[Waragainstsleep]

Maybe it would be better if sales were banned entirely but you were allowed to make your own. That would still satisfy your precious 2nd amendment and would force the gun lovers to learn respect for the craft from the ground up, or build dangerously unstable junk that takes many of them out of the gene pool.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Maybe it would be better if sales were banned entirely but you were allowed to make your own. That would still satisfy your precious 2nd amendment and would force the gun lovers to learn respect for the craft from the ground up, or build dangerously unstable junk that takes many of them out of the gene pool.

Just like sex... you're not allowed to buy it, so if you want it you had better learn how to DIY. It never taught me respect for the craft though

[Shaddim]

Making a gun is incredibly easy, my nephew built a potato gun that could possibly kill someone, if you hit them in the head or neck (it stays out of reach unless he's supervised, like his .30-30). Building a musket is almost on the same level. However, something that is consistently accurate and reliable is another matter entirely.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Yeah it's an interesting problem. If they're good enough to threaten indiscriminate damage, but not good enough to hit what you aim for, then they only work for the bad guys and not for the good guys.

[Waragainstsleep]

OK, so more realistically the 'make your own' guns would still have to pass current standards for a safe, reliable, accurate weapon, or possibly even more stringent ones and be certified by a qualified professional or agency of some kind. They would still be licensed in that respect and in fact the government would probably have a better idea of who had what (eventually). If you have to go back several times to make the grade, that might be a good teacher of proper respect for the weapon. That and you might be more inclined to look after it if it took you ages to make in the first place.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Just like sex... you're not allowed to buy it, so if you want it you had better learn how to DIY. It never taught me respect for the craft though

Must....resist....urge....to...quote....The Office.....

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I like that, they have deep pockets and I see it as their place to do things like this.

Good news, the NRA found the right PSA for them!

NRA airs new TV ad criticizing Obama on eve of White House gun announcement – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

The National Rifle Association released a new television commercial Tuesday night charging President Barack Obama of hypocrisy for being "skeptical" about placing armed guards at schools, while his own two daughters are protected by the U.S. Secret Service.

This is 100% logical!

[Shaddim]

The school the Pres kids attend, does it have armed guards? I'd like to see a hand count of the media personalities who; have school age children, those children are in private school, those schools have armed guards. I would imagine if they answer "yes" to the first, the next two are a given. That's quite a double standard.

[The Final Dakar]

So... you think this PSA is logical?

[Mrjinglesusa]

I swear, the actions and words coming from the NRA over the past month have made me SERIOUSLY consider resigning my membership. I don't want to be associated with and give money to an organization that thinks and acts the way they do.

There is simply no commonsense or logic to anything Wayne LaPierre says. It's all a bunch of scare tactics to get people to join and give money. They don't care about anything other than fighting new gun laws, even if those gun laws make perfect sense and don't infringe anyone's right to keep and bear arms, e.g., limits on magazine capacity, requiring background checks for ALL gun purchases, etc.

Not sure how I feel about the proposed reinstatement of the assault weapon ban, but many of the other proposals Obama/Biden put forth make sense to me.

[besson3c]

I think the Republicans need to be listening to Joe Scarborough on all issues of guns.

[Shaddim]

More comprehensive background checks: good idea
Background checks for any firearm: I could get behind that
Limit on clip size: pointless
Assault weapon ban: will not pass, and if attempted through executive order, will be blocked by many state legislatures

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Limit on clip size: pointless

The shooter in the Arizona massacre that wounded Rep. Giffords was stopped when he was tackled attempting to reload. This was after 30 shots. It is simply nonsensical to think that him being tackled after 10 shots instead would be "pointless".

As for everything else you said ....

OAW

[Waragainstsleep]

Limiting clip isn't going to hurt right? Plus the NRA should be all for it because they'll sell more clips.

[Uncle Skeleton]

The NRA doesn't sell clips does it?

BTW gun nerds love to hate the word "clip" which apparently means something different than "magazine" which is what we're all talking about.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The shooter in the Arizona massacre that wounded Rep. Giffords was stopped when he was tackled attempting to reload. This was after 30 shots. It is simply nonsensical to think that him being tackled after 10 shots instead would be "pointless".

So for 1 in a million bad guys it will end their terror early. But for 1 in a million good guys wouldn't it do the same thing? What happens when someone defending their home gets tackled by a rapist while reloading after only 10? TS for them?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The NRA doesn't sell clips does it?.

The NRA represents gun manufacturers who do. Way more than gun owners.

OAW

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The NRA represents gun manufacturers who do. Way more than gun owners.

That's conjecture.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So for 1 in a million bad guys it will end their terror early. But for 1 in a million good guys wouldn't it do the same thing? What happens when someone defending their home gets tackled by a rapist while reloading after only 10? TS for them?

I suppose so.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So for 1 in a million bad guys it will end their terror early. But for 1 in a million good guys wouldn't it do the same thing? What happens when someone defending their home gets tackled by a rapist while reloading after only 10? TS for them?

On balance ... yeah. As a society we have to weigh the right to self defense against overall public safety. And it seems to me that a 10+ round clip fully unloaded with bad intentions is far more likely to be done in the commission of a crime than it is in a self-defense scenario. Besides ... if you haven't hit your target after 10 tries you're pretty much screwed anyway because you can't shoot.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

That's conjecture.

The polling of NRA members who support many of President Obama's proposal's would seem to suggest otherwise. For instance, a majority of member's support universal background checks. But the NRA opposes it in knee-jerk fashion. So who the hell are they representing? I'm just saying ...

OAW

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So for 1 in a million bad guys it will end their terror early. But for 1 in a million good guys wouldn't it do the same thing? What happens when someone defending their home gets tackled by a rapist while reloading after only 10? TS for them?

If you need more than 10 rounds of .223 to stop an intruder/rapist you have no business owning a gun.

EDIT: Honestly, there is no reason why ANYONE needs a magazine capacity of over 10 rounds. NONE. An AR-15 is not the best platform for home defense as it is (shotgun or handgun much better). If you can't stop an intruder with 10 rounds of .223 you are doing something WRONG.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by OAW 

The shooter in the Arizona massacre that wounded Rep. Giffords was stopped when he was tackled attempting to reload. This was after 30 shots. It is simply nonsensical to think that him being tackled after 10 shots instead would be "pointless".

Shaddim has been told this before. He and every other gun nut here refuses to address it. Ostriches.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

If you need more than 10 rounds of .223 to stop an intruder/rapist you have no business owning a gun.

What if there's more than one of them or they're on PCP?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

On balance ... yeah. As a society we have to weigh the right to self defense against overall public safety. And it seems to me that a 10+ round clip fully unloaded with bad intentions is far more likely to be done in the commission of a crime than it is in a self-defense scenario.

Of course it "seems" that way to you, because the media has been saturated with the former and not the latter.

Besides ... if you haven't hit your target after 10 tries you're pretty much screwed anyway because you can't shoot.

As if hitting the target is all it takes to stop every target

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What if there's more than one of them or they're on PCP?

What if it's a small army and they all have on body armor?

What if it's a zombie?

What are the odds that multiple people on PCP are going to try and break into someone's home?

If that happens, you've got bigger problems than only having a 10 round magazine.

And I haven't even heard the NRA argue that people need 30 round magazines for self/home defense because even they know that's an absurd argument.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

What if it's a small army and they all have on body armor?

What if it's a zombie?

What are the odds that multiple people on PCP are going to try and break into someone's home?

If that happens, you've got bigger problems than only having a 10 round magazine.

About the same odds that a spree shooter would invade a congressperson's office only to be tackled while reloading after only 10 rounds. Did you forget I started this exchange by saying "1 in a million" cuts both ways?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So... you think this PSA is logical?

Shaddim?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So for 1 in a million bad guys it will end their terror early. But for 1 in a million good guys wouldn't it do the same thing? What happens when someone defending their home gets tackled by a rapist while reloading after only 10? TS for them?

I've been told on here that simply brandishing the weapon is enough to get the job done most of the time. I've also been told that changing magazines is trivial and just takes a moment, so magazine size is irrelevant. So what is it?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What if there's more than one of them or they're on PCP?

Should the people have the right to reasonably defend their homes, or must they have the right to defend their homes against every possible contingency?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I've been told on here that simply brandishing the weapon is enough to get the job done most of the time. I've also been told that changing magazines is trivial and just takes a moment, so magazine size is irrelevant. So what is it?

It is irrelevant. I was merely giving an example of how unconvincing the exception fallacy OAW was giving would look if the shoe were on the other foot.

Should the people have the right to reasonably defend their homes, or must they have the right to defend their homes against every possible contingency?

I think it's fair to say that people wanting to defend their homes should get the same benefit out of any rhetoric used by people wanting to control everyone else.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It is irrelevant. I was merely giving an example of how unconvincing the exception fallacy OAW was giving would look if the shoe were on the other foot.

You'll have to spell it out for me. What's unconvincing?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I think it's fair to say that people wanting to defend their homes should get the same benefit out of any rhetoric used by people wanting to control everyone else.

And they're free to post stories of how home owners died to intruders when they had to reload.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So... you think this PSA is logical?

Logical? I'm not sure that term fits. It's accurate, if that's what you mean. Some folks can afford to have their kids protected 24/7, don't blame the parents who want the same but don't have the resources. The police aren't the enemy, and having one in a school isn't going to mentally damage a child, only nutters on the extreme fringe would believe so.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Logical? I'm not sure that term fits. It's accurate, if that's what you mean. Some folks can afford to have their kids protected 24/7, don't blame the parents who want the same but don't have the resources. The police aren't the enemy, and having one in a school isn't going to mentally damage a child, only nutters on the extreme fringe would believe so.

I'm not seeing the accuracy. Obama's kids have don't armed protection because they're afraid of being victim to a mass murderer. They get secret service protection for the same reason the President does – they're high value targets. Obama's kids aren't more important than anyone else's; They are, however, a helluva lot more likely to be targeted.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You'll have to spell it out for me. What's unconvincing?

OAW asserts that reload-delay makes it harder (for bad guys) to use guns and therefore it's a no-brainer to take measures to maximize reload-delay, even if it only helps in a single shooting. But he ignores the corollary to this hypothesis that reload-delay also makes it harder (for good guys) to use guns, and make things worse even if it only hurts in a single shooting.

And they're free to post stories of how home owners died to intruders when they had to reload.

Who's going to tell that tale, the intruder? "The man described to reporters how he had broken in to a home and was almost killed by the homeowner, but fortunately managed to tackle and kill her while she was attempting to reload..."

Also, large mags are legal, so that situation might have been avoided. Here's one example of a gun owner firing more than 10 shots in self-defense:
http://www.afn.org/~guns/ayoob.html

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

OAW asserts that reload-delay makes it harder (for bad guys) to use guns and therefore it's a no-brainer to take measures to maximize reload-delay, even if it only helps in a single shooting. But he ignores the corollary to this hypothesis that reload-delay also makes it harder (for good guys) to use guns, and make things worse even if it only hurts in a single shooting.

I don't know if he ignores it, as it's simple logic to me.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Who's going to tell that tale, the intruder? "The man described to reporters how he had broken in to a home and was almost killed by the homeowner, but fortunately managed to tackle and kill her while she was attempting to reload..."

The tale would be told by the spent gun registered to the owner at the scene.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Also, large mags are legal, so that situation might have been avoided. Here's one example of a gun owner firing more than 10 shots in self-defense:
The Beckwith Incident

This is why we do things such as weigh the costs. If it can be demonstrated that magazine restrictions will do more harm than good, then sure, we should ditch the idea. But as I pointed out earlier, gun owners were claiming that magazine restrictions would have no impact. Now that position is being reversed, and the same amount of effort has been putting into demonstration both claims (i.e., little to none).

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'm not seeing the accuracy. Obama's kids have don't armed protection because they're afraid of being victim to a mass murderer. They get secret service protection for the same reason the President does – they're high value targets. Obama's kids aren't more important than anyone else's; They are, however, a helluva lot more likely to be targeted.

The secret service isn't protecting all the other kids who go to class with his kids? The reporters who are vilifying cops in school aren't sending their kids to private schools with armed guards? Celebs and the wealthy don't have armed guards for their kids? We've had deputies in our schools for 10 years, no incidents of crazies coming in and shooting kids. Rosie O'Donnell and Barbara Streisand want all guns outlawed, except for their security personnel. I suppose it's best for the commoners to experiment with being defenseless first, before the elite consider the same (which they won't do). Isn't that right senators Reid and Feinstein (both carry handguns).

It seems that some folks don't want police in schools because it might just fix that problem, or make those shootings even more of a rarity, and that wouldn't fit their anti-gun agenda. They need the "collateral damage" to achieve their goal, disarmament at any cost. I hope that's incorrect, that no one would be that vile, but history is littered with examples of social engineering for the "common good".

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The secret service isn't protecting all the other kids who go to class with his kids?

Isn't that incidental?

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Celebs and the wealthy don't have armed guards for their kids? We've had deputies in our schools for 10 years, no incidents of crazies coming in and shooting kids. Rosie O'Donnell and Barbara Streisand want all guns outlawed, except for their security personnel. I suppose it's best for the commoners to experiment with being defenseless first, before the elite consider the same (which they won't do). Isn't that right senators Reid and Feinstein (both carry handguns).

It seems that some folks don't want police in schools because it might just fix that problem, or make those shootings even more of a rarity, and that wouldn't fit their anti-gun agenda. They need the "collateral damage" to achieve their goal, disarmament at any cost. I hope that's incorrect, that no one would be that vile, but history is littered with examples of social engineering for the "common good".

Strawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwmannnnnnnnnnnn.

This ad was about Obama being a hypocrite.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Isn't that incidental?

Strawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwmannnnnnnnnnnn.

This ad was about Obama being a hypocrite.

and this thread is about two guys walking around Portland with guns.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

and this thread is about two guys walking around Portland with guns.

Seriously, you're just going just dodge? What the hell, man.

Edit: And you referenced the wrong thread!

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Seriously, you're just going just dodge? What the hell, man.

Edit: And you referenced the wrong thread!

Bah, multitasking is a bitch, too many windows open.

Dodge? I already said the ad makes sense. He is a hypocrite, any child is a "high-value" target now. Why should public schools be unprotected while the elite private schools are?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Dodge? I already said the ad makes sense. He is a hypocrite, any child is a "high-value" target now.

You really see no difference between the kind of danger Obama's kids are in vs. the average citizen's kids?

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Why should public schools be unprotected while the elite private schools are?

Personally, I don't like the idea of quasi-police state. If everyone needs to have a gun because everyone can have a gun, you're doing it wrong. I'm also not convinced it actually works (see: Columbine). If the majority is for it, fair enough, and no bitching about the cost.

Second, let's say it does work. Mass shooting as schools are reduced significantly, and we see shift towards targeting malls and other shopping centers. What's the NRA's suggestion then? Police there, too?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You really see no difference between the kind of danger Obama's kids are in vs. the average citizen's kids?

Yeah in the case of the First Family, the protection is more about preventing the kids from being used as leverage for national security concerns, not about "special treatment" for the benefit of the kids themselves. Although even if it were special treatment I wouldn't be opposed to that in the case of the First Family, the president makes enough personal sacrifices s/he deserves a few perks.

[Shaddim]

I'd rather it shift to the malls and such, they already have armed security and armed shoppers. Schools are now targeted because they're low hanging fruit, which is shocking that our greatest resource is our least protected.

You really see no difference between the kind of danger Obama's kids are in vs. the average citizen's kids?

Nope. No one seems to have it out for politicians' kids lately, it's the common Joe who is attending those funerals.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'd rather it shift to the malls and such, they already have armed security and armed shoppers.

So what's you're suggestion if mall shootings increase?

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Schools are now targeted because they're low hanging fruit, which is shocking that our greatest resource is our least protected.

Good lord, you're really pouring it on here.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Nope. No one seems to have it out for politicians' kids lately, it's the common Joe who is attending those funerals.

Heh, well I guess we'll have to disagree.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So what's you're suggestion if mall shootings increase?

Malls have armed security and are much easier to escape in an emergency (provided the emergency doors are secure and not wedged open).

Good lord, you're really pouring it on here.

Nope. It's true. They're the easiest targets that can rack up the most alarming body counts.

Heh, well I guess we'll have to disagree.

Why are people afraid of police? Is it a case of not wanting them around unless there's an emergency? An officer in a school is no different than one at a mall (they're already there), grocery store, pharmacy... maybe if kids are exposed to them on a daily basis and get to know them, they won't be as afraid as their parents.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Malls have armed security and are much easier to escape in an emergency (provided the emergency doors are secure and not wedged open).

So it's good enough. You may be right. Hopefully we don't find out.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Nope. It's true. They're the easiest targets that can rack up the most alarming body counts.

I was referring to "our greatest resource". I agree that they're easy targets.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Why are people afraid of police? Is it a case of not wanting them around unless there's an emergency? An officer in a school is no different than one at a mall (they're already there), grocery store, pharmacy... maybe if kids are exposed to them on a daily basis and get to know them, they won't be as afraid as their parents.

I'm not afraid of police. I just consider their required presence indicates a failure at some level. Much like the TSA (Especially when there are other more effective ways to increase security than taking off your shoes).

I guess I don't like what they represent, in this case. Our gun control is so bad we can't even keep our kids out of it. When I was young I visited a south american country and you'd see soldiers pretty often. I remember going to dinner one night and there were one or two in the parking lot. And I swear, if memory serves, that we tipped them when we left. They didn't scare me, but it was really, really weird, coming from the US.

[racingonline]

It's amazing how uneducated people are when it comes to guns and clips.

Duck Hunting Shotgun Proven To Be more Dangerous Than A Huldra AR-15 - YouTube

Seriously. Either have the nuts to say you want to ban them all or shut the hell up and let law abiding citizens own whatever they want. You will never stop another Sandy Hook with nonsense gun laws.

We don't live in some Utopia and never will. Sometimes, bad people do bad things that no one can prevent.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Malls have armed security and are much easier to escape in an emergency (provided the emergency doors are secure and not wedged open).

How would they be easier to escape if the doors are secure and not open?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by racingonline 

We don't live in some Utopia and never will. Sometimes, bad people do bad things that no one can prevent.

Except the numbers in every country with tighter gun control show that a great many of these things are indeed preventable.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by racingonline 

It's amazing how uneducated people are when it comes to guns and clips.

Duck Hunting Shotgun Proven To Be more Dangerous Than A Huldra AR-15 - YouTube

What a surprising outcome given the video was made by Huldra themselves.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

What a surprising outcome given the video was made by Huldra themselves.

So, from now on, we'll attack the source, not the message, around here? Just want to make sure who is setting the tone.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

So, from now on, we'll attack the source, not the message, around here? Just want to make sure who is setting the tone.

Seriously? A gun maker does a test and produces a video that makes their weapon look favourable and we should ignore the source? Its called propaganda.

If the test had been done by an independent party who were free to choose which weapons they tested, it might well have reinforced their point anyway, they actually undermine their position amongst the rational public by realising something which was obviously going to be biased from the start.

A biased test is a worthless test.