(02-28-2018 11:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 11:30 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 11:10 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 11:01 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 10:41 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Ok. So if charged by a Boar, are you just going to turn around and spray fire at random without looking? I hope that kind of hunter is never within a mile of me when hunting.

I've never had that problem, but then again, I usually hunt in a deer blind that is somewhat raised.

Stating the obvious, but you have no idea what you are talking about so best to just keep quiet or ask intelligent questions to better understand the situation.

Nobody in their right mind is going "turn around and spray fire at random without looking". That kind of statement makes you look ridiculous.

My Browning BAR II .300 is 45" long, my Colt AR15 is 32" long. Which one do you think I can get around and on target faster? The Browning hold 5 cartridges, the Colt up to 30. The largest feral hog killed in NC weighed 707 pounds and covered 20 yards after being fatally shot.

"Turning around and spray fire at random without looking" - No. I want to be able to put as many rounds as possible on a target closing at 10-15 mph with little to no warning. I cant even look down the iron sights on my Browning because of the scope - it would be little to no good to me with a feral hog or even smaller game charging me from close distance.

If I'm hunting, the AR is usually in the truck so I can go get it to track down whatever I've shot already. Sometimes I grab it, sometimes I just take my .45. It's my choice to carry the AR for protection, nobody here has to like it or even think it's justified.

I'm familiar with hunting, guns, and boars.

And seriously are you arguing that AR-15s and similar weapons used to murder hundreds of innocent civilians should be legal because of the threat of wild boars?

And actually the debate we are having in this country is precisely whether you and any other random guy should be allowed to carry around or own an AR or similar weapon. Whether you like it or not.

No, I'm arguing their legality based upon the 2nd Amendment. There is no serious debate about banning them again. Banning ANY currently legal firearm in response to shootings is akin to putting a band-aid on a scratched finger while ignoring the blood gushing from an exposed artery.

What do the vast majority these shootings have in common? Mostly two things. Mental health issues, and/or failure of the bureaucracy. The louder your side screams about taking away guns, the more opposition grows.

Most of them have one other common denominator. They occur in "gun free zones," i.e, soft targets.

Ding ding ding!

Luckily some people have a habit of just not seeing those no gun signs

My personal two cents: I shot my first gun at age 12; however, I never really fired a gun again until I was 26. I grew up in a bad neighborhood and was probably more anti-gun than pro-gun as a result. Then I decided to educate myself and actually research the topic. I took a class and bought my first gun…naturally a Glock. I talked to other gun owners that I knew, some hunted and some just liked guns. I was seriously apprehensive around guns when I purchased my first one. The people that carried them made me nervous….what if they shot me…on purpose or accidentally? I actually had a moment when I gave it some real thought:

1. I grew up in a bad neighborhood with truly bad people who almost always had guns (illegally, of course). They didn’t care about gun free signs or stupid laws that carried no real time. Some carried to school and many were under 18. Almost all of them had at least one felony. The responsible gun owners I knew all had clean records, almost all took the ownership of guns seriously, and they were almost entirely good people. Legal gun owners, for the most part, do not commit crimes. It is just plain ignorant to lump these groups of people together.

2. A gun is a tool. In the hands of an elderly person, it is an equalizer. In the hands of a woman that is 100lbs smaller than her attacker, it is a protector. In the hands of a bad guy, it could kill people. So could knifes, hands, feet, cars, etc. In fact, those items do kill more people than all rifles combined. So, why are we focused on rifles?

3. There are over 100 million gun owners in this country with 300 million guns. We have under 10,000 gun related homicides each year. From a numbers perspective, that isn’t even a rounding error. The vast majority of these gun crimes are committed in inner cities by gang members that are currently prohibited by law from possessing firearms. So, why aren’t we focused on gangs? It makes no sense to create laws that will only be followed by those who would not have committed a crime in the first place. This is like the employer of a 10000 person company instituting a companywide sign in verification process because two people are consistently late. Why not just address the two people, since we know who they are?

4. I really don’t understand the gun control points. None of them would have stopped any of the crimes in the news. A careful search of history points to one consistency. There is a group of people in our country that hates guns and gun people. We are currently on scary so-called assault rifles, but in the past, it was such things as “sniper rifles” or poor people self-defense guns, so-called “Saturday night specials”. None of these people are actually focused on the problem, just banning guns.

After reflecting on things, I may have purchased a few more guns, including some black rifles. I am no longer apprehensive of a gun just because it exists. I also joined the NRA. I actually like that the NRA not only advocates for gun rights, but also puts a load of emphasis on actual gun safety.

(02-28-2018 10:36 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 10:23 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 09:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I mean someone has to stop all those boar attacks on hunters in America after all, right?

Quote:A 2012 study compiling recorded attacks from 1825–2012 found accounts of 665 human victims of both wild boars and feral pigs, with the majority (19%) of attacks in the animal's native range occurring in India. Most of the attacks occurred in rural areas during the winter months in non-hunting contexts and were committed by solitary males.

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_wdmconfproc/151/

665/(2012-1825) = 3.56 attacks per year world-wide.

First, your math sucks or you can't read. You used the wrong number which actually exaggerated the frequency of attacks in this study.

412 attacks were studied over 187 years. 665 people were involved in those attacks.
That works out to 2.2 reported attacks per year. That number is most certainly understated since 70% of the reported attacks have taken place in the last 12 years of the study.


24% of the reported attacks involved hunters. How many do you think weren't reported?

I don't report all my hunting trips. If a pig attacks, I take it out, the only people who hear about it is the folks that are helping me skin it out or are feasting on said beast.

So, how many boar or feral pig attacks have you thwarted while hunting? And what weapon did you use?

(02-28-2018 10:23 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 09:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I mean someone has to stop all those boar attacks on hunters in America after all, right?

Quote:A 2012 study compiling recorded attacks from 1825–2012 found accounts of 665 human victims of both wild boars and feral pigs, with the majority (19%) of attacks in the animal's native range occurring in India. Most of the attacks occurred in rural areas during the winter months in non-hunting contexts and were committed by solitary males.

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/icwdm_wdmconfproc/151/

665/(2012-1825) = 3.56 attacks per year world-wide.

412 attacks were studied over 187 years. 665 people were involved in those attacks.
That works out to 2.2 reported attacks per year.

So even less reported attacks. Thanks for correcting me!

(02-28-2018 11:41 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  My personal two cents: I shot my first gun at age 12; however, I never really fired a gun again until I was 26. I grew up in a bad neighborhood and was probably more anti-gun than pro-gun as a result. Then I decided to educate myself and actually research the topic. I took a class and bought my first gun…naturally a Glock. I talked to other gun owners that I knew, some hunted and some just liked guns. I was seriously apprehensive around guns when I purchased my first one. The people that carried them made me nervous….what if they shot me…on purpose or accidentally? I actually had a moment when I gave it some real thought:

1. I grew up in a bad neighborhood with truly bad people who almost always had guns (illegally, of course). They didn’t care about gun free signs or stupid laws that carried no real time. Some carried to school and many were under 18. Almost all of them had at least one felony. The responsible gun owners I knew all had clean records, almost all took the ownership of guns seriously, and they were almost entirely good people. Legal gun owners, for the most part, do not commit crimes. It is just plain ignorant to lump these groups of people together.

2. A gun is a tool. In the hands of an elderly person, it is an equalizer. In the hands of a woman that is 100lbs smaller than her attacker, it is a protector. In the hands of a bad guy, it could kill people. So could knifes, hands, feet, cars, etc. In fact, those items do kill more people than all rifles combined. So, why are we focused on rifles?

3. There are over 100 million gun owners in this country with 300 million guns. We have under 10,000 gun related homicides each year. From a numbers perspective, that isn’t even a rounding error. The vast majority of these gun crimes are committed in inner cities by gang members that are currently prohibited by law from possessing firearms. So, why aren’t we focused on gangs? It makes no sense to create laws that will only be followed by those who would not have committed a crime in the first place. This is like the employer of a 10000 person company instituting a companywide sign in verification process because two people are consistently late. Why not just address the two people, since we know who they are?

4. I really don’t understand the gun control points. None of them would have stopped any of the crimes in the news. A careful search of history points to one consistency. There is a group of people in our country that hates guns and gun people. We are currently on scary so-called assault rifles, but in the past, it was such things as “sniper rifles” or poor people self-defense guns, so-called “Saturday night specials”. None of these people are actually focused on the problem, just banning guns.

After reflecting on things, I may have purchased a few more guns, including some black rifles. I am no longer apprehensive of a gun just because it exists. I also joined the NRA. I actually like that the NRA not only advocates for gun rights, but also puts a load of emphasis on actual gun safety.

Very well said.
We are the basket of deplorables.

(02-28-2018 11:41 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  My personal two cents: I shot my first gun at age 12; however, I never really fired a gun again until I was 26. I grew up in a bad neighborhood and was probably more anti-gun than pro-gun as a result. Then I decided to educate myself and actually research the topic. I took a class and bought my first gun…naturally a Glock. I talked to other gun owners that I knew, some hunted and some just liked guns. I was seriously apprehensive around guns when I purchased my first one. The people that carried them made me nervous….what if they shot me…on purpose or accidentally? I actually had a moment when I gave it some real thought:

1. I grew up in a bad neighborhood with truly bad people who almost always had guns (illegally, of course). They didn’t care about gun free signs or stupid laws that carried no real time. Some carried to school and many were under 18. Almost all of them had at least one felony. The responsible gun owners I knew all had clean records, almost all took the ownership of guns seriously, and they were almost entirely good people. Legal gun owners, for the most part, do not commit crimes. It is just plain ignorant to lump these groups of people together.

2. A gun is a tool. In the hands of an elderly person, it is an equalizer. In the hands of a woman that is 100lbs smaller than her attacker, it is a protector. In the hands of a bad guy, it could kill people. So could knifes, hands, feet, cars, etc. In fact, those items do kill more people than all rifles combined. So, why are we focused on rifles?

3. There are over 100 million gun owners in this country with 300 million guns. We have under 10,000 gun related homicides each year. From a numbers perspective, that isn’t even a rounding error. The vast majority of these gun crimes are committed in inner cities by gang members that are currently prohibited by law from possessing firearms. So, why aren’t we focused on gangs? It makes no sense to create laws that will only be followed by those who would not have committed a crime in the first place. This is like the employer of a 10000 person company instituting a companywide sign in verification process because two people are consistently late. Why not just address the two people, since we know who they are?

4. I really don’t understand the gun control points. None of them would have stopped any of the crimes in the news. A careful search of history points to one consistency. There is a group of people in our country that hates guns and gun people. We are currently on scary so-called assault rifles, but in the past, it was such things as “sniper rifles” or poor people self-defense guns, so-called “Saturday night specials”. None of these people are actually focused on the problem, just banning guns.

After reflecting on things, I may have purchased a few more guns, including some black rifles. I am no longer apprehensive of a gun just because it exists. I also joined the NRA. I actually like that the NRA not only advocates for gun rights, but also puts a load of emphasis on actual gun safety.

Well said.

Going after inner-city gangs in democratic-controlled districts doesn't get democrats out to the polls. Doing so would be admitting that their leadership/brand of politics is the problem.

It's really as simple as that.

(02-28-2018 11:16 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  The fact is there is no definition for an assault rifle other than a rifle used in an assault. News flash; any rifle can be used in an assault. The same rifle could be used in a life-saving event. Would it then be called an assault rifle? A gun is a tool. Ones use of said tool is what defines it. An ‘assault’ rifle with a high capacity magazine is no more than another gun that can be used for many things only one of which is to assault people.
BTW I would rather face a murderer like this at close range with an AR15 loaded with 55 grain solids (usually the bullet of choice by these idiots) than someone with a 12 gauge loaded with 00 buckshot. He would have killed many more with that choice of ‘assault’ weapon.

Probably not as many because he'd only get one or two rounds off. you get off a couple of shots, then you have to reload. BTW, your choice of weapon (the 12 gauge with buckshot) is a much better defense weapon as well in most home defense situations anyway. Also will do a number on a charging boar too in most cases (especially if within 40 yards and if using 00 shot - sure, if hunting boars from a distance, you'd want a rifle, but if you're using one with a high capacity clip - you're probably not much of a sportsman in that case).

It certainly would have been impossible for Las Vegas to happen with a buckshot carrying shotgun. In the Movie Theater situation, the timing would have allowed more people time to flee.

Lets just ban the sale of new assault rifles with high capacity capabilities and see how it goes from there.

BTW, I don't really see much reason to carry a high capacity AR15 or similar gun except to kill mass numbers of people. Less mass murder friendly options are readily available for hunting, target practice, defense, etc.

(02-28-2018 12:48 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 11:16 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  The fact is there is no definition for an assault rifle other than a rifle used in an assault. News flash; any rifle can be used in an assault. The same rifle could be used in a life-saving event. Would it then be called an assault rifle? A gun is a tool. Ones use of said tool is what defines it. An ‘assault’ rifle with a high capacity magazine is no more than another gun that can be used for many things only one of which is to assault people.
BTW I would rather face a murderer like this at close range with an AR15 loaded with 55 grain solids (usually the bullet of choice by these idiots) than someone with a 12 gauge loaded with 00 buckshot. He would have killed many more with that choice of ‘assault’ weapon.

Probably not as many because he'd only get one or two rounds off. you get off a couple of shots, then you have to reload. BTW, your choice of weapon (the 12 gauge with buckshot) is a much better defense weapon as well in most home defense situations anyway. Also will do a number on a charging boar too in most cases (especially if within 40 yards and if using 00 shot - sure, if hunting boars from a distance, you'd want a rifle, but if you're using one with a high capacity clip - you're probably not much of a sportsman in that case).

It certainly would have been impossible for Las Vegas to happen with a buckshot carrying shotgun. In the Movie Theater situation, the timing would have allowed more people time to flee.

Lets just ban the sale of new assault rifles with high capacity capabilities and see how it goes from there.

BTW, I don't really see much reason to carry a high capacity AR15 or similar gun except to kill mass numbers of people. Less mass murder friendly options are readily available for hunting, target practice, defense, etc.

Let's not.

(02-28-2018 12:48 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 11:16 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  The fact is there is no definition for an assault rifle other than a rifle used in an assault. News flash; any rifle can be used in an assault. The same rifle could be used in a life-saving event. Would it then be called an assault rifle? A gun is a tool. Ones use of said tool is what defines it. An ‘assault’ rifle with a high capacity magazine is no more than another gun that can be used for many things only one of which is to assault people.
BTW I would rather face a murderer like this at close range with an AR15 loaded with 55 grain solids (usually the bullet of choice by these idiots) than someone with a 12 gauge loaded with 00 buckshot. He would have killed many more with that choice of ‘assault’ weapon.

Probably not as many because he'd only get one or two rounds off. you get off a couple of shots, then you have to reload. BTW, your choice of weapon (the 12 gauge with buckshot) is a much better defense weapon as well in most home defense situations anyway. Also will do a number on a charging boar too in most cases (especially if within 40 yards and if using 00 shot - sure, if hunting boars from a distance, you'd want a rifle, but if you're using one with a high capacity clip - you're probably not much of a sportsman in that case).

It certainly would have been impossible for Las Vegas to happen with a buckshot carrying shotgun. In the Movie Theater situation, the timing would have allowed more people time to flee.

Lets just ban the sale of new assault rifles with high capacity capabilities and see how it goes from there.

BTW, I don't really see much reason to carry a high capacity AR15 or similar gun except to kill mass numbers of people. Less mass murder friendly options are readily available for hunting, target practice, defense, etc.

You make some points but they are just your choices. I don’t give you the right to make my choice for me.
The rifle with a high capacity magazine probably fits the founders idea of a weapon to fight a tyrannical government best in this day and time. Meanwhile we that have them and enjoy letting a few rounds fly at paper and pigs will hope we never have to use them for ‘assault’ purposes.

(02-28-2018 12:48 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 11:16 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  The fact is there is no definition for an assault rifle other than a rifle used in an assault. News flash; any rifle can be used in an assault. The same rifle could be used in a life-saving event. Would it then be called an assault rifle? A gun is a tool. Ones use of said tool is what defines it. An ‘assault’ rifle with a high capacity magazine is no more than another gun that can be used for many things only one of which is to assault people.
BTW I would rather face a murderer like this at close range with an AR15 loaded with 55 grain solids (usually the bullet of choice by these idiots) than someone with a 12 gauge loaded with 00 buckshot. He would have killed many more with that choice of ‘assault’ weapon.

Probably not as many because he'd only get one or two rounds off. you get off a couple of shots, then you have to reload.

But the flip side is you are sending an equivalent number of larger projectiles down range with a single round of buckshot as you are with an entire magazine from an AR 15. There's 41 pellets in a single 12 gauge 3" magnum #4 buckshot shell. 205 individual projectiles in the standard pump shotgun.

Quote: BTW, your choice of weapon (the 12 gauge with buckshot) is a much better defense weapon as well in most home defense situations anyway.

For the exact same reasons it would be deadlier in a school shooting incident.

Too bad my wife isn't physically capable of handling a 12 gauge shotgun or it would have saved me from having to spend the money buying an AR platform rifle for her.

Quote: (especially if within 40 yards and if using 00 shot - sure, if hunting boars from a distance, you'd want a rifle, but if you're using one with a high capacity clip - you're probably not much of a sportsman in that case).

Never seen a high capacity clip before. Where would one find one? All I have are the 5 round clips used to load my Mosin.

Quote:It certainly would have been impossible for Las Vegas to happen with a buckshot carrying shotgun.

He would have honestly done more damage had he used a bolt action rifle with aimed fire.

Quote:In the Movie Theater situation, the timing would have allowed more people time to flee.

So how many people were able to flee when Holmes was using the shotgun he had? Was it more than when his M&P Sport malfunctioned?

Quote:BTW, I don't really see much reason to carry a high capacity AR15 or similar gun except to kill mass numbers of people. Less mass murder friendly options are readily available for hunting, target practice, defense, etc.

Hate to break it to you snowflake but you aren't the ultimate arbiter of other's rights.

I find it ironic that Tom - the guy that screams for the rights of LBGTQ(MNOP) has not the slightest issue with taking someone else's right away so long as it fits what he wants. I demand my rights and the rights of others like me - but I'm okay taking these other rights because it doesn't affect me.......

(02-28-2018 01:30 PM)Crebman Wrote:  I find it ironic that Tom - the guy that screams for the rights of LBGTQ(MNOP) has not the slightest issue with taking someone else's right away so long as it fits what he wants. I demand my rights and the rights of others like me - but I'm okay taking these other rights because it doesn't affect me.......

Again, as this has already been covered. Taking away assault weapons via congressional action is not taking away your second amendment right to own a gun. You have no constitutional right to own any "arm" you desire.

(02-28-2018 10:42 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 08:49 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 11:05 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 08:54 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-27-2018 01:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  What makes an assault rifle different from other rifles?

Anything that can fire more than 6 rounds in a minute. Lets just define it that way.

If you need more than that to hunt, you're no better than a douche that hunts in a stocked field anyway.

What the heck does hunting have to do with the 2nd Amendment?

I've seen many claim that they need things like AR-15's to prevent boar attacks while hunting...and other nonsensical fantasies like that.

Since I've seen this preposterous statement in quoted text I'll unignore you and ask for a link.

bump

(02-28-2018 02:02 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 01:30 PM)Crebman Wrote:  I find it ironic that Tom - the guy that screams for the rights of LBGTQ(MNOP) has not the slightest issue with taking someone else's right away so long as it fits what he wants. I demand my rights and the rights of others like me - but I'm okay taking these other rights because it doesn't affect me.......

Again, as this has already been covered. Taking away assault weapons via congressional action is not taking away your second amendment right to own a gun. You have no constitutional right to own any "arm" you desire.

It is certainly further limiting the right, a right which "...shall not be infringed," in a particularly arbitrary and capricious way. Since you are proposing to limit a right, you should have a damn good reason to do so, and be able to demonstrate how your proposal will have a positive effect. The anti-gun side has not done that.

Yet another issue that will backfire on the Democrats. Lol. The party of soy is not going to take our guns

(02-28-2018 02:02 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 01:30 PM)Crebman Wrote:  I find it ironic that Tom - the guy that screams for the rights of LBGTQ(MNOP) has not the slightest issue with taking someone else's right away so long as it fits what he wants. I demand my rights and the rights of others like me - but I'm okay taking these other rights because it doesn't affect me.......

Again, as this has already been covered. Taking away assault weapons via congressional action is not taking away your second amendment right to own a gun. You have no constitutional right to own any "arm" you desire.

Once more for clarity, what defines an assault rifle, again?

(02-28-2018 02:34 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 02:02 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 01:30 PM)Crebman Wrote:  I find it ironic that Tom - the guy that screams for the rights of LBGTQ(MNOP) has not the slightest issue with taking someone else's right away so long as it fits what he wants. I demand my rights and the rights of others like me - but I'm okay taking these other rights because it doesn't affect me.......

Again, as this has already been covered. Taking away assault weapons via congressional action is not taking away your second amendment right to own a gun. You have no constitutional right to own any "arm" you desire.

Once more for clarity, what defines an assault rifle, again?

You can ask as many times as you like, but I'm just going to continue to answer with ... anything that can fire more than X bullets in a minute.

(02-28-2018 01:30 PM)Crebman Wrote:  I find it ironic that Tom - the guy that screams for the rights of LBGTQ(MNOP) has not the slightest issue with taking someone else's right away so long as it fits what he wants. I demand my rights and the rights of others like me - but I'm okay taking these other rights because it doesn't affect me.......

Well regulated militia. You've never had the right to carry or own any weapon you choose.

(02-28-2018 02:57 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 02:34 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 02:02 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 01:30 PM)Crebman Wrote:  I find it ironic that Tom - the guy that screams for the rights of LBGTQ(MNOP) has not the slightest issue with taking someone else's right away so long as it fits what he wants. I demand my rights and the rights of others like me - but I'm okay taking these other rights because it doesn't affect me.......

Again, as this has already been covered. Taking away assault weapons via congressional action is not taking away your second amendment right to own a gun. You have no constitutional right to own any "arm" you desire.

Once more for clarity, what defines an assault rifle, again?

You can ask as many times as you like, but I'm just going to continue to answer with ... anything that can fire more than X bullets in a minute.

Even if X = 1?

(02-28-2018 02:59 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(02-28-2018 01:30 PM)Crebman Wrote:  I find it ironic that Tom - the guy that screams for the rights of LBGTQ(MNOP) has not the slightest issue with taking someone else's right away so long as it fits what he wants. I demand my rights and the rights of others like me - but I'm okay taking these other rights because it doesn't affect me.......

Well regulated militia. You've never had the right to carry or own any weapon you choose.

I believe good Justice Scalia disagreed with you.