply?”
You have no idea. If ammo purchases were restricted, I’d consider – for cost reasons if nothing else – getting a reloading setup. The skill set needed to reload is not remotely comparable to sewing clothes. It’s much easier. How long do you imagine it would take me to accumulate my same standard supply of five or six boxes?
You literally have no clue, and yet you confidently propose to craft public policy.
FWIW, the Soviet bloc also moved from huge 7.62 cartridges to the smaller 5.45 to feed their AK battle rifles around that time.
One reason was the overkill nature of ultra long range rounds for the reason you mention, another was that you can achieve higher rpm when your gun doesn’t kick back so damn much, but the most important was simple bulk and weight : a soldier can lug more fives than sevens around within similar volume/weight constraints and when 95% of military shots consist in suppressing fire, carrying more ammo is strictly more important than carrying kill-em-dead-thrice-over ammo.
Why keep five or six boxes of ammo around your house, if you only use it at the range ? Buy it on the spot, use it immediately, maintain skill, no problem. I fail to see how keeping a stockpile at home is integral to the stated purpose.
Appeal to emotion.
Because sometimes the range at which I shoot is a piece of rural property belonging to a friend of mine, not a commercial facility. The benefit of this arrangement is the range fees are highly affordable. The drawback is my friend does not sell anything.
But based on this comment, I better not admit that I also keep a box each of .380, .44 Mag, .45 ACP, .357 Mag, and four or five boxes of .38 wadcutter. The single boxes are what’s left over from the last times I shot my Makarov, my Blackhawk, and my P90.
It’s too expensive (and hurts my hand) to shoot multiple boxes of the .357 Mag, so when my GP141 gets to the top of the rotation, I shoot the wadcutter.
The point is: I enjoy target shooting. And like any other physical skill, practice is necessary to maintain a degree of proficiency.
And if one practices shooting, one will perforce use ammo.
I don’t stockpile. The oldest ammo I have is probably the .380, which I think I bought in 2009 and have been slowly working my way through, primarily because the Makarov such a pain to break down and clean that I resist shooting it as much as I should.
No dipshit, you don’t understand. Even if you’re pathetic enough to reload ammo illegally, which you won’t be able to shoot at any range, you’re not gonna recreate the supply of mass produced ammo.
A few gun nuts in their basements aren’t gonna be able to keep up with the demand for ammunition. Which means that gun usage would drop hugely.
Mind you, I’m not saying I support ammo banning necessarily. I was just pointing out how fucking stupid your argument was.
Also, your brass will fail you eventually, as jasg mentioned. You gonna have a back yard forge too?
Ten, twenty hours? I have no idea how inept you are at arts and crafts.
I know enough to know that you’re being stupid.
Ok, let’s keep it to concepts you can understand, then: there will be no ammo ban.
End of discussion.
I didn’t say there would be. I was just showing how utterly bereft of ability you were in dealing with the hypothetical.
You may now scuttle away and pretend you won.
Oh, all right then. I assumed that when you said “at the range” you meant, you know, an *actual *firing range, with safety codes, oversight and everything.
