PDA

View Full Version : FOX News Story - Why I Own an Assault Rifle


Wiz-of-Awd
07-26-2012, 8:41 AM
Interesting...

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/26/why-own-assault-rifle/#ixzz21kMfGXYI

A.W.D.

adampolo13
07-26-2012, 8:49 AM
I didn't like the way it ended... He never explained why he owned a semi-automatic rifle yet called it an asault weapon. Anti crap written to sound like it came from a gun owner.

senorpeligro
07-26-2012, 8:50 AM
There's a lot of that going around, I saw something like that on The Atlantic today. I won't provide a link.

JON KARGATHALON
07-26-2012, 8:54 AM
He had some valid points, but just as he said, he was speaking for both sides, and ended up not being too rational about CCW. Yes training is key, But if people are dying around you, FOR GODS SAKE take the shot! even if you had very little training! if it may prevent further death, TAKE THE ****** SHOT!

Jason_2111
07-26-2012, 10:46 AM
There are some very valid points in the article, but keep in mind where it is coming from.
This is a civilian that isn't a more hardcore enthusiast or former military person. He is definitely much more the "average Joe" than even your standard calgunner.
A completely untrained person with a gun is not very much more effective than a person with no gun, IMHO. If the author is going to be armed, a big part of that is training.

I know dozens of people that would have dropped that fool in the theater, or at least made a valiant effort. Then again, these are all former LE, former military, or just folks that actively train.

Unfortunately, just being willing to own a gun isn't good enough. It's not some magic talisman that keeps the boogeyman away... you gotta have training.

(I know, preaching to the choir... but it emphasizes my point that the article has a narrow view from a true average Joe, not an average calgunner.)

Luieburger
07-26-2012, 11:05 AM
The article had nothing to do with "Why I own an Assault Rifle".
The theater bans weapons on its property, and Colorado law doesn't override that (to my knowledge).

JON KARGATHALON
07-26-2012, 11:07 AM
There are some very valid points in the article, but keep in mind where it is coming from.
This is a civilian that isn't a more hardcore enthusiast or former military person. He is definitely much more the "average Joe" than even your standard calgunner.
A completely untrained person with a gun is not very much more effective than a person with no gun, IMHO. If the author is going to be armed, a big part of that is training.

I know dozens of people that would have dropped that fool in the theater, or at least made a valiant effort. Then again, these are all former LE, former military, or just folks that actively train.

Unfortunately, just being willing to own a gun isn't good enough. It's not some magic talisman that keeps the boogeyman away... you gotta have training.

(I know, preaching to the choir... but it emphasizes my point that the article has a narrow view from a true average Joe, not an average calgunner.)

Nope your absolutely right, i was just saying that someone with a gun and minimal training is better than fish in a barrel, like it ended up being.

SoCalXD
07-26-2012, 11:25 AM
He is pretty much saying that an armed citizen is a danger in public. That goes against the opinion of just about every deputy sheriff I know who works the street.

PackingHeatInSDCA
07-26-2012, 1:26 PM
When I hear this I automatically tell pepole to watch the compelling testimony of Suzanna Gratia Hupp after she survived the Luby's massacre in 1991 which took the life of 23 people, including her parents. this is really must see video for anyone throwing out any opinions (regardless of which side you are on):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis


also found a good arguement from a LEO on the icnn something page:

The following is a quote from BanditLEO on the iCNN page. BanditLEO is a law enforcement officer:


Does anyone know what the one common denominator is in every massacre that has happened lately? Colorado, Sweden, Columbine, etc... The bad guys had guns and no one else did. The reason why 70 people were injured is because that city had an ordinance stating that it is a crime to carry a concealed weapon inside a business that has posted signs barring firearms. Did that stop the gunman? No it did not and thus left a room full of victims with no means to protect themselves and their loved ones. Does anyone know that in april of this last year there was another shooting in Aurora Co? No because it did not reach massacre status because an off-duty officer shot and killed the individual after he had killed his first victim. Had that off-duty officer not been there it would have been another massacre, yet one law abiding citizen with a firearm was able to end the threat quickly and with minimal lives lost.

UFO hunter
07-26-2012, 2:26 PM
This is the article that I'd write:


Why I Own an Assault Rifle

Because I can.

Take that, biatches!

Untamed1972
07-26-2012, 2:33 PM
A few thoughts:

I think he, like many avg. citizens, is under the misconception about how much firearms training and practice LE actually get. Unless you're SWAT....it ain't that much. And even then.....as he stated.....military/LE have no idea how they're gonna react until it actually happens. But does that mean someone should not train as best they can anyway?

Having options (weapons, training, awareness, etc) are all better than having nothing.

Ultimately it seems like he was just ranting that people should not be politicizing this. It's a tragedy...pray for and mourn the victims and leave it at that. Which I can agree with.

Vlad 11
07-26-2012, 3:00 PM
http://i.imgur.com/APoZF.jpg "assualt rifle cartridges" .... Really??? :facepalm:

Once again the media gets the facts wrong ,,, and who cares about some randoms guys opinion as if he is some authority on typical gun owners and their ability. He doesn't even know that what he owns is not an 'assault rifle'

Lagduf
07-26-2012, 3:02 PM
I doubt the validity of his claim that he owns an assault rifle.

If it's semi-automatic then by definition it's not an assault rifle.

And if the author is so clueless with regard to what kind of rifle he owns then well...let's just say I didn't bother to take much stock with regard to what he had to say about arms.

1BigPea
07-26-2012, 3:07 PM
Meh...that was a waste of my time.

Glock22Fan
07-26-2012, 3:34 PM
"Owning a fiream doesn't make you a shooter any more than owning a piano makes you a musician - and for much the same reasons" Col. Jeff Cooper

TempleKnight
07-26-2012, 3:48 PM
He had some valid points, but just as he said, he was speaking for both sides, and ended up not being too rational about CCW. Yes training is key, But if people are dying around you, FOR GODS SAKE take the shot! even if you had very little training! if it may prevent further death, TAKE THE ****** SHOT!

I went to see "Dark Knight Rises" Tuesday and I couldn't help scoping out the exit doors during the previews. I always sit in the second row up from the rail; it's less than 10 yards from anywhere the shooter would have been. I believe I would have taken the shot. I do have a LTC; I am fortunate to live in Placer county where they trust us.

Lugiahua
07-26-2012, 4:25 PM
Assault rifle?

According to Encyclopedia Britannia
assault rifle, assault rifle [Credit: National War College] military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire.

unless it's a full-auto centerfire weapon, it's not an assault rifle.

Wherryj
07-26-2012, 5:10 PM
Wait, how did he get a select-fire "assault rifle"?

2nd Shot
07-26-2012, 7:35 PM
It's unfortunate that whenever a tragedy occurs, where the criminal uses a gun to do his bidding, that the news has to go dig up some random passerby, who's closest experience to crime was that Hollywood movie they once saw. Eventually they'll find somebody that'll ramble on about how "nobody needs assault rifles because they have banana/drum clips and they like *blink* kill people and stuff like the movies", and it'll end up on the front page as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Talk about never letting a good (?) tragedy go to waste.

One thing that irritates me though is all this defeatist/helpless talk about how a lawfully concealed weapon couldn't possibly be used to stop a crime like this. It's illogical. Even if a LTC holder (or 20 of them, for that matter) stood by and did nothing when they should have done something, there is no consequence that wouldn't have already happened. It is true that this whack-job obviously brought the element of surprise, but has the disadvantage (as do all criminals) of not being able to pick out LTC holders from the unarmed - the primary advantage of concealed carry. Furthermore, (s)he announces not only his location but intentions as well the moment they start shooting, leaving little room for debate on where they stand and needs to happen.

Yes, there's an NBC (or one of those) "documentary" where they select some random college kids, give them a Simunition training gun and various levels of training, then send them off to class where they later a team of police (SWAT?) breaks in and surprises them, clearly demonstrating knowledge of who they were after, why, and where to find them before coming through the door. Despite weak attempts to portray this as reality, this is certainly never going to be the case unless you have indeed somehow pissed off the SWAT team or the local judge.

tenpercentfirearms
07-26-2012, 8:24 PM
This article was garbage. Anyone armed in the theater is better than no one armed in the theater. Even if you end up dead in the shoot out, you might save dozens of lives and countless casualties.

This guy is an idiot.

707electrician
07-26-2012, 8:42 PM
This article was garbage. Anyone armed in the theater is better than no one armed in the theater. Even if you end up dead in the shoot out, you might save dozens of lives and countless casualties.

This guy is an idiot.

Some people dont get it. In the anti's heads, its better to to be dead than at least have a chance of saving yourself or others

Ubermcoupe
07-26-2012, 8:46 PM
I dont agree:
Police and military practice regularly for their jobs. You do it irregularly for fun.

I know many guys who train every weekend, or every other weekend, and shoot thousands of rounds, including from concealment (IDPA) or other shooting competitions. I also know a few cops and armed personnel who couldn’t tell you the difference between glock caliber options - it’s just “a glock” - and barely qualify with their issue.

There are LE/MIL who are not gun people and there are civilians who are gun nuts, plain and simple. Proficiency comes down to the person, not necessarily the profession.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/26/why-own-assault-rifle/#ixzz21nKs3S3o

southernsnowshoe
07-26-2012, 9:32 PM
This article was garbage. Anyone armed in the theater is better than no one armed in the theater. Even if you end up dead in the shoot out, you might save dozens of lives and countless casualties.

This guy is an idiot.


This was exactly what I was going to write. Obviously he is an anti trying to get his point across, while acting like a gun owner.

How could anyone, anti or otherwise, argue that it is somehow more acceptable to get shot and killed as a unarmed, defenseless victim, than it would be to get shot while in the process of shooting back and at least trying to stop this type of madness.

SkyMag68
07-26-2012, 9:46 PM
This article is bunch of bull..

Nyanman
07-26-2012, 10:07 PM
When I hear this I automatically tell pepole to watch the compelling testimony of Suzanna Gratia Hupp after she survived the Luby's massacre in 1991 which took the life of 23 people, including her parents. this is really must see video for anyone throwing out any opinions (regardless of which side you are on):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis


also found a good arguement from a LEO on the icnn something page:

The following is a quote from BanditLEO on the iCNN page. BanditLEO is a law enforcement officer:


Does anyone know what the one common denominator is in every massacre that has happened lately? Colorado, Sweden, Columbine, etc... The bad guys had guns and no one else did. The reason why 70 people were injured is because that city had an ordinance stating that it is a crime to carry a concealed weapon inside a business that has posted signs barring firearms. Did that stop the gunman? No it did not and thus left a room full of victims with no means to protect themselves and their loved ones. Does anyone know that in april of this last year there was another shooting in Aurora Co? No because it did not reach massacre status because an off-duty officer shot and killed the individual after he had killed his first victim. Had that off-duty officer not been there it would have been another massacre, yet one law abiding citizen with a firearm was able to end the threat quickly and with minimal lives lost.

+1
I didn't know about the other shooting. Thanks for sharing that information.

Deadbolt
07-26-2012, 10:11 PM
I didn't like the way it ended... He never explained why he owned a semi-automatic rifle yet called it an asault weapon. Anti crap written to sound like it came from a gun owner.

this entirely. Well said Adampolo13.

flyingcaveman
07-26-2012, 11:18 PM
What a terrible attitude. Doing nothing isn't an option when your life is in danger, especially when you're already in a confined space so you can't even effectively run away. Sure, military or police training would help but it's no guarantee either. We could all sit here and ask "what if?...." until the cows come home. He tries to state his opinion as if they are facts. In doing so, he is trying to foster an attitude of helplessness among the population, and I totally disagree with it.

Lugiahua
07-26-2012, 11:51 PM
I dont agree:

I know many guys who train every weekend, or every other weekend, and shoot thousands of rounds, including from concealment (IDPA) or other shooting competitions. I also know a few cops and armed personnel who couldn’t tell you the difference between glock caliber options - it’s just “a glock” - and barely qualify with their issue.


People often use an argument
"police has XYZ privilege because they trained more"

IMO, it's a really bad argument, not only because some police are not well trained as you mentioned.
but if this argument is true, then following same logic, a civilian should be grant same or even more privilege if he/she outperform police...

if we use this logic, then I should be able to open or conceal carry at will, exempt from roster, able to own factory AR ,even full-atuo if I could outperform my local PD in a shooting competition.

Jason_2111
07-27-2012, 8:04 AM
People often use an argument
"police has XYZ privilege because they trained more"

IMO, it's a really bad argument, not only because some police are not well trained as you mentioned.
but if this argument is true, then following same logic, a civilian should be grant same or even more privilege if he/she outperform police...

if we use this logic, then I should be able to open or conceal carry at will, exempt from roster, able to own factory AR ,even full-atuo if I could outperform my local PD in a shooting competition.

The "more" training police get has very little to do with firearms, and a lot to do with legalities and liability.
Most cops aren't that great of shots... but they know dang well the full impact and consequences of discharging a firearm at another human being.

Knowing when to shoot, when not to shoot, being able to keep a cool head and make that decision in a split second... there's a lot more to it than just having good sight alignment and trigger control. Heck, I train way more than your above-average LEO, and yeah... it is completely lame that CCW's are pretty much unicorn's in my county, but that's how it is. It doesn't make it logical or right, but that's just the way the laws and such are structured at the moment.
HOPEFULLY, that'll change some day, or I'll just move to Oregon once I can convince my wife to do so. ;)

Perhaps it just comes down to what is the real difference between a citizen and a LEO. Not much. Training, an oath, and a contract. You can get the training (even better training), take as fancy and earnest oath as you like, but without the contract with the City/State/Fed.... you're still only a citizen in the eyes of the law.

Decoligny
07-27-2012, 8:41 AM
Interesting...

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/26/why-own-assault-rifle/#ixzz21kMfGXYI

A.W.D.

"Police and military practice regularly for their jobs. You do it irregularly for fun."

This author doesn't know much about the real world, does he?

I spent 20 years in the military.

I qualified on M-16 in basic training after one day in the classroom and half a day at the firing range.

I qualified again 6 years later in order to get stationed overseas. This time it was 2 hours in classroom and about the same time on the range.

I qualifed again 7 years later in order to get stationed overseas again.

In 20 years I received a total of about 2 days training on how to operate the M-16.

Most of the Military are not Special Forces or Navy Seals. Most do not get to practice with an issued weapon unless they are about to deploy, and then it is just to qualify.

Police are required to qualify approximately once a year. The majority of them do not spend hours upon hours practicing at the firing range. They do their jobs and go home. They may spend a couple days at the range in preperation for their annual qualification, but that is about it.

Most of the Police are not members of SWAT. Most do not practice taking down an active shooter. Look at Virginia Tech for a good example. The police hunkered down to wait for SWAT, and more people died while they waited.

For my "fun" I go out and shoot a couple hundred rounds at a time, a couple times a month. I practice drawing from concealment. I practice multiple targets at time to aid in target acquisition skills. I practice shooting while moving. I practice shooting and then moving position and reacquiring the target.

I think the majority of CCW holders practice a whole lot more than most LEOs or most Military members.

Decoligny
07-27-2012, 8:48 AM
The article had nothing to do with "Why I own an Assault Rifle".
The theater bans weapons on its property, and Colorado law doesn't override that (to my knowledge).


And Aurora has a law on the books that make ignoring a "no guns allowed" sign a crime.

Nick Justice
07-27-2012, 8:55 AM
No. I will not shup up and pray. I demand a fighting chance. Don't try to tell me that no matter what, I will have no chance in any and every shooting situation. That is irresponsibly false. Yes, every situation will have its challenges. You seem to think that there is abolutely no way for me to overcome any of them, and no possible way for me come out on top. You are wrong. We need to teach courage, bravery, and responsibility, not defeatism and despair. I will not die acting like coward. I will stand up and fight. Even if I die trying. My entire family knows this. I have the sacred duty and honor to defend my family. I will do it. Do not imply, suggest or openly state that I am not good enough to defend my life and my family. Dying is not the worst thing that can happen to someone. Living with regret can be far worse.

P.S. Cops are not Jason Bourne, Jack Bauer, or Batman, either.

javalos
07-27-2012, 9:32 AM
Saw Lou Dobbs and Bill O'Reilly square off on the Factor, Bill is still on his thing calling AK's "heavy weapons". O'Reilly believes any so called: "assault weapons" sales should be reported to the FBI, Dobbs told O'Reilly its was a basically more useless gun control. I tried to look for the interview video, can't find it yet.