PDA

View Full Version : What is wrong with this statement.....


d1eSELxxxx
07-22-2012, 11:39 AM
I recently got this post from a buddy who is just mi-informed. He is a great person, but just lacks the knowledge of firearms. This is of course regarding the recent tragedy with the Batman movie shooting. So, what part of this paragraph is true and false:


"I know you're a gun enthusiast and I by all means respect a person's right to carry a firearm and to enjoy firing them at the range, collecting them, etc.- there's nothing wrong with that- but you can't honestly expect me to believe that a person should be allowed to purchase an assault rifle, a 12 gauge shotgun and 2 .40 caliber handguns over the course of a few month period and that that doesn't set off a red flag. I mean, I know you own an AR-15 but can you give me a compelling reason WHY you should be allowed to own one? It isn't a self defense weapon. It's an assault weapon who's only purpose is to kill as many people as possible."


Thanks.

Rossi357
07-22-2012, 11:55 AM
I recently got this post from a buddy who is just mi-informed. He is a great person, but just lacks the knowledge of firearms. This is of course regarding the recent tragedy with the Batman movie shooting. So, what part of this paragraph is true and false:


"I know you're a gun enthusiast and I by all means respect a person's right to carry a firearm and to enjoy firing them at the range, collecting them, etc.- there's nothing wrong with that- but you can't honestly expect me to believe that a person should be allowed to purchase an assault rifle, a 12 gauge shotgun and 2 .40 caliber handguns over the course of a few month period and that that doesn't set off a red flag. I mean, I know you own an AR-15 but can you give me a compelling reason WHY you should be allowed to own one? It isn't a self defense weapon. It's an assault weapon who's only purpose is to kill as many people as possible.


Thanks.

Take your friend to the range and let him shoot it.

green grunt
07-22-2012, 11:59 AM
try this one on you buddy.............is that car you drive able to go faster then the posted speed limit....sooo...why do need a car that go's faster then the law allows.......

not the best...but is has worked for me a few times

kf6tac
07-22-2012, 12:08 PM
Might also consider asking him:

1) What he considers an "assault rifle"? (an AR-15 is not one)

2) What he considers an" assault weapon"? (it's a legal fiction with no real-world meaning)

3) What makes an AR-15 unsuited for defense?

4) If he can think of any legitimate reasons for someone to own a Mini-14? (show him a picture of one, and if he comes up with a reason, point out that an AR-15 is functionally no different, but it just looks "scary" ; if he can't come up with a reason, then he really just wants to ban all semi-auto rifles, period).

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

mag360
07-22-2012, 12:32 PM
going through this at length with a few well educated liberals right now and they keep saying things like well what policy will respect your rights to keep a gun while keeping me safe from being shot in a massacre.

LOL...for 1 disarmament is not an option.

two...an AR 15= M1 carbine. so you can't ban that without banning this
http://www.keepshooting.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/m/1/m1-carbine-rifle.jpg

probably won't convince them, but maybe they will stop calling a scary looking black gun an "assault rifle" whenever they see it.

Chameleon Loco
07-22-2012, 12:33 PM
Just look at the Korean shop owners during the LA Riots.

d1eSELxxxx
07-22-2012, 12:41 PM
Thanks guys. He also stated:

"apologies for not knowing the specifics of the gun you own. What I meant is that if someone is buying that level of heavy weaponry within such a short span of time, it's pretty obvious he's planning to kill a lot of people. So a red flag should go up, or at the very least it should be a lot harder and more difficult to acquire that many weapons in such a short span of time. You don't buy an AR-15 a Remington shotgun and 2 glocks cause you, know you gotta go hunt some deer and protect yourself from all those crazy Colorado gangs. You do it to murder people.

What I use as a comparison is the Senator Giffords shooting. In that situation, the shooter was carrying a single handgun, and thus only 3 people were killed and about 15 injured as opposed to 71 injured and 15 killed. This is simply because the weapon he had could only fire so many rounds and after he got a couple off he was tackled and subdued. If someone's firing into the seats with a semi-automatic rifle and blowing people away with a shotgun, no one's going to be a hero. Granted, you could argue that handguns are actually more dangerous because they're easier to conceal, but they also fire less devastating rounds and have a smaller clip size, so with those limitations you're not going to be able to kill as many people.

The fact of the matter is, stricter gun control won't prevent shootings or massacres. It's just a sad, sad fact of life. If we didn't have guns we'd still have crazies hacking people to death with broadswords and battle axes. However, you're naive if you think this country doesn't need reform in gun laws. We have more gun deaths and massacres of this level than any other Western nation. Obviously massacres happen in Europe too, like that crazy Norwegian *******, but not with the same frequency that they occur over here. While it may have been difficult for Robert to purchase his AR-15, for many other Americans buying automatic weapons is a piece of cake because of the legal loopholes presented by NRA gun shows and other trades shows of their ilk.

That being said, we as a society can definitely lower the number of deaths that occur in these sorts of shootings if we better restrict what kinds of weapons citizens can carry. Taking away a citizen's right to bear arms in its entirety would be wrong and unconstitutional, and even I, someone who's not that big into guns, understands that. But just because you CAN carry a gun doesn't mean you SHOULD, and just because you can carry a firearm doesn't mean you should be allowed to match the type of firepower that are law enforcement agencies and military forces are privy to."

xpbprox
07-22-2012, 12:48 PM
It's an assault weapon who's only purpose is to kill as many people as possible.


I like it, great use if personification.

Personification: giving human traits to inatimante objects

xpbprox
07-22-2012, 12:52 PM
So a red flag should go up, or at the very least it should be a lot harder and more difficult to acquire that many weapons in such a short span of time. You don't buy an AR-15 a Remington shotgun and 2 glocks

I know some guys who acquire this many weapons in short amount of times not because they want to go on a mass assault but because they are addicted to guns and collecting

IVC
07-22-2012, 1:00 PM
That being said, we as a society can definitely lower the number of deaths that occur in these sorts of shootings if we better restrict what kinds of weapons citizens can carry.

This is where you have to nail him, as this is the root of the gun control fallacy.

If there is a way to prevent shootings and to stop crazy people from doing harm, by all means we are listening. If we can play the "gun type" game and save lives, by all means we are listening.

However, the Columbine happened smack in the middle of the national assault weapon ban. Further, it happened at the completely gun free institution. So, not only were the assault weapons banned at the time (ban by type), but any kind of weapon was prohibited on campus. One cannot ban and control more than it was banned and controlled at the Columbine High. How is he proposing to make a difference?

Similarly, Chicago had a ban on all handguns during some 30 years period. Not just "assault weapons", not just "assault clips", not just "off roster" or similar types of handguns, but all handguns. One cannot control or ban more than that, yet Chicago has always been the capital of murder with handguns.

If he says that criminals got guns outside Chicago, or that Columbine perps didn't obey the GFSZ law, you can point out that he is now reiterating what is known to him as the "gun lobby rhetorics" (if guns are outlawed, only criminals will have them).

The bottom line is that all gun control people look at the correlation (if there was no gun, the murder wouldn't have happened) and assume that banning guns can save lives. Then they go ahead and ban guns and the reality shows completely different outcome. At this point, there is no need to argue any more - the outcome of the ban speaks for itself.

Rusty Scabbard
07-22-2012, 1:09 PM
It's imperative that the free public be able to at least nearly ".. match the type of firepower that law enforcement agencies and military forces are privy to."
The ability for the citizenry to successfully resist totalitarianism, government tyranny, purges or ethnic cleansing campaigns is, in a large part dependent on the means to form effective militias if the need were to arise. And yes, I agree that America is at extremely low risk of such upheaval. It almost doesn't seem possible. But at the same time, back during the 1984 winter olympics in Sarajevo one never thought an open genocide would take place there in about a decade. The second amendment wasn't written for hunters or just for protecting ourselves from criminals.

m03
07-22-2012, 1:11 PM
"I mean, I know you own an AR-15 but can you give me a compelling reason WHY you should be allowed to own one? It isn't a self defense weapon. It's an assault weapon who's only purpose is to kill as many people as possible."

Because the hype surrounding a single shooting does not trump the fact that ownership of AR15s has been on a steady increase for the last two decades, while murder and violent crime has been on a steady decrease during the same time period.

IVC
07-22-2012, 1:15 PM
...I know you own an AR-15 but can you give me a compelling reason WHY you should be allowed to own one?

The tables are turned now that the 2A is recognized as an individual, fundamental, human right.

You don't have to be "allowed to own one" - it's him who wants to restrict your right, so he must show and prove a compelling reason for restriction on such a right. If it's the standard "I have a right to live," remind him that your right to own does not affect his right to live since there is nowhere in 2A that it says we have the right to murder others.

The ability to kill through posession of a rifle is no different than the ability to rape through posession of testacles - cannot be used as a prior restraint.

It isn't a self defense weapon. It's an assault weapon who's only purpose is to kill as many people as possible."

Even if this were a true statement, it's still up to him to show where is the fundamental clash with any other constitutionally guarantied right before he can talk about infringing on yours. How things are "designed" or what a perceived "purpose" is by no means suffices in restricting basic rights. Again, murder is already absolutely prohibited, so he must show how a mere possession clashes with other human rights, while assuming that we are not going to murder anyone.

This statement should be seen as a counterpart of "we should ban TV because its only purpose is to misinform as many people as possible." While this is true of stations such as NBC, it cannot be used to shut them down. Not by a long shot.

451040
07-22-2012, 1:23 PM
What is wrong with this statement.....


EVERYTHING


Thanks guys. He also stated:

"just because you can carry a firearm doesn't mean you should be allowed to match the type of firepower that are law enforcement agencies and military forces are privy to."


This guy is not only ignorant about firearms but also the Constitution and its framers.

d1eSELxxxx
07-22-2012, 1:26 PM
Thanks guys. With the knowledge that I know, I knew statements were wrong in his argument. So I'd figure I'd throw his statements in here and I knew you guys (more knowledgeable than me in firearms) would correct the statements being said.

Thanks fellow calgunners. You guys rock.

hawk1
07-22-2012, 1:26 PM
I'd look for a new friend if that's his perception of things...

d1eSELxxxx
07-22-2012, 1:26 PM
EVERYTHING

bwahahaha, nice.

Extra411
07-22-2012, 1:28 PM
just because you can carry a firearm doesn't mean you should be allowed to match the type of firepower that are law enforcement agencies and military forces are privy to.
Statement likes this shouldn't be stated as facts. At the least it's arguable.

I generally just show people FBI crime data, such as this one:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls

American gun ownership is at an all time high, and state gun laws in general have been looser in recently years, yet overall crime rate is at an all time low. At the least it demonstrates that an increase in gun ownership doesn't increase crimes, or murders.

Sometimes tragedies happen, it's a fact of life, but I feel it's also wise to look at the big picture and not at isolated incidents.

kf6tac
07-22-2012, 1:38 PM
"just because you can carry a firearm doesn't mean you should be allowed to match the type of firepower that are law enforcement agencies and military forces are privy to."

By his logic here, Founding era civilians should not have been allowed to own flintlock muskets because those were the type of firepower that military forces of the time were privy to.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Hopalong
07-22-2012, 1:40 PM
Look, either issue me a LTC, or issue me a deputy.

The only way these people could have been somewhat protected

Is if some law abiding citizen in the theatre had a gun. Period.

"When seconds count, law enforcement is minutes away"

This is absolutely not a knock on LE.

The police chief said his brave men and women arrived on scene in a minute and a half

Enough time for 71 people to get shot

Ask your friend, if he had a gun, any gun, would he be dangerous?

As far as why do people want these guns?

It's a hobby, and an American one as well.

Why do people have golf clubs?

Kappy
07-22-2012, 1:52 PM
I'm going to go through this section by section.

I know you're a gun enthusiast and I by all means respect a person's right to carry a firearm and to enjoy firing them at the range, collecting them, etc.- Why does this sound like "So... you're a black guy... tell me this about black people..." What makes you qualified to speak for all gun owners? And truth be told, I don't mind you speaking on our behalf, but it's like if you cannot come up with an argument sufficiently strong enough to sway him, we're all wrong.

there's nothing wrong with that-
And yet he's going to go on with a reason why it is wrong.

but you can't honestly expect me to believe that a person should be allowed to purchase an assault rifle, a 12 gauge shotgun and 2 .40 caliber handguns over the course of a few month period and that that doesn't set off a red flag.If I had the money, I'd be doing it right now. All it tells me is he had a lot of money.

I mean, I know you own an AR-15 but can you give me a compelling reason WHY you should be allowed to own one? It isn't a self defense weapon. It's an assault weapon who's only purpose is to kill as many people as possible.

As noted above, there is no such thing as an "assault weapon." The term itself is a media fabrication seized upon by politicians. An "assault rifle" is what he means, which the AR-15 is not. It would need the capacity to go full-auto to be classified as such.

apologies for not knowing the specifics of the gun you own.
The reason he doesn't know is because he's ignorant concerning guns, yet he is making judgments about them. Ignorance isn't bad in and of itself. Ignorance be corrected. Now take him to the range and let him shoot all your goodies.

What I meant is that if someone is buying that level of heavy weaponry
An AR shouldn't be much more than 10lbs. There are a lot of bolt action bench rifles which way WAY more than that. Unless he means it is a powerful rifle... which it also isn't. I'm trying to think of a less powerful centerfire cartridge... and failing. I'm sure there are others as weak as the .223 or 5.56, but I can't think of any weaker.

within such a short span of time, it's pretty obvious he's planning to kill a lot of people. So a red flag should go up, or at the very least it should be a lot harder and more difficult to acquire that many weapons in such a short span of time.
He planned this over several months. This argument is invalid. On the other hand, let's say he did just decide to buy them all in one go... what's wrong with that? I could just use one rifle and kill everyone... I'd just keep reloading.

You don't buy an AR-15 a Remington shotgun and 2 glocks cause you, know you gotta go hunt some deer and protect yourself from all those crazy Colorado gangs. You do it to murder people.

Except that people do buy firearms in groups from time to time.

What I use as a comparison is the Senator Giffords shooting. In that situation, the shooter was carrying a single handgun, and thus only 3 people were killed and about 15 injured as opposed to 71 injured and 15 killed. This is simply because the weapon he had could only fire so many rounds and after he got a couple off he was tackled and subdued. If someone's firing into the seats with a semi-automatic rifle and blowing people away with a shotgun, no one's going to be a hero. Granted, you could argue that handguns are actually more dangerous because they're easier to conceal, but they also fire less devastating rounds and have a smaller clip size, so with those limitations you're not going to be able to kill as many people.

This whole paragraph is a mess of thoughts. I don't know why it matters what Laughner was shooting. The Colorado shooter could have just had one firearm and reloaded. Same outcome. Also... clips? Handguns fire less devastating rounds? Etc. etc.

The fact of the matter is, stricter gun control won't prevent shootings or massacres. It's just a sad, sad fact of life. If we didn't have guns we'd still have crazies hacking people to death with broadswords and battle axes. However, you're naive if you think this country doesn't need reform in gun laws.And yet he has yet to make a valid argument why we should.

We have more gun deaths and massacres of this level than any other Western nation. Tell him to move to Juarez, then. If he is referring to Europe and Canada... they have a distinctly different culture. And... as he notes below, Norway had one worse than... I think any of ours.

Obviously massacres happen in Europe too, like that crazy Norwegian *******, but not with the same frequency that they occur over here. While it may have been difficult for Robert to purchase his AR-15, for many other Americans buying automatic weapons is a piece of cake because of the legal loopholes presented by NRA gun shows and other trades shows of their ilk. /facepalm. Please let him know that buying an automatic weapon is actually extremely difficult and pretty much impossible in CA. The loophole doesn't exist; it is another fallacy created by the media and seized upon by politicians.

That being said, we as a society can definitely lower the number of deaths that occur in these sorts of shootings if we better restrict what kinds of weapons citizens can carry. None of these shooters is "allowed to carry" any of these firearms. No more than they are allowed to shoot people.

Taking away a citizen's right to bear arms in its entirety would be wrong and unconstitutional, and even I, someone who's not that big into guns, understands that. But just because you CAN carry a gun doesn't mean you SHOULD, and just because you can carry a firearm doesn't mean you should be allowed to match the type of firepower that are law enforcement agencies and military forces are privy to."Actually, the 2nd Amendment uses just this reason as a supportive reason why we should have firearms. We should be able to fight the government should it become too oppressive and not allow us redress by any other means.

I hope that helps. My suggestion... don't argue. Just take him/her to the range.

BobB35
07-22-2012, 2:03 PM
I recently got this post from a buddy who is just mi-informed. He is a great person, but just lacks the knowledge of firearms. This is of course regarding the recent tragedy with the Batman movie shooting. So, what part of this paragraph is true and false:


"I know you're a gun enthusiast and I by all means respect a person's right to carry a firearm and to enjoy firing them at the range, collecting them, etc.- there's nothing wrong with that- but you can't honestly expect me to believe that a person should be allowed to purchase an assault rifle, a 12 gauge shotgun and 2 .40 caliber handguns over the course of a few month period and that that doesn't set off a red flag. I mean, I know you own an AR-15 but can you give me a compelling reason WHY you should be allowed to own one? It isn't a self defense weapon. It's an assault weapon who's only purpose is to kill as many people as possible."


Thanks.

Ask him if he has a limit on the number of key or the words he speaks in a month....then follow up with the Question of why if the AR-15 is not a self defense weapon, does every LEO patrol car have one in it. Are then in the business of killing as many people as possible? Anti's are idiot they just need to be shown the illogic of their statements.

DannyInSoCal
07-22-2012, 2:27 PM
Its really pretty simple:

1) The blood of those wounded and murdered is on the hands of the liberals who pushed their delusional agenda of a "gun free safe zone".

2) The crazy azzhat shooter specifically chose that mall since he knew he wouldn't face armed citizens.

Yes - The shooter pulled the trigger -

But naive and delusional liberals created the unarmed target rich environment....

Don29palms
07-22-2012, 2:33 PM
If I really want to argue with somone I will use the restrictions the government has on the 2A on the 1A.
All non christian religions should be banned.
The first time you go to a church or switch to a new church should require a backround check and a fee.
All speech regarding political, military or law enforcement content should be banned.
You should have a backround check and have to pay a fee before you speak in public.
If you learn a different language you must go through another backround check and pay another fee.
The press should be banned from publishing any story that is banned by speech.
All other stories need to be checked by the government and a fee paid before it can be published.
These would be "Reasonable Restrictions" on the 1A.

erik_26
07-22-2012, 5:20 PM
A baseball bat can be used to assault someone. Does that make it an assault weapon?

A rope can be used to assault someone. Does that make it an assault weapon?

A dog can be used to assault someone. Does that make it an assault weapon?


People need to stop thinking and reacting with emotion.


The real question is why are people so paranoid and eager to limit and restrict other people?

Theseus
07-22-2012, 5:41 PM
I recently got this post from a buddy who is just mi-informed. He is a great person, but just lacks the knowledge of firearms. This is of course regarding the recent tragedy with the Batman movie shooting. So, what part of this paragraph is true and false:


"I know you're a gun enthusiast and I by all means respect a person's right to carry a firearm and to enjoy firing them at the range, collecting them, etc.- there's nothing wrong with that- but you can't honestly expect me to believe that a person should be allowed to purchase an assault rifle, a 12 gauge shotgun and 2 .40 caliber handguns over the course of a few month period and that that doesn't set off a red flag. I mean, I know you own an AR-15 but can you give me a compelling reason WHY you should be allowed to own one? It isn't a self defense weapon. It's an assault weapon who's only purpose is to kill as many people as possible."


Thanks.

Why should anyone be allowed to write political satire? Its only purpose is to incite riot against the existing government.

Really, the purpose of an AR-15 is not to kill, its to shoot bullets. It its the intention of the shooter to kill or not. Is the purpose of a hammer is to destroy or build? That depends on the person using it.

Sent from my XT910 using Tapatalk 2

EchoFourTango
07-22-2012, 6:07 PM
So wikipedia has a defenition for assault rifle, and it is not what is all over the news: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

gunsandrockets
07-22-2012, 6:37 PM
Thanks guys. He also stated:

"apologies for not knowing the specifics of the gun you own. What I meant is that if someone is buying that level of heavy weaponry within such a short span of time, it's pretty obvious he's planning to kill a lot of people. So a red flag should go up, or at the very least it should be a lot harder and more difficult to acquire that many weapons in such a short span of time. You don't buy an AR-15 a Remington shotgun and 2 glocks cause you, know you gotta go hunt some deer and protect yourself from all those crazy Colorado gangs. You do it to murder people.

What I use as a comparison is the Senator Giffords shooting. In that situation, the shooter was carrying a single handgun, and thus only 3 people were killed and about 15 injured as opposed to 71 injured and 15 killed. This is simply because the weapon he had could only fire so many rounds and after he got a couple off he was tackled and subdued. If someone's firing into the seats with a semi-automatic rifle and blowing people away with a shotgun, no one's going to be a hero. Granted, you could argue that handguns are actually more dangerous because they're easier to conceal, but they also fire less devastating rounds and have a smaller clip size, so with those limitations you're not going to be able to kill as many people.

The fact of the matter is, stricter gun control won't prevent shootings or massacres. It's just a sad, sad fact of life. If we didn't have guns we'd still have crazies hacking people to death with broadswords and battle axes. However, you're naive if you think this country doesn't need reform in gun laws. We have more gun deaths and massacres of this level than any other Western nation. Obviously massacres happen in Europe too, like that crazy Norwegian *******, but not with the same frequency that they occur over here. While it may have been difficult for Robert to purchase his AR-15, for many other Americans buying automatic weapons is a piece of cake because of the legal loopholes presented by NRA gun shows and other trades shows of their ilk.

That being said, we as a society can definitely lower the number of deaths that occur in these sorts of shootings if we better restrict what kinds of weapons citizens can carry. Taking away a citizen's right to bear arms in its entirety would be wrong and unconstitutional, and even I, someone who's not that big into guns, understands that. But just because you CAN carry a gun doesn't mean you SHOULD, and just because you can carry a firearm doesn't mean you should be allowed to match the type of firepower that are law enforcement agencies and military forces are privy to."

I just saw Senator Feinstein spouting her usual anti-gun B.S. about "weapons of war" only used for "killing people", blah blah blah. This fear mongering is designed to prey upon the typical ignorance of firearms common among most of the U.S. public. Just as your friend has fallen prey.

Why is it the same AR-15 self-loading rifle in the hand of the public is an "assault-weapon" designed for "spraying from the hip" and only useful for "killing the most people in the least time", but in the hands of U.S. police the very same AR-15 is a "precision tool" for "law enforcement" and "protection of the public"? The simple answer is propaganda, that's why. The AR-15 is a valuable tool for legal self-defense purposes which is particularly well suited for use by women, the elderly, and the weak or disabled people.

The Feinstein AW-ban/magazine-ban, which has reared it's ugly head again and which she and other anti-gunners are calling for rebirth of, makes absolutely no difference in mass murder shootings. The Columbine massacre is the proof of it. That massacre occurred during the height of the AW ban. The principal murder weapon (Hi-Point 9mm carbine) used in that massacre was specifically designed to fit within the guidelines of the Feinstein AW ban!

http://acolumbinesite.com/weapon.html

As for the whole "weapons of war" claptrap, the blackpowder Winchester lever action was a weapon of war used by Turkey against Russia back in the 1870's. Dad's 30-06 bolt-action deer rifle is basically the same weapon used today by military snipers, basically the same weapon that was used in World War I to kill hundreds of thousands, and basically the same weapon that was even used by some famous Elephant hunters! But the anti-gunners count on ignorance when bandying about language like "weapons of war".

Kappy
07-22-2012, 9:50 PM
If I really want to argue with somone I will use the restrictions the government has on the 2A on the 1A.
All non christian religions should be banned.
The first time you go to a church or switch to a new church should require a backround check and a fee.
All speech regarding political, military or law enforcement content should be banned.
You should have a backround check and have to pay a fee before you speak in public.
If you learn a different language you must go through another backround check and pay another fee.
The press should be banned from publishing any story that is banned by speech.
All other stories need to be checked by the government and a fee paid before it can be published.
These would be "Reasonable Restrictions" on the 1A.
I'm loving some of those.

ZombieTactics
07-22-2012, 11:20 PM
"I know you're a gun enthusiast and I by all means respect a person's right to carry a firearm and to enjoy firing them at the range, collecting them, etc.- there's nothing wrong with that- ...
I'm not sure I understand you correctly. Are you saying that only collecting and range shooting are the rights you respect? You said "carry" also, do you support that right? The Supreme Court recently upheld self defense as a primary reason why people have the right to own (and perhaps carry) firearms, so I hope we are on the same page here. For the record, I also respect your right to disagree about any any of the above. The most I can hope to do is explain my positions about the points you've raised. I don't pretend to speak for all gun enthusiasts, BTW, so let's be clear on this as well.

... but you can't honestly expect me to believe that a person should be allowed to purchase an assault rifle, a 12 gauge shotgun and 2 .40 caliber handguns over the course of a few month period and that that doesn't set off a red flag. ... I'm not sure what the nature of your concern really is. Some reports indicate that the Aurora shooter equipped himself over a 2-year period. I don't really consider that a "few month period", do you? Would it raise a red flag for you if someone purchased 1 gun a month for four months? There are many - hundreds, perhaps thousands - collectors, hunters, trainers, competition shooters and others who purchase several firearms at a time quite regularly. Since none of them have gone on a rampage, it appears that the behavior we should be concerned about is something other than how many guns a person buys in some arbitrary time period. This especially the case if there is nothing unusual about the nature of the firearms being purchased. Regarding the use of the term "assault rifle". I'm not sure that you really have a firm definition of that term anyway. Are you sure we are talking about the same thing? An AR15 looks like a military rifle, but it's not the same kind of "machine gun" type of rifle usually meant by the term "assault rifle". It might "look scary" by the AR15 is functionally no different than a standard semi-automatic hunting rifle like a Ruger Mini14.

... I mean, I know you own an AR-15 but can you give me a compelling reason WHY you should be allowed to own one? It isn't a self defense weapon. It's an assault weapon who's only purpose is to kill as many people as possible." Well, it's "purpose" is to be a reliable rifle, useful for all sorts of purposes. It's the most commonly sold rifle in the U.S. by some accounts, good for hunting game and popular with competition shooters as well. It really is a pretty good self-defense choice as well, and I wonder how you came to be of the opinion that it isn't. I'm concerned that you acknowledge a right to own guns earlier, but now you want me to justify exercising that right by owning a commonly used hunting rifle?

As an aside, I think that one of the reasons that these nut jobs choose certain firearms is because of their perceived scariness or the kind of "cool factor" reputation created by bad reporting and general media ignorance about these guns. I am grateful that the Springfield M1A - for instance - doesn't have that "oooh scary military" look about it, as it shoots a far more deadly cartridge. It's not an "assault rifle" either BTW, not even by the standards of states like California which have far more restrictive laws than most of the country.

Regardless of your opinion going forward, I appreciate the opportunity to clear up some mis-perceptions. If you'd like to further your understanding, i'd be happy to take you shooting sometime.

ZombieTactics
07-22-2012, 11:52 PM
... "apologies for not knowing the specifics of the gun you own. ...
Well, I know you aren't deliberately trying to misrepresent anything, and that any such mistakes are born of a general lack of familiarity with the topic. It probably also has something to do with the way the media can sensationalize things.

What I meant is that if someone is buying that level of heavy weaponry ... This is kind of what I am talking about. Nothing in the collection of firearms we've been discussing is "heavy weaponry". There isn't a single technical or governing body who would call them that. Even the United Nations acknowledges these as "small arms". Where did you get the idea that these things are "heavy weaponry"? Maybe it's time to acknowledge that they aren't a credible source for anything regarding this issue, as they just want to use the scariest language possible, even if it means giving out false, inaccurate and misleading information.

...within such a short span of time, it's pretty obvious he's planning to kill a lot of people. So a red flag should go up, or at the very least it should be a lot harder and more difficult to acquire that many weapons in such a short span of time. ... It obvious he's planning to kill people? As I noted earlier, many people purchase 4 guns or so within a few months time quite regularly. Since none of them seem to be shooting up movie theaters, I think the case can be made that there is nothing scary about this ... buying guns isn't any predictor of behavior, so we'll rationally have to figure something else out if the desire is truly to prevent these kinds of events occurring in the future.

... You don't buy an AR-15 a Remington shotgun and 2 glocks cause you, know you gotta go hunt some deer and protect yourself from all those crazy Colorado gangs. You do it to murder people. ... Actually people hunt deer and pigs with AR15 rifles; ducks and geese with shotguns ... so it's not crazy for a hunter-type to want one of each. Buying a couple of handguns isn't nuts at all, so I don't know where this notion comes from. I feel like I am beating a dead horse on this point.

A lot of what you suggest has the advantage of sounding good, but not really doing anything substantive. If you want to make a difference and save lives, let's talk further about what really prevents crime and lowers the possibility of such incidents happening again.