(04-22-2021 02:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 12:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Sorry, I didn't respond/read all these...

(04-20-2021 03:32 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I'm curious just how much of an impact on your 100m people there will actually be if there are additional restrictions placed on these high-capacity semiautomatic rifles (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/21/definiti...sue.html). Use whatever definition of these weapons that doesn't make you guys furious (a general "you"... I don't think you've had a problem with these terms in the past, Ham). Certainly not all of the 100m referenced people own this level of weapon. I'm not sure what percentage would be affected...

It's interesting that you point out the relatively paltry number of people killed yearly by this type of weapon. One defense of these weapons that has been brought up here is the idea that ranchers need them to defend themselves against packs of wild boars. I wonder how many ranchers are killed yearly by these wild boars. Is it >= 100-400?

But this again misses the point. 100mm people own guns. Many of them are ranchers. People don't die from feral hogs because we have a very effective control system in place that INCLUDES rifles. Take away rifles and its like removing a predator from an ecosystem, and the 'pest' that predator feeds on goes wild and we have to re-introduce the predator (Yellowstone and elsewhere)

The problem with 'banning assault style weapons' is that this is a style, not a function. If you ban the function (semi-auto) then you also essentially ban most hand-guns....

And again, all to stop people who almost ALWAYS are violating the law anyway.

Such laws will be highly effective in reducing the number of people who own them, because most people don't want to be in violation of the law.... but its like MJ. Those who want to own/have them will still have/own them... so if you want to say 'we took 100m deadly guns off the streets' they will be able to say that... but I'm betting they have almost NO impact on deaths. Initially, maybe, but it will not last. Manufacturers will find ways to comply with the law but still give owners what they want... illegal guns will be made/purchased... and people intent on murder will find other means.

High capacity, I can generally get behind... but where do we define it? 6 shots, 9? 15? More than that? No problem... EXCEPT that it really doesn't take much engineering to build (or even print) a high capacity mag or a barrel extension or even a bump stock. They make 'kits' to turn a glock into essentially an assault rifle. You can ban them all you want, but guns aren't rocket science. I wonder how many of the 400 or so killed by rifles would have survived 'but for' the high capacity? I mean, just because someone shot 20 times, killing 6 people without reloading doesn't mean he couldn't have still killed those same 6 people if he'd had to reload.

(04-21-2021 12:18 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I think there's a good chance that these mass shooting events would have less deaths if these weapons were not so readily available. Sure, people could roll grenades into classrooms and cause even more damage however that doesn't seem to be a problem. It might have to do with the inherent psychology of these shooters... there's something about mowing people down that "does it" for these shooters. I think it's unlikely that simply killing children by any means necessary is the goal here. I don't know... I'm not a psychiatrist.

'What you think' shouldn't the threshold for removing constitutional rights.

And you bring up a good point... which goes to the popularity of FPS games etc.

Doesn't it seem that if the problem is 'people wanting to mow down others' that we should be addressing that instead?

Actually if you look at many mass-shooters like Columbine etc, they have multiple methods to kill people.... AND you actually prove my point. People have a fantasy of 'mowing down people' like playing doom... but because automatic weapons are unavailable, they use semi-auto weapons. Take semi-auto away and they STILL will develop mechanical means to replicate that 'thrill'.

The idea that someone who is fixated on 'mowing people down' would simply give up on that fantasy is not at all realistic, and not worth infringing on the rights of 350mm people... at least 100mm of which CHOOSE to properly and safely exercise THIS SPECIFIC right every single day.

Quote:I have relatives in the western Houston suburbs that have had feral pigs dig up the grass around their suburban home (outside their fence). I think it would be better for local agencies to address this problem than to have my elderly relatives sitting on their back porch with an AK.

You caught 16 pigs in your yard? Were they destroying your property or threatening your pets? How would a 30.06 help in your situation? I would imagine that you could use it on a massive ranch but not if you are living in closer quarters with other houses? I'm trying to understand how this works and if there are any other solutions than using semi-automatic rifles.

Its not on their property... so I'm pretty sure its illegal for them to shoot ANYTHING not on their property.... with ANY gun. It would likely be illegal for you to CLUB them to death not on your property.

Yes, yes and yes. I have a chain link fence around my 'inner' property so while they threaten the fenceline, they aren't likely to be able to simply 'come upon' my dogs and kill them. More likely they would create a hole in my fence... and if I didn't fix it quickly, my dogs could get out and get hit or killed by the pigs.

You seem fascinated by this fantasy you've created in your mind where ma and pa kettle are sitting on their porch just looking for something to shoot. That is indeed a fantasy. Almost by definition based on the number of hogs caught/killed vs the number of 'accidental shootings by ma and pa kettle', people are overwhelmingly demonstrating that your fantasy/fear isn't remotely the case. Can you find some yokel who ACTS like that? Absolutely... mostly because he want's to demonstrate his freedom to those who want to take his freedom away, and not because he has some sort of fantasy about strafing people. Most of these mass shooters don't seem to live in the woods... and those who 'aggressively' demonstrate their freedom often do. Not at all the same people.

A 30.06 is just another option for hog control. In my situation, I can manage it without that... likely because I'm close to the city so the 'hog density' is not that high. 16 hogs in one brood isn't a huge brood.... its just a lot for the few acres I live on.... plus I'm in the city limits where discharge of such a gun without imminent threat of life isn't legal.

I DO hunt though... so if I felt a need to shoot a hog... say where he had my dogs or kids cornered.... That might be my only weapon available... and might be vastly safer for me to shoot than a hand-gun (accuracy) or shot-gun (pattern)

I suppose at that point I could run to academy and purchase a 22lr and just keep my child and the hog 'penned up' for the 7 day waiting period (or whatever it is) and hope for the best??

This is what i mean by the things you're talking about demonstrating the problem. Your solutions/thoughts make sense on paper, but not in real life. There are thousands of people just like you who 'don't know what you don't know'.... and if you ban together, you can easily pass bills impacting things 'you know little about'... You don't have ill intent, but that doesn't mean that there aren't MILLIONS on your side who do.

Because of the gravity of each situation... I think there are likely millions on 'your' side who want to eliminate all guns... to eliminate resistance to compliance with government control of things.... NOT for safety like you... but for a sense of 'control'. On the opposite side, I think there are TENS of millions who want to do the exact opposite... but only a miniscule FEW of those (thousands??) who want to do it so that they can be or protect mass shooters of children.

Yet when the debates come up, it always seems to be framed as 'protecting children'.

The 400 by rifles was ALL people, not just kids... and many of those categorized as 'kids' are adult-acting gang members... or kids put in harms way as a result of adults doing illegal things.

Quote:

Quote:I appreciate that you admit that you don't understand the needs of ranchers... but that is precisely the point. You don't understand the needs of others... and yet you require that they 'demonstrate a need' to people, many of whom ALSO won't understand the need.

Politicians vote on laws that don't match up with their previous occupation or their education. We discuss topics all time on this forum without having a expert background in them.

Sure... but inherent in that is a need/desire to become better educated in those areas. I don't think a representative from Brooklyn gives a rats ass about the needs of a Texas rancher... and vice versa. On here, I think we engage in attempts at understanding. That's not most politicians goals.

Quote:But why does a dude living in Chicago need an AK when it's the southern ranchers who are dealing with wild boars?

I don't know. Let's find one of them and ask them. What I don't want is to assume that just because I can't think of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I don't live there.

What if he has property 75 miles outside of Chicago with a hog or fox problem? Are we going to make him a criminal for keeping control of his guns as opposed to leaving them out on the ranch? Isn't that precisely how a gang might illegally get their hands on his weapons? What if he most often sees the animals when he's first returning to the property after a period away?

I know lots of 'dudes' in Chicago who own ARs and AKs and use them for hunting deer. So know, a 'dude in Chicago' doesnt need one for 'boars'. They do 'need' them for deer on hunting trips. Perhaps you should open your eyes to all the rationales for such firearms.

But the fixation with 'feral hogs' seems rather embedded here.

Jesus... I'm trying to educate myself and I'm taking flak for doing so. You guys are awesome.

(04-22-2021 12:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 11:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If we’re talking about a rifle used for hunting feral hogs, we’re in no way talking about an AR that is equivalent to a 22LR.

No one takes a 22 hog hunting. Those are meant for small animals (say armadillos). Unless there’s been a drastic change in 22s since I was regularly using them as a child and teen...

As usual Lad, you come in and make a pedantic correction.
a) I'm not talking about going hog hunting. That is an offensive action I'm talking about 'predator protection'... a defensive act.
b) The point is about small caliber 'assault style' weapons vs large caliber 'hunting' weapons. A 22 LR is also appropriate for a fox... That said.... the FIRST response on a google search https://www.gearpatrol.com/outdoors/a117...ts,The%20. Taking down animals and varmints — squirrels, ground hogs, prairie dogs, foxes, deer and even wild hogs — at short to medium ranges (20-50 meters) is doable with a . 22. A well-placed shot to the head or neck will almost always ensure a kill, as long as you don't attempt a longer-range shot. which ios almost EXACTLY what I said without researching anything....
and
c) I know people who own AR-15's in 22LR cal.... and I know why they own them. I know a few in california where they are illegal... and I know why they own them. They specifically own the lower calibre weapon in an 'AR style' because it is easier to control/less chance of unintended injury... and the 'AR' nature ensures that if they need 2 shots, they will be accurate. Your questions actually DEMONSTRATE why I said 22... and you demonstrate that you have a flawed concept of such things. A 270 would be more effective... a 7mm mag even more so... but such things ignore the proximity issues being discussed.

If you're telling me that you support laws that allow people to have a 22 cal AR-15 IF they have a problem with Armadillos, a 270 cal AR-15 if they have a problem with Hogs... and a 450 Bushmaster AR if they have a problem with bears, THEN your response would add to the conversation. I'm about 99% confident that isn't the case... because if you were okay with a 270 AR-15 for someone with a hog problem, you'd almost ALWAYS be okay with them having a smaller cal for the same purpose instead.... in which case your point would STILL be moot. Or are you saying that people should be able to buy a dozen different guns if they have problems with a variety of 'varmints' from hawks and rodents to bears and mountain lions? Since that would be prohibitively expensive, how is that not simply the equivalent of a 'poll tax'. You don't like voter ID if it isn't free. Are you suggesting we give away guns, so long as you demonstrate a specific need for each weapon? I'm guessing not.

Otherwise it just seems like someone looking for a reason to argue... and coming up with ones that only deflect from constructive conversation.

And you wonder why we don't get along??

Gonna step in here....

First I think there is some vernacular issues.

An AR style chambered for a 22LR is commonly referred to as an AR-22.

An AR or AR-15 is chambered for a 5.56mm or .223 round (while close, they are not the same). If the specific chamber is a .223, you can shoot either. If the chamber is 5.56, you should only shoot 5.56.

A .223, while close in caliber, is a much more lethal round. It has a massively larger shell, more powder, and a much higher bore velocity. Same applies to a 5.56.

An AR style weapon chambered for a .308 (also known as a NATO 7.62 round) is commonly known as an AR-10. This is a much much larger round, much higher bore velocity, and much longer range.

For hog shooting, I dont think I would ever consider a 22LR. Unless you got a perfect shot at 40m or less, this will simply piss off the pig.

A .223 is a popular round for hog hunting, and is effective out to 200 yds. But, I have seen a pig hit on the front leg and this shell literally will bounce. Many private pig guides will not allow you to go with them using a .223.

Going up the ladder, a 7.62 will effectively do a pig out to about 350 400 yds. At 200 yds, a hit center mass with this will insta-drop a pig.

And yes, there are AR styled weapons chambered for .370, .450, and .300. Of those the .300 is probably most prevalent. And there isnt a special designation for an AR style weapon in those calibers that I know of.

(04-22-2021 02:34 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 02:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 12:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Sorry, I didn't respond/read all these...

(04-20-2021 03:32 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I'm curious just how much of an impact on your 100m people there will actually be if there are additional restrictions placed on these high-capacity semiautomatic rifles (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/21/definiti...sue.html). Use whatever definition of these weapons that doesn't make you guys furious (a general "you"... I don't think you've had a problem with these terms in the past, Ham). Certainly not all of the 100m referenced people own this level of weapon. I'm not sure what percentage would be affected...

It's interesting that you point out the relatively paltry number of people killed yearly by this type of weapon. One defense of these weapons that has been brought up here is the idea that ranchers need them to defend themselves against packs of wild boars. I wonder how many ranchers are killed yearly by these wild boars. Is it >= 100-400?

But this again misses the point. 100mm people own guns. Many of them are ranchers. People don't die from feral hogs because we have a very effective control system in place that INCLUDES rifles. Take away rifles and its like removing a predator from an ecosystem, and the 'pest' that predator feeds on goes wild and we have to re-introduce the predator (Yellowstone and elsewhere)

The problem with 'banning assault style weapons' is that this is a style, not a function. If you ban the function (semi-auto) then you also essentially ban most hand-guns....

And again, all to stop people who almost ALWAYS are violating the law anyway.

Such laws will be highly effective in reducing the number of people who own them, because most people don't want to be in violation of the law.... but its like MJ. Those who want to own/have them will still have/own them... so if you want to say 'we took 100m deadly guns off the streets' they will be able to say that... but I'm betting they have almost NO impact on deaths. Initially, maybe, but it will not last. Manufacturers will find ways to comply with the law but still give owners what they want... illegal guns will be made/purchased... and people intent on murder will find other means.

High capacity, I can generally get behind... but where do we define it? 6 shots, 9? 15? More than that? No problem... EXCEPT that it really doesn't take much engineering to build (or even print) a high capacity mag or a barrel extension or even a bump stock. They make 'kits' to turn a glock into essentially an assault rifle. You can ban them all you want, but guns aren't rocket science. I wonder how many of the 400 or so killed by rifles would have survived 'but for' the high capacity? I mean, just because someone shot 20 times, killing 6 people without reloading doesn't mean he couldn't have still killed those same 6 people if he'd had to reload.

(04-21-2021 12:18 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I think there's a good chance that these mass shooting events would have less deaths if these weapons were not so readily available. Sure, people could roll grenades into classrooms and cause even more damage however that doesn't seem to be a problem. It might have to do with the inherent psychology of these shooters... there's something about mowing people down that "does it" for these shooters. I think it's unlikely that simply killing children by any means necessary is the goal here. I don't know... I'm not a psychiatrist.

'What you think' shouldn't the threshold for removing constitutional rights.

And you bring up a good point... which goes to the popularity of FPS games etc.

Doesn't it seem that if the problem is 'people wanting to mow down others' that we should be addressing that instead?

Actually if you look at many mass-shooters like Columbine etc, they have multiple methods to kill people.... AND you actually prove my point. People have a fantasy of 'mowing down people' like playing doom... but because automatic weapons are unavailable, they use semi-auto weapons. Take semi-auto away and they STILL will develop mechanical means to replicate that 'thrill'.

The idea that someone who is fixated on 'mowing people down' would simply give up on that fantasy is not at all realistic, and not worth infringing on the rights of 350mm people... at least 100mm of which CHOOSE to properly and safely exercise THIS SPECIFIC right every single day.

Quote:I have relatives in the western Houston suburbs that have had feral pigs dig up the grass around their suburban home (outside their fence). I think it would be better for local agencies to address this problem than to have my elderly relatives sitting on their back porch with an AK.

You caught 16 pigs in your yard? Were they destroying your property or threatening your pets? How would a 30.06 help in your situation? I would imagine that you could use it on a massive ranch but not if you are living in closer quarters with other houses? I'm trying to understand how this works and if there are any other solutions than using semi-automatic rifles.

Its not on their property... so I'm pretty sure its illegal for them to shoot ANYTHING not on their property.... with ANY gun. It would likely be illegal for you to CLUB them to death not on your property.

Yes, yes and yes. I have a chain link fence around my 'inner' property so while they threaten the fenceline, they aren't likely to be able to simply 'come upon' my dogs and kill them. More likely they would create a hole in my fence... and if I didn't fix it quickly, my dogs could get out and get hit or killed by the pigs.

You seem fascinated by this fantasy you've created in your mind where ma and pa kettle are sitting on their porch just looking for something to shoot. That is indeed a fantasy. Almost by definition based on the number of hogs caught/killed vs the number of 'accidental shootings by ma and pa kettle', people are overwhelmingly demonstrating that your fantasy/fear isn't remotely the case. Can you find some yokel who ACTS like that? Absolutely... mostly because he want's to demonstrate his freedom to those who want to take his freedom away, and not because he has some sort of fantasy about strafing people. Most of these mass shooters don't seem to live in the woods... and those who 'aggressively' demonstrate their freedom often do. Not at all the same people.

A 30.06 is just another option for hog control. In my situation, I can manage it without that... likely because I'm close to the city so the 'hog density' is not that high. 16 hogs in one brood isn't a huge brood.... its just a lot for the few acres I live on.... plus I'm in the city limits where discharge of such a gun without imminent threat of life isn't legal.

I DO hunt though... so if I felt a need to shoot a hog... say where he had my dogs or kids cornered.... That might be my only weapon available... and might be vastly safer for me to shoot than a hand-gun (accuracy) or shot-gun (pattern)

I suppose at that point I could run to academy and purchase a 22lr and just keep my child and the hog 'penned up' for the 7 day waiting period (or whatever it is) and hope for the best??

This is what i mean by the things you're talking about demonstrating the problem. Your solutions/thoughts make sense on paper, but not in real life. There are thousands of people just like you who 'don't know what you don't know'.... and if you ban together, you can easily pass bills impacting things 'you know little about'... You don't have ill intent, but that doesn't mean that there aren't MILLIONS on your side who do.

Because of the gravity of each situation... I think there are likely millions on 'your' side who want to eliminate all guns... to eliminate resistance to compliance with government control of things.... NOT for safety like you... but for a sense of 'control'. On the opposite side, I think there are TENS of millions who want to do the exact opposite... but only a miniscule FEW of those (thousands??) who want to do it so that they can be or protect mass shooters of children.

Yet when the debates come up, it always seems to be framed as 'protecting children'.

The 400 by rifles was ALL people, not just kids... and many of those categorized as 'kids' are adult-acting gang members... or kids put in harms way as a result of adults doing illegal things.

Quote:

Quote:I appreciate that you admit that you don't understand the needs of ranchers... but that is precisely the point. You don't understand the needs of others... and yet you require that they 'demonstrate a need' to people, many of whom ALSO won't understand the need.

Politicians vote on laws that don't match up with their previous occupation or their education. We discuss topics all time on this forum without having a expert background in them.

Sure... but inherent in that is a need/desire to become better educated in those areas. I don't think a representative from Brooklyn gives a rats ass about the needs of a Texas rancher... and vice versa. On here, I think we engage in attempts at understanding. That's not most politicians goals.

Quote:But why does a dude living in Chicago need an AK when it's the southern ranchers who are dealing with wild boars?

I don't know. Let's find one of them and ask them. What I don't want is to assume that just because I can't think of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I don't live there.

What if he has property 75 miles outside of Chicago with a hog or fox problem? Are we going to make him a criminal for keeping control of his guns as opposed to leaving them out on the ranch? Isn't that precisely how a gang might illegally get their hands on his weapons? What if he most often sees the animals when he's first returning to the property after a period away?

I know lots of 'dudes' in Chicago who own ARs and AKs and use them for hunting deer. So know, a 'dude in Chicago' doesnt need one for 'boars'. They do 'need' them for deer on hunting trips. Perhaps you should open your eyes to all the rationales for such firearms.

But the fixation with 'feral hogs' seems rather embedded here.

Jesus... I'm trying to educate myself and I'm taking flak for doing so. You guys are awesome.

I referring to this question you asked: "But why does a dude living in Chicago need an AK when it's the southern ranchers who are dealing with wild boars?"

Your question above seems to appear as just a rhetorical question that ignores the other rationales for having a semi auto.

Dont get upset when it is noted as such.

For the third time, ARs and AKs are by far the most common and most popular rifles for game hunting. The use of them in feral hog control relative to their use in game hunting overall is rather inconsequential.

(04-22-2021 04:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 12:41 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 11:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If we’re talking about a rifle used for hunting feral hogs, we’re in no way talking about an AR that is equivalent to a 22LR.

No one takes a 22 hog hunting. Those are meant for small animals (say armadillos). Unless there’s been a drastic change in 22s since I was regularly using them as a child and teen...

As usual Lad, you come in and make a pedantic correction.
a) I'm not talking about going hog hunting. That is an offensive action I'm talking about 'predator protection'... a defensive act.
b) The point is about small caliber 'assault style' weapons vs large caliber 'hunting' weapons. A 22 LR is also appropriate for a fox... That said.... the FIRST response on a google search https://www.gearpatrol.com/outdoors/a117...ts,The%20. Taking down animals and varmints — squirrels, ground hogs, prairie dogs, foxes, deer and even wild hogs — at short to medium ranges (20-50 meters) is doable with a . 22. A well-placed shot to the head or neck will almost always ensure a kill, as long as you don't attempt a longer-range shot. which ios almost EXACTLY what I said without researching anything....
and
c) I know people who own AR-15's in 22LR cal.... and I know why they own them. I know a few in california where they are illegal... and I know why they own them. They specifically own the lower calibre weapon in an 'AR style' because it is easier to control/less chance of unintended injury... and the 'AR' nature ensures that if they need 2 shots, they will be accurate. Your questions actually DEMONSTRATE why I said 22... and you demonstrate that you have a flawed concept of such things. A 270 would be more effective... a 7mm mag even more so... but such things ignore the proximity issues being discussed.

If you're telling me that you support laws that allow people to have a 22 cal AR-15 IF they have a problem with Armadillos, a 270 cal AR-15 if they have a problem with Hogs... and a 450 Bushmaster AR if they have a problem with bears, THEN your response would add to the conversation. I'm about 99% confident that isn't the case... because if you were okay with a 270 AR-15 for someone with a hog problem, you'd almost ALWAYS be okay with them having a smaller cal for the same purpose instead.... in which case your point would STILL be moot. Or are you saying that people should be able to buy a dozen different guns if they have problems with a variety of 'varmints' from hawks and rodents to bears and mountain lions? Since that would be prohibitively expensive, how is that not simply the equivalent of a 'poll tax'. You don't like voter ID if it isn't free. Are you suggesting we give away guns, so long as you demonstrate a specific need for each weapon? I'm guessing not.

Otherwise it just seems like someone looking for a reason to argue... and coming up with ones that only deflect from constructive conversation.

And you wonder why we don't get along??

Gonna step in here....

First I think there is some vernacular issues.

An AR style chambered for a 22LR is commonly referred to as an AR-22.

An AR or AR-15 is chambered for a 5.56mm or .223 round (while close, they are not the same). If the specific chamber is a .223, you can shoot either. If the chamber is 5.56, you should only shoot 5.56.

A .223, while close in caliber, is a much more lethal round. It has a massively larger shell, more powder, and a much higher bore velocity. Same applies to a 5.56.

An AR style weapon chambered for a .308 (also known as a NATO 7.62 round) is commonly known as an AR-10. This is a much much larger round, much higher bore velocity, and much longer range.

For hog shooting, I dont think I would ever consider a 22LR. Unless you got a perfect shot at 40m or less, this will simply piss off the pig.

A .223 is a popular round for hog hunting, and is effective out to 200 yds. But, I have seen a pig hit on the front leg and this shell literally will bounce. Many private pig guides will not allow you to go with them using a .223.

Going up the ladder, a 7.62 will effectively do a pig out to about 350 400 yds. At 200 yds, a hit center mass with this will insta-drop a pig.

And yes, there are AR styled weapons chambered for .370, .450, and .300. Of those the .300 is probably most prevalent. And there isnt a special designation for an AR style weapon in those calibers that I know of.

I have learned more from this one post than I ever expected to learn. My hunting experience was limited to rabbit-size animals. Last "varmint" I shot was a rattlesnake, in my front yard.

But I did own guns from age 12 to age 75, and am glad I never had to justify my right to have them by declaring what I planned to use them for.

(04-22-2021 04:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 02:34 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 02:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 12:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Sorry, I didn't respond/read all these...

(04-20-2021 03:32 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I'm curious just how much of an impact on your 100m people there will actually be if there are additional restrictions placed on these high-capacity semiautomatic rifles (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/21/definiti...sue.html). Use whatever definition of these weapons that doesn't make you guys furious (a general "you"... I don't think you've had a problem with these terms in the past, Ham). Certainly not all of the 100m referenced people own this level of weapon. I'm not sure what percentage would be affected...

It's interesting that you point out the relatively paltry number of people killed yearly by this type of weapon. One defense of these weapons that has been brought up here is the idea that ranchers need them to defend themselves against packs of wild boars. I wonder how many ranchers are killed yearly by these wild boars. Is it >= 100-400?

But this again misses the point. 100mm people own guns. Many of them are ranchers. People don't die from feral hogs because we have a very effective control system in place that INCLUDES rifles. Take away rifles and its like removing a predator from an ecosystem, and the 'pest' that predator feeds on goes wild and we have to re-introduce the predator (Yellowstone and elsewhere)

The problem with 'banning assault style weapons' is that this is a style, not a function. If you ban the function (semi-auto) then you also essentially ban most hand-guns....

And again, all to stop people who almost ALWAYS are violating the law anyway.

Such laws will be highly effective in reducing the number of people who own them, because most people don't want to be in violation of the law.... but its like MJ. Those who want to own/have them will still have/own them... so if you want to say 'we took 100m deadly guns off the streets' they will be able to say that... but I'm betting they have almost NO impact on deaths. Initially, maybe, but it will not last. Manufacturers will find ways to comply with the law but still give owners what they want... illegal guns will be made/purchased... and people intent on murder will find other means.

High capacity, I can generally get behind... but where do we define it? 6 shots, 9? 15? More than that? No problem... EXCEPT that it really doesn't take much engineering to build (or even print) a high capacity mag or a barrel extension or even a bump stock. They make 'kits' to turn a glock into essentially an assault rifle. You can ban them all you want, but guns aren't rocket science. I wonder how many of the 400 or so killed by rifles would have survived 'but for' the high capacity? I mean, just because someone shot 20 times, killing 6 people without reloading doesn't mean he couldn't have still killed those same 6 people if he'd had to reload.

(04-21-2021 12:18 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  I think there's a good chance that these mass shooting events would have less deaths if these weapons were not so readily available. Sure, people could roll grenades into classrooms and cause even more damage however that doesn't seem to be a problem. It might have to do with the inherent psychology of these shooters... there's something about mowing people down that "does it" for these shooters. I think it's unlikely that simply killing children by any means necessary is the goal here. I don't know... I'm not a psychiatrist.

'What you think' shouldn't the threshold for removing constitutional rights.

And you bring up a good point... which goes to the popularity of FPS games etc.

Doesn't it seem that if the problem is 'people wanting to mow down others' that we should be addressing that instead?

Actually if you look at many mass-shooters like Columbine etc, they have multiple methods to kill people.... AND you actually prove my point. People have a fantasy of 'mowing down people' like playing doom... but because automatic weapons are unavailable, they use semi-auto weapons. Take semi-auto away and they STILL will develop mechanical means to replicate that 'thrill'.

The idea that someone who is fixated on 'mowing people down' would simply give up on that fantasy is not at all realistic, and not worth infringing on the rights of 350mm people... at least 100mm of which CHOOSE to properly and safely exercise THIS SPECIFIC right every single day.

Quote:I have relatives in the western Houston suburbs that have had feral pigs dig up the grass around their suburban home (outside their fence). I think it would be better for local agencies to address this problem than to have my elderly relatives sitting on their back porch with an AK.

You caught 16 pigs in your yard? Were they destroying your property or threatening your pets? How would a 30.06 help in your situation? I would imagine that you could use it on a massive ranch but not if you are living in closer quarters with other houses? I'm trying to understand how this works and if there are any other solutions than using semi-automatic rifles.

Its not on their property... so I'm pretty sure its illegal for them to shoot ANYTHING not on their property.... with ANY gun. It would likely be illegal for you to CLUB them to death not on your property.

Yes, yes and yes. I have a chain link fence around my 'inner' property so while they threaten the fenceline, they aren't likely to be able to simply 'come upon' my dogs and kill them. More likely they would create a hole in my fence... and if I didn't fix it quickly, my dogs could get out and get hit or killed by the pigs.

You seem fascinated by this fantasy you've created in your mind where ma and pa kettle are sitting on their porch just looking for something to shoot. That is indeed a fantasy. Almost by definition based on the number of hogs caught/killed vs the number of 'accidental shootings by ma and pa kettle', people are overwhelmingly demonstrating that your fantasy/fear isn't remotely the case. Can you find some yokel who ACTS like that? Absolutely... mostly because he want's to demonstrate his freedom to those who want to take his freedom away, and not because he has some sort of fantasy about strafing people. Most of these mass shooters don't seem to live in the woods... and those who 'aggressively' demonstrate their freedom often do. Not at all the same people.

A 30.06 is just another option for hog control. In my situation, I can manage it without that... likely because I'm close to the city so the 'hog density' is not that high. 16 hogs in one brood isn't a huge brood.... its just a lot for the few acres I live on.... plus I'm in the city limits where discharge of such a gun without imminent threat of life isn't legal.

I DO hunt though... so if I felt a need to shoot a hog... say where he had my dogs or kids cornered.... That might be my only weapon available... and might be vastly safer for me to shoot than a hand-gun (accuracy) or shot-gun (pattern)

I suppose at that point I could run to academy and purchase a 22lr and just keep my child and the hog 'penned up' for the 7 day waiting period (or whatever it is) and hope for the best??

This is what i mean by the things you're talking about demonstrating the problem. Your solutions/thoughts make sense on paper, but not in real life. There are thousands of people just like you who 'don't know what you don't know'.... and if you ban together, you can easily pass bills impacting things 'you know little about'... You don't have ill intent, but that doesn't mean that there aren't MILLIONS on your side who do.

Because of the gravity of each situation... I think there are likely millions on 'your' side who want to eliminate all guns... to eliminate resistance to compliance with government control of things.... NOT for safety like you... but for a sense of 'control'. On the opposite side, I think there are TENS of millions who want to do the exact opposite... but only a miniscule FEW of those (thousands??) who want to do it so that they can be or protect mass shooters of children.

Yet when the debates come up, it always seems to be framed as 'protecting children'.

The 400 by rifles was ALL people, not just kids... and many of those categorized as 'kids' are adult-acting gang members... or kids put in harms way as a result of adults doing illegal things.

Quote:Politicians vote on laws that don't match up with their previous occupation or their education. We discuss topics all time on this forum without having a expert background in them.

Sure... but inherent in that is a need/desire to become better educated in those areas. I don't think a representative from Brooklyn gives a rats ass about the needs of a Texas rancher... and vice versa. On here, I think we engage in attempts at understanding. That's not most politicians goals.

Quote:But why does a dude living in Chicago need an AK when it's the southern ranchers who are dealing with wild boars?

I don't know. Let's find one of them and ask them. What I don't want is to assume that just because I can't think of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I don't live there.

What if he has property 75 miles outside of Chicago with a hog or fox problem? Are we going to make him a criminal for keeping control of his guns as opposed to leaving them out on the ranch? Isn't that precisely how a gang might illegally get their hands on his weapons? What if he most often sees the animals when he's first returning to the property after a period away?

I know lots of 'dudes' in Chicago who own ARs and AKs and use them for hunting deer. So know, a 'dude in Chicago' doesnt need one for 'boars'. They do 'need' them for deer on hunting trips. Perhaps you should open your eyes to all the rationales for such firearms.

But the fixation with 'feral hogs' seems rather embedded here.

Jesus... I'm trying to educate myself and I'm taking flak for doing so. You guys are awesome.

I referring to this question you asked: "But why does a dude living in Chicago need an AK when it's the southern ranchers who are dealing with wild boars?"

Your question above seems to appear as just a rhetorical question that ignores the other rationales for having a semi auto.

Dont get upset when it is noted as such.

It was an actual question... wasn't rhetorical. I was asking for thoughts as to why a city-dweller would use this type of weapon.

Sorry, but please don't shoot 5.56 ammo in a rifle chambered for .223.

AR-15
A 5.56 ('military') round is loaded to a higher pressure than a .223 ('civilian'). Also the 5.56 chamber has a longer throat (about .125"). So please do not shoot a 5.56 round in a .223 chamber rifle even if its a reduced powder load. If you want to use both .223 and 5.56 in the same rifle then get one with a .223 Wylde chamber.

AR-10
The .308 (civilian) typically is loaded to a higher pressure than a 7.62x51(military). (7.62 also has thicker casing walls.) The chamberings are almost identical (six thousands of an inch), but this can affect accuracy. The AR-10 is different from the AR-15 in that the civilian chambered (.308) rifle can handle a (7.62) military round, but I wouldn't recommend shooting .308 (civilian) rounds in a rifle chambered for 7.62 (military).

You need to do some homework to find the right ammo for your rifle and for your intended use. Then go to a rifle range and invest some time in learning how to shoot safely and accurately. Your rifle needs to be in good working order. Remember when you fire a round it is an explosion that propels the bullet not wishful thinking.

Finally, imho buying an 'AR or AK style' rifle in .22 is just silly. Get a Marlin with a micro-groove barrel. Add a 4x scope and wreak havoc on targets or small game.

(04-22-2021 05:43 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 04:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 02:34 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 02:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 12:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Sorry, I didn't respond/read all these...


But this again misses the point. 100mm people own guns. Many of them are ranchers. People don't die from feral hogs because we have a very effective control system in place that INCLUDES rifles. Take away rifles and its like removing a predator from an ecosystem, and the 'pest' that predator feeds on goes wild and we have to re-introduce the predator (Yellowstone and elsewhere)

The problem with 'banning assault style weapons' is that this is a style, not a function. If you ban the function (semi-auto) then you also essentially ban most hand-guns....

And again, all to stop people who almost ALWAYS are violating the law anyway.

Such laws will be highly effective in reducing the number of people who own them, because most people don't want to be in violation of the law.... but its like MJ. Those who want to own/have them will still have/own them... so if you want to say 'we took 100m deadly guns off the streets' they will be able to say that... but I'm betting they have almost NO impact on deaths. Initially, maybe, but it will not last. Manufacturers will find ways to comply with the law but still give owners what they want... illegal guns will be made/purchased... and people intent on murder will find other means.

High capacity, I can generally get behind... but where do we define it? 6 shots, 9? 15? More than that? No problem... EXCEPT that it really doesn't take much engineering to build (or even print) a high capacity mag or a barrel extension or even a bump stock. They make 'kits' to turn a glock into essentially an assault rifle. You can ban them all you want, but guns aren't rocket science. I wonder how many of the 400 or so killed by rifles would have survived 'but for' the high capacity? I mean, just because someone shot 20 times, killing 6 people without reloading doesn't mean he couldn't have still killed those same 6 people if he'd had to reload.

'What you think' shouldn't the threshold for removing constitutional rights.

And you bring up a good point... which goes to the popularity of FPS games etc.

Doesn't it seem that if the problem is 'people wanting to mow down others' that we should be addressing that instead?

Actually if you look at many mass-shooters like Columbine etc, they have multiple methods to kill people.... AND you actually prove my point. People have a fantasy of 'mowing down people' like playing doom... but because automatic weapons are unavailable, they use semi-auto weapons. Take semi-auto away and they STILL will develop mechanical means to replicate that 'thrill'.

The idea that someone who is fixated on 'mowing people down' would simply give up on that fantasy is not at all realistic, and not worth infringing on the rights of 350mm people... at least 100mm of which CHOOSE to properly and safely exercise THIS SPECIFIC right every single day.

Its not on their property... so I'm pretty sure its illegal for them to shoot ANYTHING not on their property.... with ANY gun. It would likely be illegal for you to CLUB them to death not on your property.

Yes, yes and yes. I have a chain link fence around my 'inner' property so while they threaten the fenceline, they aren't likely to be able to simply 'come upon' my dogs and kill them. More likely they would create a hole in my fence... and if I didn't fix it quickly, my dogs could get out and get hit or killed by the pigs.

You seem fascinated by this fantasy you've created in your mind where ma and pa kettle are sitting on their porch just looking for something to shoot. That is indeed a fantasy. Almost by definition based on the number of hogs caught/killed vs the number of 'accidental shootings by ma and pa kettle', people are overwhelmingly demonstrating that your fantasy/fear isn't remotely the case. Can you find some yokel who ACTS like that? Absolutely... mostly because he want's to demonstrate his freedom to those who want to take his freedom away, and not because he has some sort of fantasy about strafing people. Most of these mass shooters don't seem to live in the woods... and those who 'aggressively' demonstrate their freedom often do. Not at all the same people.

A 30.06 is just another option for hog control. In my situation, I can manage it without that... likely because I'm close to the city so the 'hog density' is not that high. 16 hogs in one brood isn't a huge brood.... its just a lot for the few acres I live on.... plus I'm in the city limits where discharge of such a gun without imminent threat of life isn't legal.

I DO hunt though... so if I felt a need to shoot a hog... say where he had my dogs or kids cornered.... That might be my only weapon available... and might be vastly safer for me to shoot than a hand-gun (accuracy) or shot-gun (pattern)

I suppose at that point I could run to academy and purchase a 22lr and just keep my child and the hog 'penned up' for the 7 day waiting period (or whatever it is) and hope for the best??

This is what i mean by the things you're talking about demonstrating the problem. Your solutions/thoughts make sense on paper, but not in real life. There are thousands of people just like you who 'don't know what you don't know'.... and if you ban together, you can easily pass bills impacting things 'you know little about'... You don't have ill intent, but that doesn't mean that there aren't MILLIONS on your side who do.

Because of the gravity of each situation... I think there are likely millions on 'your' side who want to eliminate all guns... to eliminate resistance to compliance with government control of things.... NOT for safety like you... but for a sense of 'control'. On the opposite side, I think there are TENS of millions who want to do the exact opposite... but only a miniscule FEW of those (thousands??) who want to do it so that they can be or protect mass shooters of children.

Yet when the debates come up, it always seems to be framed as 'protecting children'.

The 400 by rifles was ALL people, not just kids... and many of those categorized as 'kids' are adult-acting gang members... or kids put in harms way as a result of adults doing illegal things.


Sure... but inherent in that is a need/desire to become better educated in those areas. I don't think a representative from Brooklyn gives a rats ass about the needs of a Texas rancher... and vice versa. On here, I think we engage in attempts at understanding. That's not most politicians goals.

I don't know. Let's find one of them and ask them. What I don't want is to assume that just because I can't think of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I don't live there.

What if he has property 75 miles outside of Chicago with a hog or fox problem? Are we going to make him a criminal for keeping control of his guns as opposed to leaving them out on the ranch? Isn't that precisely how a gang might illegally get their hands on his weapons? What if he most often sees the animals when he's first returning to the property after a period away?

I know lots of 'dudes' in Chicago who own ARs and AKs and use them for hunting deer. So know, a 'dude in Chicago' doesnt need one for 'boars'. They do 'need' them for deer on hunting trips. Perhaps you should open your eyes to all the rationales for such firearms.

But the fixation with 'feral hogs' seems rather embedded here.

Jesus... I'm trying to educate myself and I'm taking flak for doing so. You guys are awesome.

I referring to this question you asked: "But why does a dude living in Chicago need an AK when it's the southern ranchers who are dealing with wild boars?"

Your question above seems to appear as just a rhetorical question that ignores the other rationales for having a semi auto.

Dont get upset when it is noted as such.

It was an actual question... wasn't rhetorical. I was asking for thoughts as to why a city-dweller would use this type of weapon.

And you have an answer. Seems a pretty obvious reason, even more so since it was pointed out previously and before you asked that question.

Given the huge number of hunters that actually live in a city (even like Chicago) and travel to hunt, I thought that you would have been aware of that situation. Seems pretty self-evident to me. Glad it wasnt a rhetorical question as it appeared, but one rooted in the issue that you are not aware of large numbers of hunters that reside in cities.

Another question, not rhetorical at all, but serious:

If asking for ID to vote is racist, then is asking for ID to buy a gun also racist?

IMO, either both are racist or both are not. Both involve presenting ID to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right. But I would like to hear the logic from somebody who thinks the former is racist and at the same time that the latter is not racist. Or even someone who thinks as I do. Anybody.

I can see why, in either case, somebody who has no legal right to vote or legal right to own a gun would not want to present a valid ID. So it does have a suppressive effect - one we want.

Since we have turned the gun control question into one of how to kill feral hogs, I present the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF5wKcYHE3c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsFXhGoDnW0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhLJ1qWlNp4

Personally I don't see why we have to justify the exercise of a Constitutional right.

(04-22-2021 06:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 05:43 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 04:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 02:34 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 02:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I know lots of 'dudes' in Chicago who own ARs and AKs and use them for hunting deer. So know, a 'dude in Chicago' doesnt need one for 'boars'. They do 'need' them for deer on hunting trips. Perhaps you should open your eyes to all the rationales for such firearms.

But the fixation with 'feral hogs' seems rather embedded here.

Jesus... I'm trying to educate myself and I'm taking flak for doing so. You guys are awesome.

I referring to this question you asked: "But why does a dude living in Chicago need an AK when it's the southern ranchers who are dealing with wild boars?"

Your question above seems to appear as just a rhetorical question that ignores the other rationales for having a semi auto.

Dont get upset when it is noted as such.

It was an actual question... wasn't rhetorical. I was asking for thoughts as to why a city-dweller would use this type of weapon.

And you have an answer. Seems a pretty obvious reason, even more so since it was pointed out previously and before you asked that question.

Given the huge number of hunters that actually live in a city (even like Chicago) and travel to hunt, I thought that you would have been aware of that situation. Seems pretty self-evident to me. Glad it wasnt a rhetorical question as it appeared, but one rooted in the issue that you are not aware of large numbers of hunters that reside in cities.

I wasn't aware that semi-automatic rifles were so popular for hunting. Again... I'm trying to get more educated on the topic so I guess I'll just have to wade through the snark/insults to get there. I was under the impression that snarky replies are considered abhorent by you but I guess that's just for everybody else.

(04-23-2021 10:16 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 06:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 05:43 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 04:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 02:34 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Jesus... I'm trying to educate myself and I'm taking flak for doing so. You guys are awesome.

I referring to this question you asked: "But why does a dude living in Chicago need an AK when it's the southern ranchers who are dealing with wild boars?"

Your question above seems to appear as just a rhetorical question that ignores the other rationales for having a semi auto.

Dont get upset when it is noted as such.

It was an actual question... wasn't rhetorical. I was asking for thoughts as to why a city-dweller would use this type of weapon.

And you have an answer. Seems a pretty obvious reason, even more so since it was pointed out previously and before you asked that question.

Given the huge number of hunters that actually live in a city (even like Chicago) and travel to hunt, I thought that you would have been aware of that situation. Seems pretty self-evident to me. Glad it wasnt a rhetorical question as it appeared, but one rooted in the issue that you are not aware of large numbers of hunters that reside in cities.

I wasn't aware that semi-automatic rifles were so popular for hunting. Again... I'm trying to get more educated on the topic so I guess I'll just have to wade through the snark/insults to get there. I was under the impression that snarky replies are considered abhorent by you but I guess that's just for everybody else.

I had posted well before your comment on city slickers, hogs, and guns the real issue on ARs and AKs re: hunting that was being ignored. But alas, that comment was seemingly ignored or overlooked.

Just to be clear, AR style long rifles are the most widely sold style of long rifle in the United States. I can understand a non-gunnie not knowing that, even though that is actually brought up in many of the articles and news stories run on the issue.

I have no earthly idea where one thinks that 'living in a city' precludes those people them from going hunting, which your comment on Chicago and feral hogs seems to point to. Most people are aware that vast numbers of city people actually can go to the country to hunt. And in fact do so in great numbers. I am surprised that that is seeming a revelation to one.

And as I previously noted, I am glad that the very specific question on 'Chicagoans' and 'feral hogs' is not rooted (hehehe.... pig term) in rhetoric. But it is not foreign to you to paint things in broad stroke rhetoric......

(04-23-2021 11:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-23-2021 10:16 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 06:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 05:43 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-22-2021 04:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I referring to this question you asked: "But why does a dude living in Chicago need an AK when it's the southern ranchers who are dealing with wild boars?"

Your question above seems to appear as just a rhetorical question that ignores the other rationales for having a semi auto.

Dont get upset when it is noted as such.

It was an actual question... wasn't rhetorical. I was asking for thoughts as to why a city-dweller would use this type of weapon.

And you have an answer. Seems a pretty obvious reason, even more so since it was pointed out previously and before you asked that question.

Given the huge number of hunters that actually live in a city (even like Chicago) and travel to hunt, I thought that you would have been aware of that situation. Seems pretty self-evident to me. Glad it wasnt a rhetorical question as it appeared, but one rooted in the issue that you are not aware of large numbers of hunters that reside in cities.

I wasn't aware that semi-automatic rifles were so popular for hunting. Again... I'm trying to get more educated on the topic so I guess I'll just have to wade through the snark/insults to get there. I was under the impression that snarky replies are considered abhorent by you but I guess that's just for everybody else.

I had posted well before your comment on city slickers, hogs, and guns the real issue on ARs and AKs re: hunting that was being ignored. But alas, that comment was seemingly ignored or overlooked.

I missed it. I don't read every post on here TBH.

Quote:Just to be clear, AR style long rifles are the most widely sold style of long rifle in the United States. I can understand a non-gunnie not knowing that, even though that is actually brought up in many of the articles and news stories run on the issue.

I have no earthly idea where one thinks that 'living in a city' precludes those people them from going hunting, which your comment on Chicago and feral hogs seems to point to. Most people are aware that vast numbers of city people actually can go to the country to hunt. And in fact do so in great numbers. I am surprised that that is seeming a revelation to one.

To the bolded... did you not see a few posts above where I said "I wasn't aware that semi-automatic rifles were so popular for hunting." That has to do with why I didn't connect Chicago city-dwellers with the need for this type of weapon if it wasn't clear.

*edit* And it wasn't just referring to AR-type rifles in general. High capacity magazines, etc.

Semis have been highly popular for hunting for half a century or so.

Even when the Brady bill kiboshed some so called 'assault rufles'. ARs that met Brady quickly became the most highly sold long rifles in the US --- basically because the frame is so highly adaptable and built for modularity.

After Brady expired sales just blew up. Kind of makes sense that the most popular style would enjoy widespread use in hunting. As opposed to being a firearm built just to sit on to say you have an AR in the city.

I also did not know that semi-auto weapons were so popular for hunting. I guess our collective ignorance can be forgiven, now that we have learned better.

As for the high capacity magazines, maybe the answer is just that people like their toys and gadgets. What a world it would be where before we are allowed to buy, say a four wheel drive or a Corvette, we have show a need for vehicles with those particular capacities. Especially if there were a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing that the right to own a car would not be infringed.

The seems to be a meme among the lesser knowledgeable that the only reason to have a gun or a high capacity magazine is to kill as many people as possible. I guess that would be like saying the only reason to have a Corvette is to drive 140 mph.

Still, I am OK with restricting HCM if it can be shown that it would have a material effect on mass shootings. I don't think it can.

I think having at least one person shooting back would have more of an effect. The difference between a crazy guy with a HCM is not much from a crazy guy with extra mags or guns. JMHO. The difference between a crazy guy calmly wandering through a building shooting people hiding behind shelves and a crazy guy hiding himself behind a shelf because one or more of his intended victims is shooting back seems like a lot. JMHO.

I don't see how stronger background checks or longer waiting periods (so-called "common sense" gun measures) is going to have any measurable effect, since the ones in force now have not. I don't see how banning a boogie-man gun would change much either. Thus my question in post #1.

I don't need an AR-15 or any other so-called "assault weapon." So what? What difference does that make?

Where in the constitution (or anywhere else) does it say that I am allowed to have only things that I need?

I know where it says my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(04-23-2021 02:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't need an AR-15 or any other so-called "assault weapon." So what? What difference does that make?

Where in the constitution (or anywhere else) does it say that I am allowed to have only things that I need?

I know where it says my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So are you bitter about your inability to legally own a machine gun? Why shouldn't you be allowed one?

(04-23-2021 03:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-23-2021 02:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't need an AR-15 or any other so-called "assault weapon." So what? What difference does that make?
Where in the constitution (or anywhere else) does it say that I am allowed to have only things that I need?
I know where it says my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So are you bitter about your inability to legally own a machine gun? Why shouldn't you be allowed one?

No, because I don't want to own a machine gun.

(04-23-2021 03:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-23-2021 03:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-23-2021 02:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't need an AR-15 or any other so-called "assault weapon." So what? What difference does that make?
Where in the constitution (or anywhere else) does it say that I am allowed to have only things that I need?
I know where it says my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So are you bitter about your inability to legally own a machine gun? Why shouldn't you be allowed one?

No, because I don't want to own a machine gun.

Do you think that private citizens should be allowed to own a machine gun?

(04-23-2021 03:37 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-23-2021 03:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-23-2021 03:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-23-2021 02:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't need an AR-15 or any other so-called "assault weapon." So what? What difference does that make?
Where in the constitution (or anywhere else) does it say that I am allowed to have only things that I need?
I know where it says my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So are you bitter about your inability to legally own a machine gun? Why shouldn't you be allowed one?

No, because I don't want to own a machine gun.

Do you think that private citizens should be allowed to own a machine gun?

That's kind of the yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater analog for the 2nd Amendment. Rights do not allow unlimited action to the detriment of others. The determination has been made that possession of a machine gun unreasonably threatens the rights of others. I don't know whether that's necessarily true, but I have no desire to own a macine gun, so I don't care.

But that doesn't extend to much else.

(04-23-2021 03:37 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-23-2021 03:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-23-2021 03:07 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-23-2021 02:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don't need an AR-15 or any other so-called "assault weapon." So what? What difference does that make?
Where in the constitution (or anywhere else) does it say that I am allowed to have only things that I need?
I know where it says my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So are you bitter about your inability to legally own a machine gun? Why shouldn't you be allowed one?

No, because I don't want to own a machine gun.

Do you think that private citizens should be allowed to own a machine gun?

Sounds like 93 is saying there are lines to be drawn, and machine guns are on the wrong side of that line. The question seems to be, what other types of guns should be on the wrong side, and why?

So, why should AR-15s be banned? Why should any semi-automatic weapon be banned? Why should any particular firearm be banned?

The other side of the question is what kinds of people should be restricted from (a) any kind of firearm, or (b) certain kinds of firearms.

Certain felons and other criminals currently are banned from any kind of firearm. I am OK with that, and think it should be extended.

We all agree crazy people should be banned, but how do we do that? How do we, society, assess who is too crazy to have a gun? the guy who gets irate when kids walk on his grass? The guy who beats his wife? The wife? As an example, my delusional sister can buy a firearm because she has never been convicted of a crime and so can pass the background check with flying colors.

The only thing I can suggest that we make exceptions to the HIPAA law allowing therapists to report patients they have concerns with. That won't do much, but it might do something.

What I cannot suggest is that we enact more of the same laws that currently are not working.